HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-09-15; City Council; 11892; Calavera Hills Village L-1t
1B # /).
UITG. 9/15/92
IEPT. PLN
CT 92-S/PUD 9206/SDP 92-5
3ECOMMENDED ACTION:
Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare documents APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and CT 92-5/PUD 92-6/SDP 92-5.
The proposed project is a 58 dwelling unit multi-family residential planned development within Village ItL-l"' of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. The project site is 6.28 gross acres in size and a portion of the lot has been previously graded into a level building pad for development. All development for this project would occur on this previously graded pad. The project would consist of four, five, and six-plextownhouse buildings all developed around central 24 foot wide driveways. The dwelling units would range in size from 904 to 1,577 square feet and all the units contain an attached two-car garage. The project would have a central recreation area containing a pool, spa, and restroom facility.
The Calavera Hills Master Plan requires that certain villages within the Master Plan provide affordable for sale and/or rental housing, Village l*L-l" being one of these villages. To fulfil1 this requirement the applicant is proposing to provide 15 percent of the total 58 units (9 affordable units) in this project as homes available and affordable to lower ,income-households. The affordable homes would all be 904 square feet in size, exclusive of the two car garage. Prior to approval of a final map for the project the applicant would be required to submit an Affordable Housing Agreement to the City for review and approval by the Planning Director and Director of Housing and Redevelopment. The Affordable Housing Agreement would be recorded as a deed restriction on those individual lots or units of the project which are designated for the location of low-income affordable units.
In order to provide affordable housing in this project, and under Section 21.53.120(c) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the applicant is requesting that the City Council waive the City's Planned Development Ordinance's minimum 30 foot wide standard for a private street/driveway. I The project would provide 24 foot wide private driveways. The Planning Commission and staff support the applicants request for reduced driveway widths based on the findings that the 24 foot wide driveways would be safe and would adequately accommodate the project's traffic circulation.
The project is in conformity with the General Plan and adopted policies and goals of the City, and would not have a detrimental effect on public health safety, and welfare. Both the Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval of the project.
Y 1 , -
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. I I, we
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has issued a Negative Declaration on April 30, 1992, and determined that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result from this project based on field visits by staff and the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment.
FISCAL AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IMPACT
The project applicant submitted a proforma for the City's review indicating a financial loss on 9 of the 58 units designated as affordable housing. Based upon the loss associated with the 9 units, the applicant is requesting that the City use approximately $108,000 of Redevelopment Housing set-aside funds for the fiscal year 1991-92 to reduce the cost of providing the affordable housing. The subsidy would be used to pay all governmental fees associated with the nine units of low income housing.
Staff has reviewed the developer's proforma for the entire project, and estimated City fees for the affordable units at approximately $6269 per unit or $56,421. In order to qualify as low income housing, the developer has estimated the sales price of each affordable unit at $79,990. Using the developer's proforma and an estimate of City fees, staff is projecting a cost to build of $93,000 per unit. This would equate to a subsidy by the developer of approximately $13,000. To date this project has already received priority processing of a zone code amendment, accelerated project review and a reduction in standards to allow for greater intensity of use. Based upon a detailed review of project costs provided by the developer, the fees estimated by staff for the project, and the processing incentives already provided, staff is recommendingthatutilization of Housing set-aside funds be denied.
The City will incur administrative costs in developing andmanaging Affordable Housing Agreements. These are costs which include monitoring affordability restrictions and administering resales over the entire term of affordability. Staff is working on an ordinance to establish these fees and will generally be recommending recovery of these costs. It is recommended that these fees, estimated roughly at $60,000 for this applicant, not be charged since the fee structure has not been formally established in return for the applicant's cooperation in developing the documents and procedures for this initial first-time homebuyer program. This will be a valuable contribution not only to this project but also to the future first-time homebuyer program.
* . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
)I @93- PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO.1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS
Facilities Zone 7
Facility/Service Deficiency None
Growth Control Point 11.5
Net Density 11.3
Special Facilities Fee YES**
** The project is subject to the Community Facilities District No. 1 (Citywide Mello Roos) fee assessed on all undeveloped property.
EXHIBITS
1. Proforma - City Fees 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3403, dated July 15, 1992 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3404, dated July 15, 1992 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3405, dated July 15, 1992 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3406, dated July 15, 1992 6. Staff Report dated July 15, 1992 w/attachments 7. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 15, 1992
_- _-
lo n Q E 8 t-4 ‘6 *%G
a= ai 2 LLO, wcn kktql! Lam
*
3
:
5 *
:
5 *
5
I
f
i
i r
5
i
:
I
;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
PLANNlNGCOhJMISSIONRF&OLUTIONNO.W3
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
- TENTATIVE MAP, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 58 RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT LOCATED ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF HARWICH DRIVE AND EDGEWAY
WAY.
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE “L-l”
CASE NO: CT 92-S/PUD 92-6/SDP 92-5
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of July, 1992, 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 April 30, 1992, and “PII”, dated April 23, 1992, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Fin-:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may
have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project.
3. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly
impacted by this project.
PC RESO NO 3403
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2c
21
2:
2:
24
25
2e
21
2E
- -
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15 th day of July, 1992, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm,
Noble & Hall.
None.
Commissioners: Savary & Welshons.
None.
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO 3403 2.
TOM ERWIN, Chairperson
CAIUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
.
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Northwest comer Harwich Drive and Edgemore Way,
City of C&bad, CA. APN: 167-554-01
‘.,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of 58 townhome residential dwelling units and
grading on a level lot to accommodate building foundations
and an internal private driveway.
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
21 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the
Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4455.
DATED: APRIL 30,. 1992
CASE NO: Cl 92WSDP 92WPUD 92-6
MICHAEL, .I. HO~MIL&R
Planning Director
CASE NAME: CALAVEM HILLS VILLAGE “L-1”
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 30,1992
JG:km
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsb’ad. Californie 92009-l 578 l (619) 438-l 161 @
-PARTII
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 92WSDP 92WPUD 924
DATE: April 23.1992
BACKGROUND -
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Calavera HilIs Village “L-l”
APPLICANT: Sundance Financial Inc.
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3900 Hamev Street
7 *.
(619, 2994100
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 17.1992
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of cg to
on a level lot to accommodate building foundations and an internal Private driveway.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a signi.f?cant effect on the environment.
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed
project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a sign&ant effect on the environment. On the checklist, “NO” will be checked
to indicate this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the
project may cause a &&kan( el%ct on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed
insiznificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings ‘YES&” and ‘YES-insig” respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be dekmined signikant.
-
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIREC’l-LYz
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposuriz of people or property
to geologic hazards? .
Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
Result in changes m ‘the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality?
Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
Affect the quantity or quality of Aface
water, ground water or public water supply?
Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Alter a significant archeologica&
paleontological or historical site,
stmcture or object? .
YES YES NO (sigl (ins@
X
x
x
x
X
x
x
X
X
X
X
-2-
-
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECl-LY: YES
12.
13.
14.
1s.
16.
Affect the diversity Df species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)?
Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local
importance?
Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
I-IUMANENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECT’LY OR INDIRECTLY:
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially afkt public utilities,
schools, police, &e, emergency or other
public services?
YES NO WSI
YES YES (SW chd8l
X
x
x
x
X
NO
x
X
-3-
L -
HUMANENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECI’LY OR INDIREaYz
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
2s.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Result in the need for new or modif%d sewer
systems, solid waste-or hazardous waste control systems?
Increase existing noise levels?
Produce new light or glare?
Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
Generate substantial additional traffic?
Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrhs?
Interfere with emqency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
YES NO
(insig)
X
X
X
. .
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
x
4
-
WILL THE PROPOSAL DtRECl’LY OR INDIRKrLY: YES YES
33.
34.
3s.
36.
Does the project ha< the potentid
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory.
Does the project have the poiential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively con-
siderable” means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
NO
x
x
x
X
-5
9ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This proje& is located on the northwest comer of HarwichDrive and Edgeware Way and ent&
the further s~~bdivision of a 6.28 acre parcel into 58 two and three-story residential townhomes.
The project’s grading would consist of 6,730 cubic yards of cut, 8,000 cubic yards of m, and
1,270 cubic yards ofunport on a relatively level i&ll lot that has been previously rough graded.
Public street ixnprtwements have been constructed along Harwich Drive and Edgeway Way has
been graded but paving, curb, cutter, and sidewalks have not yet been constructed. The site is
adjacent to a two-story residential duplex development to the north, and vacant land to the south
and easi.
Phvsical F.nvironmen~
The lot is relatively level and the proposed grading to accommodate the internal private driveways
and the split level building foundations is minimal, therefore, there would be little appreciable change in the topography. All the proposed development would remain on the flat portions of
the site and the existing 2:l slopes would not be regraded.
Drainage and erosion control facilities would be incorporated into the project as a standard engineering condition of approval for the Tentative Map, and no unstable earth conditions or
unique geologic features are located onsite or in the general vicinity. Development of the project
would create impervious surfaces onsite which reduce absorption rates and increases surface
runoff and runoff velocities, however, the appropriate drainage facilities would be provided.
.
Development of the project would incrementally contribute to the depletion of fossil fuel and to
other natural resources, increase local and regional air emissions; however, this is not regarded
as a significant impact in view of the small size of the project. Residential development at the proposed density for this site has been anticipated and planned for in the City’s General Plan, as
well as in the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan therefore the above mentioned impacts to physical resources have been addressed and analyzed in the Cit~?s long range plans.
The site is adjacent to residential development to the north and west and has been previously
rough graded, therefore, there is limited potential for cultural resources. The property was field
checked and no cultural resources were identified. In addition, the Citys Cultural Resource
Inventory Map indicates that there are no cultural resources located onsite. Due to the disturbed
nature of the lot, significant cultural resources are not anticipated onsite.
Biolonical Environma
The site has been prewious~y disturbed by grading and is adjacent to existing residential
development, the&&e, the site has limited biological resource value, and there is no threat of
introducing new species into a natural area or limiting the movement of native animal species.
The site was field checked for biological resources and the lot contains no viable native habitat.
-6-
-
Traffic impacts, in-~ to pOpUkh, increased public faciky demands and the planned land use
, of the area have all been accounted for and planned in the Civs General Plan, the Calavera Hills
Master Plan, 4 the Zone f Local Facilities Management Plan. The project confoms with the
Land Use Element ofthe General Plan, the Calavera Hills Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance,
and is developed at the appropriate residential density (Residential Medium High, 8-15 du/acre).
The project would be required to pay public facility fees that would be used to adequately mitigate
any impacts upon utilities and public facilities.
The proposed project would incrementally increase noise levels in the area due to traffic and
would contribute to light and glare in the project vicinity, however these impacts are considered
insignifkant due to the small nature of the project. The development would be compatible with surrounding land uses and the addition of landscaping will help reduce glare. This project is
required to meet all City standards, ordinances, and policies, therefore, no safety impacts or
human health concerns are anticipated.
-7-
-
IS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS;
l
a) Phased develapswnt of the project,
b) alternate site duigs,
c) alternate scaIe of development, d) alternate uses fat the site,
e) development at ‘some future time rather than now,
f) alternate sites for the proposed, and
g) no project alternative.
The analysis of viable alternatives to the proposed project revolves around two specific concepts;
the definition of the project and its significant impact and the definition of what is a viable
alternative . The courts have recognized that only reasonable. alternatives need be discussed
(Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. V. Board of Supervisors, 134 Cal. App. 3d 1022 (1982).
These project alternatives exist as relative measures of unavoidable adverse impacts and mitigation
measures. Public Resources Code section 21002 forbids the approval of projects with significant adverse impacts when feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures can substantially lessen
such impacts. A “sign&ant effect” is defined as one which has a substantial adverse impact. If
nothing is significant than there is no substantial adverse impact and no justification for requiring
a discussion of alternatives. There is no alternative to no substantial adverse impact.
-a-
-
QEJ”ERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I f$& t& p,raposcd project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLAMTION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a signifkant effect on the environment, because the environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and
no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, a Notice of Determination
has been prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signifkant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative’
Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a signifmnt effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
4/h/ 92’
Date Sig&W
JG:km
m APPLICABLE
A7TACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPumtEl
-9-
-
PLKANT CONCURRENCE m MmmmNG MEASURES
-IRIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES MD CONCUR VVKH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
. .
-lO-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I.1
32
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3404
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO DEVELOP A 58
- RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF HARWICH DRIVE AND EDGEWARE WAY.
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE “L-l”
CASE NO: CT 92-5
WHEREAS, a verified application for c.ertain property to wit:
_ Lot 1 of Carlsbad Tract No. 85-30 in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California: According to Map
thereof No. 11826, filed in the Office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County, May 9, 1987
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of July, 1992, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of CT 92-5, based on the following findings and subject to
the following conditions:
Findinqs:
1. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed density of
11.3 du’s/acre is within the density range of 8-l 5 du’s/acre specified for the site as
indicated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is at or below the
growth control point of 11.5.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the
density proposed.
3. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
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.
4. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for residential development on the General
Plan.
5. This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative
Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on April 30, 1992, and
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on July 15, 1992. 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.
6. The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or
new construction. tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure
continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts
created by the project.
7. 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 7.
8. School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad
Unified School District.
9.
10.
11.
Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as
conditions of approval.
The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
-
PC RESO NO. 3404 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_-
12. The project complies with all requirements of Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code.
Planning Conditions:
1. Approval of CT’ 92-S/PUD 92-6/SDP 92-5 is granted subject to approval of ZCA
92-2 and enactment of the Ordinance amending Title 21 of the Municipal Code.
2. Recommendation of approval is granted for CT 92-5, as shown on Exhibits “A’‘-‘W”,
dated July 15, 1992, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning
Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise
noted in these conditions.
3. The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of
the Tentative Map as approved by the Planning Commission. The Tentative Map
shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The map copy shall be
submitted to the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map,
or improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
4. A 500’ scale map of the subdivision shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior
to the recordation of the final map. Said map shall show all lots and streets within
and adjacent to the project.
5. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the City Engineer
determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such
sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note
shall be placed on the final map.
6. This project is also approved under the express conditions that the applicant pay the
public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 and as amended
from time to time, and any development fees established by the City Council
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance
adopted to implement a growth management system or facilities and improvement
plan and to fulfil1 the subdivideis agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated
April 13, 1992, a copy of which is on rile with the City Clerk and is incorporated
by this reference. If the fees are not paid, this application will not be consistent
with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
7. The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the
final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
8. The applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as
part of building permit application. These fees shall be based on the fee schedule
in effect at the time of building permit application.
9. Water shall be provided by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
PC RESO NO. 3404 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
(a) An owner income qualification process;
(b) sales prices (not to exceed allowable housing expenses for the target income
households);
(c) Program for marketing available units;
(d) Restrictions and enforcement me&misms for the sale or resale of units;
(e) Procedures for replacement and/or maintenance of required income restricted
units as affordable in the event that the income restricted units are destroyed
PCRESO NO.3404 -4-
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which may
be required as part of the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan and any
amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
This project is approved, subject to the condition that residential units constructed
on lots 8,9,12,13,16,17,18,25 and 26 are restricted to and affordable to low
income households as defined by the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development for a minimum tenure of 30 years.
This project is approved, subject to the condition that the required income restricted
units hall he constructed con current with the project’s market rate units.
Prior to final map approval, an Affordable Housing Agreement shall be required to
be submitted by the applicant to the City, approved by the Planning Director and
Director of Housing and Redevelopment, and completed and recorded as a deed
restriction on those individual lots or units of the project which are designated for
the location of low-income affordable units. The Affordable Housing Agreement
shall be binding to all future owners and successors in interest. The Fordable
Housing Agreement shall be required to include the following:
(a) The number of income restricted low-income dwelling units;
(b) The unit sizes (square footage) and the number of bedrooms per income
restricted dwelling unit;
(c) The location of the income rest&ted units;
(d) The schedule for production of the income restricted units;
(e) The tenure of affordability (30 year minimum);
(0 The sales price(s) of the income restricted units (not to exceed allowable
housing expenxs for the target income households);
(g) The Affordable Housing Agreement shall state that a Sales Agreement for the income restricted units shall be required prior to issuance of building permits
and become a part of the Affordable Housing Agreement.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for the required income restricted units, the
project applicant shall be required to submit to the City a Sales Agreement for
Income Restricted For-Sale Units. This Sales Agreement shall be required to be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Director of Housing and
Redevelopment. The Sales Agreement shall be binding to all f&u.re owners.
The Sales Agreement for Income Restricted For Sale Units shall be required to
include the following:
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
or condemned or the condominium association is liquidated or a notice of
default is recorded. The applicant shall be responsible for replacement
and/or maintenance of the income restricted units until the individual units
are sold.
(0 - A provision stating that all income restricted for-sale units shall be occupied
by their purchasers. Renting, leasing, and subleasing or subletting shall be
allowed only if the total household income, including that from all potential
renters or lessees, qualifies under the requirements of the Affordable Housing
Agreement.
After final inspection of the required income restricted units by the City, the
property owner shall be required to submit to the City a notice of availability of the
for-sale income restricted units. Upon written notification from the owner, that the
income restricted units are available, the City shall authorize the sale of the income
restricted units to qualified purchasers.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
PC RESO NO. 3404
Prior to the issuance of building permits for the required income restricted units, the
project applicant shall be required to submit to the City a Resale Agreement for For-
Sale Income Restricted Units. The Resale Agreement shall specify that the affordable
unit or property may not be transferred through resale without prior approval of the
City’s Housing Authority. The Resale Agreement shall be recorded as a deed
restriction on the subject property or unit. Prior to the sale of a for-sale income
restricted unit to a qualified household, the buyer shall be required to enter into an
Income Restricted Housing Resale Agreement with the Cit#s Housing Authority. The
city’s Housing Authority shall be a third party to this agreement.
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 conditions complies with all requirements of law.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance.
Approval of CT 92-5 is granted subject to the approval of the Negative Declaration,
and SDP 92-S/PUD 92-6.
The applicant shall provide the following note on the final map of the subdivision
and final mylar of this development submitted to the City:
“Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code establishes a Growth Management
Control Point for each General Plan land use designation. Development cannot
exceed the Growth Control Point except as provided by Chapter 21.90. The land
use designation for this development is RMH. The Growth Control Point for this
-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
.12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
designation is 11.5 dwelling units per nonconstrained acre.
Parcel 1-3 were used to calculate the intensity of development under the General
Plan and Chapter 21.90. Subsequent redevelopment or resubdivision of any one of
these parcels must also include parcel l-3 under the General Plan and Chapter 21.90
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.”
21. The applicant shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding
covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&R’s shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval.
22. The following items shall be included in the CC&R’s:
a. . All units which are setback a minimum of 5 feet from a private driveway
shall be equipped with an automatic garage door opener.
b. Attached and detached patio covers and other accessory structures must
observe all setbacks of CT 92-S/SDP 92-5/PUD 926.
C. No building permits for room additions, enclosed structures, jacuzzi, spas or
solariums shall be issued without the approval of an amendment to Site
Development Plan No. 92-5.
d. All individual trash and recycling receptacles shall be stored in the garage.
e. Within the garage portion of the dwelling unit a 20 ft. x 20 ft. is designated
for vehicle parking. This area shall remain clear of storage material and be
available for the parking of vehicles.
23. Prior to the issuance of the building permit there shall be a Notice of Restriction
placed on the deed to this property subject to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of
Carlsbad has issued a Tentative Map, a Planned Unit Development Permit, Site
Development Plan by Resolutions No.‘s 3404, 3405 and 3406 on the real property
owned by the de&rant. Said Notice of 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
Notice of Restriction. Said Notice of Restriction may be modified or terminated only
with the approval of the Planning Director, Planning Commission or City Council
of the City of Carlsbad whichever has final decision authority for this project.
24. All roof appurtenances, including air conditions, shall be architecturally integrated
and concealad from view and sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets,
in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction
of the Directors of Planning and Building.
PC RESO NO. 3404 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25. All visitor parking spaces shall be striped a different color than the assigned resident
parking spaces and shall be clearly marked as may be approved by the Planning
Director.
26. The applicant shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street’name
policy subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval.
27. The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of grading
or building permits, whichever occurs first.
28. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free
from weeds, trash and debris.
29. The developer shall install street trees at the equivalent of 40-foot intervals along
all public street frontages in conformance with City of Carlsbad standards. The
trees shall be of a variety selected from the approved Street Tree List.
30. All landscape plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Manual and
submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning
Department.
31. Landscape plans shall be designed to minimize 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.
32. The developer shall avoid trees that have invasive root systems, produce excessive
litter and/or too large relative to the lot size.
33. Prior to final occupancy, a letter from a California licensed landscape architect shall
be submitted to the Planning Director certifying that all landscaping has been
installed as shown on the approved landscape plans.
34.
35.
All herbicides shall be applied by applicators licensed by the State of California.
The applicant shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
36. The first set of landscape and irrigation plans submitted shall include building plans,
improvement plans and grading plans.
37. All landscape and irrigation plans shall show existing and proposed contours and
shall match the grading plans in terms of scale and location of improvements.
38. The minimum shrub size shall be 5 gallons.
PC RFSO NO. 3404 -7-
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
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46:
-
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in
conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval
of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of
identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color.
Prior to occupancy of any units, the applicant shall construct a directory sign at the
entrance to the project. The design of this sign shall be approved by the Planning
Director.
The developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales office
at all times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
This project is being approved as a planned development permit for residential
homeownership purposes. If any of the units in the project are rented, the
minimum time increment for such rental shall be not less than 26 days. A condition
so stating this shall be placed in the CC&R’s for the project.
As part of the plans submitted for building permit plan check, the applicant shall
include a reduced version of the approving resolution/resolutions on a 24” x 36”
blueline drawing. Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any
applicable Coastal Development Permit and signed approved site plan.
Prior to approval of the ii.4 map, the applicant shall establish an open space
easement on the north facing slope as illustrated on the tentative map. All open
space easements and lots shall be maintained by the project’s Homeowners’
Association and this stipulation shall be included in the CC&Es.
Prior to approval of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a fencing plan to
the Planning Director for review and approval. The plan shall include a six foot
high wall or fence along the northern property adjacent to the paved utility
easement located on the adjoining property.
Engineerinn Conditions:
47. The private street widths and grades as shown on the tentative map and site plan
are specifically approved for tbis project.
48. The comer sight distance corridors are specifically approved as shown on the site
Plan-
49. Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is
authorized by virtue of approval of this tentative map.
PC RESO NO. 3404 -&
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
2c
21
22
2t
24
25
26
27
28
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
The applicant shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements
of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project.
This project is approved specifically as 1 (single) unit for recordation.
The- applicant shall provide an acceptable means for maintaining the private
easements within the subdivision and all the private: streets, sidewalks, street
lights, storm drain facilities and sewer facilities located therein and to distribute the
costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the
properties within the subdivision. Adequate provision for such maintenance shall
be included with the CC&R’s subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to
final map approval.
A note to the effect of the following shall.be placed on a separate sheet of the final
map. All improvements are private and are to be privately maintained with the
exception of the following:
A. Water mains serving the fire hydrants
B. Storm Drain System, 18” and larger
A note shall be placed on the improvement plans stating which utilities are public
and which are -private.
Approval of this tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date
of City Council approval unless a final map is recorded. An extension may be
requested by the applicant. Said extension shall be approved or denied at the
discretion of the City Council. In approving an extension, the City Council may
impose new conditions and may revise existing conditions pursuant to Section
20.12.110(a)(2) Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents,
officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its
agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the
City, the Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the
City within the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision
Map Act.
Prior to approval of the final map, the owner shall enter into an agreement with the
City to pay any drainage area fees established as a result of the Master Drainage
Plan Update.
The owner of the subject property shall execute a Hold Harmless Agreement
regarding drainage across the adjacent property prior to approval of the final map
for this project.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on
the Tentative Map, a grading permit for this project is required. Prior to final map
approval, the applicant must submit and receive approval for grading plans in
PC RESO NO. 3404 -9-
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
accordance with City Codes and standards. Prior to issuance of a building permit
for the project, a grading permit shall be obtained and grading work be completed
in substantial conformance with the approved grading plans.
No grading shall occur outside the limits of the Subdivision unless a grading or
slope easement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties. If the
applicant is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, no grading permit will
be issued. In that case the applicant must either amend the tentative map or change
the slope so grading will not occur outside the project site in a manner which
substantially conforms to the approved tentative map as determined by the City
Engineer and Planning Director.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction
site within this project, the applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the
City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The applicant shall comply with all
conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the
hauling operation.
The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this
project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided
in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer. Reference
Chapter 11 .O6.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
A.
B.
PC RESO NO. 3404
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best
management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to
discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the
City Engineer prior to approval of the (FINAL MAP), issuance of grading or building
permit, whichever occurs first.
Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be
provided or installed prior to the issuance of grading or building permit as may be
required by the City Engineer.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall
be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to approval of the final
map in accordance with City Standards, the applicant shall install, or agree to install
and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on
the tentative map and the following improvements:
Edgeware Way, half-street improvements plus 12 feet wide, except where the
additional portion is entirely within the boundary of this subdivision. That
portion shall include full improvements and the full improvements shall
continue offsite to complete the intersection with Harwich Drive.
On Harwich Drive as shown on the tentative map near the northeast comer
of the project remove the existing asphalt berm and install curb, gutter and
sidewalk. _
-
-lO-
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
C. Along Harwich Drive project frontage install streetlights as may be required
by the City Engineer.
D. Public storm drain system.
A note to this effect shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final map per
the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed
above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
65. The owner shall grant a new 15 foot wide storm drain easement for the relocated
storm drain. The grant shall be made by a certificate on the iinal map. All land so
granted shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to
the City.
66. Portions of the existing storm drain easement as shown on the map for CT 85-30
that will not be needed afkr the stem drain has been relocated shall be quitclaimed
by separate action after the storm drain has been relocated, prior to issuing a
building pexmit.
67. Direct access rights to Harwich Drive shall he waived on the final map.
-
Fire Conditions:
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
. . .
Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be approved
by the Fire Department.
Additional onsite public water mains and fire hydrants are required.
Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts
location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydrants.
The plan should include offsite fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways, and
traffic circulation for‘ Fire Department approval.
An all weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles
shall be provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the
Fire Chief, the access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or
other reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety, require that construction operations cease until the condition is corrected.
All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational
before combustible building materials are located on the construction site.
PC PESO NO. 3404 -ll-
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
74.
75.
76.
Native vegetation which presents a fire hazard to structures shall be modified or
removed in accordance with the specifications contained in the City of Carlsbad
Landscape Guidelines Manual. Applicant shah submit a Fire Suppression plan to the
Fire Department for approval.
Plans and/or specifications for fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, automatic fire
sprinkler systems and other !ke protection systems shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval prior to construction.
An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all residential
buildings.
Police Conditions:
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
. . .
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shah be submitted to the Police
Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
a. Aisles, passageways, and recesses related to and within the building complex
ShdlbfZil.lUIUiM ted with an intensity of at least twenty-five one hundredths
(25) footcandles at the ground level during the hours of darkness.
b. Lighting devices shall be protected by weather and vandalism-t-e&tent
covers.
C. Open parking areas shall be provided with a minimum of one (1) footcandle
of illumination on the parking surface during the hours of darkness.
The exterior land&aping shall be kept at a minimum height and fuhness to provide
police, security services, and the general public with SutYeillance capabilities of the
exterior areas of the project.
All residential dwelling units shah display a street number in a prominent location
on the street and driveway side of the residence in such a position that the number
is easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles. The numemls shall be no less
than four (4) inches in height and shall be of a contrasting color to the background
to which they are attached.
Them shall be positioned at the entrance of the project an illuminated diagrammatic
representation of the residential complex which shows the location of the viewer
and the unit designations within the complex.
Dead-bolt locks shah be installed on all access doors leading to the exterior of the
dwelling unit and the attached garage, inchrding the door leading from the garage
into the dwelling unit.
PC RESO NO. 3404 -12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
- -
Dead-bolt locks shall have a minimum protection of one (1) inch and be constructed
so as to repel cutting tool attacks. The dead-bolt shall have an embedment of at
least three-fourths (3/4) of an inch into the strike plate area and be installed with
woodscrewsthatarethree(3)i.nchesinlen*
Horizontal sliding doors shall be equipped with a metal guide track at the top and
bottom of the door. The bottom track shall be designed so that the door cannot be
lifted from the track when the door is in the locked position.
Hinges for out-swinging doors shall be equipped with non-removable hinge pins or a mechanical interlock to prevent removal of the door from the exterior.
Garage doors that exceed nineteen feet in width shall have two lock receiving
points; or, if the garage door does not exceed sixteen feet, a single bolt may be used
if placed in the center of the door with the locking point located either at the floor
or door frame header; or, torsion spring counter balance type hardware may be
used.
Waste dkposal areas shall be designed in a manner to provide surveillance from
dwelling units.
The attic space of the individual dwelling unit/townhouse shall be accessible only
to the dwelling unit.
If double doors are installed, the inactive leaf of the double door shall be equipped
with metal flush bolts and have a minimum embedment of five-eights (S/8) of an
inch into the head and threshold of the door frame.
Water Conditions:
89.
90.
91.
. . .
The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands are
met.
The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits, and charges which will be
collected at time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego County Water
Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for meter
installation.
Sequentially, the Developers Engineer shall do the following:
a.
b.
Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection
requirements.
Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning
Department for processing and approval.
PC RESO NO. 3404 -13-'
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
C. Schedule a meeting with the Distxict Engheer for review, comment and
approval of the prehiwq system layout usage (G.P.M. - E. D. U.) plan for
potable, reclaimed and sewer systems prior to the preparation of
improvement plans.
92. This project is approved upon the expressed 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 service and sewer facilities are
available at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will
continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the
final map.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of July, 1992, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES: .
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm,
Noble & Hall.
None.
Commissioners: Savary & Welshons.
None.
TOM ERWIN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
M~CHAELJ.~~LZMI~&R
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 3404 -14-
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
PLANNINGCOMMISSIONRESOLUTlONNO.3405
ARESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A 58 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT
TOWNHOUSE PROJECT LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF HARWICH DRIVE AND EDGEWARE WAY.
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE "L-l" CASENO: PUD 92-6
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
Lot 1 of Carlsbad Tract No. 85-30 in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State. of California; According to Map
thereof No. 11826, Filed in the Office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County, May 9, 1987.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of July, 1992, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the Condominium Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A> That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends APPROVAL of PUD 92-6, based on the following findings and subject
to the following conditions:
Findinszs:
1. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed density of
11.3 du’s/acre is within the density range of RMH du’s/acre specified for the site as
indicated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is at or below the
growth control point of 11.5.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the
density proposed, and the project does not create a disharmonious or disruptive
element to the neighborhood.
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
UnionSchool District.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as
conditions of approval.
The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
The proposed project is consistent with the City’s Planned Development Ordinance
and also complies with the Design Guidelines Manual.
The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for residential development on the General
Plan.
This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative
Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on April 30, 1992 and
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on July 15, 1992. In
approving this Negative Declaration the Planning Commission has considered the
initial study, the staff ‘analysis, all required mitigation measures and any written
comments received regarding the significant effects this project could have on the
environment.
The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or
new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure
continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts
created by the project.
This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has
been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 7.
PC PESO NO 3405 2
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
.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
The granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with
Chapter 21.45, the Calavera Hills Master Plan, and all adopted plans of the city and
other governmental agencies.
The project is necessary and desirable to provide a range of housing which will
contribute to the long-term well being of the neighborhood and the community.
The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity.
The project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the topography of the
site. The site is relatively level and adequate slope setbacks are provided.
There are no significant natural resources on the site, therefore, on impact will
occur.
The project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with
the project and does not dominate the project.
Conditions:
1. All conditions of approval of CT 92-5 as contained in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3404 are applicable to this approval and incorporated through this
reference.
. . .
. . .
PC RESO NO 3405 3
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
. . . 1
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regularmeetingofthe Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of July, 1992, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm,
Noble & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners: Savary & Welsons.
ABSTAIN: None.
TOM ERWIN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO 3405
.
PLANNING COMMISSION RFSOLUTION NO. 3406
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNLA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. SDP 92-5 FOR
- A 58 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HARWICH
DRIVE AND EDGEWARE WAY. .
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE “L-l” CASE NO: SDP 92-5
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 15 th day of July, 1992, consider said request on property described
as:
Lot 1 of Carlsbad Tract No. 85-30 in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California; According to Map No. 11826, Filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 9,1987.
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 SDP 92-5.
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 SDP 92-5, based on the following findings and subject
to the following conditions:
Findin!zs:
The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed density of
11.3 du’s/acre is within the density range of 8-15 du’s/acre specified for the site as
indicated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is at or below the
growth control point of 11.5‘.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the
density proposed. The project will not adversely impact the neighborhood, and the
street system is adequate to handle the project’s traffic. The town house buildings
will maintain a 5 to 20 foot setback from the internal driveways and there are no
areas along the driveway where there will be three-story building elevations
opposite each other on either side of the driveway. The driveway building elevation
are not visible from the public street. The driveway elevations have single-story
roof elements, multiple insets and offsets along the facades, and sufficient material
details to provide pedestrian scale and visual interest.
3. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
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.
4. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for residential development on the General
Plan.
5. This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative
Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on April 30, 1992 and
recommended for approval by the -Planning Commission on July 15, 1992. 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.
6. The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or
new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure
continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts
created by the project.
7. 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 7.
8. School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad
Unified District.
9. Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval,
-. -
PC PESO NO 3406 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as
conditions of approval.
The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
The project provides affordable housing units that will be available to low income
residents.
The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Calavera Hills Master Plan
as explained in Sections A and B of this report. The project would not have a
significant impact on the environment as discussed below in Section F of this report.
The bulk and scale of the proposed two and three-story townhouse buildings would
be compatible with the surrounding residential development. The proposed
townhouse multi-family residential land use would provide an appropriate transition
between the duplex multi-family uses to the north and the future commercial and
existing community park land uses to the south. A 20 to 30 foot building setback
along Harwich Drive would provide an adequate buffer between this project and the
public street and exceed the existing street setbacks of the duplex residential
buildings located to the north.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
a.
b.
PC REZSO NO 3406 3
The townhouse buildings would maintain 5 to 20 foot setbacks from the internal
driveways and there are no areas along the driveway where there would be three-
story elevations opposite each other on either side of the driveway. The driveway
elevations are not visible from the public street. The driveway building elevations
have single-story roof elements, multiple insets and offsets along the facade, and
sufficient material detailing to provide pedestrian scale and visual interest along the
driveways.
The project site is fairly geometric in shape and as illustrated on the attached
exhibits, the proposed 58 residential dwelling units would be accommodated on the
existing level areas of the property without encroaching into the steep slopes located
along the western portion of the site.
The design of the project would assure a unique mix of residential development, and
enhance the aesthetic quality of the area as follows:
The front yard and street side setbacks would be landscaped with a
combination of trees and shrubs to partially screen the residential structures
from the public streets.
The building elevations would have textured stucco exteriors and tile roofs,
varied roof lines, architectural accent features and building forms, and varied
building facades.
-
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
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
-.
C. The dwelling units would be orientated at various angles along the driveway
to provide an enclosure of space between the homes and to provide more
visual interest when the project is viewed from the public streets.
The project would provide adequate onsite parking and circulation to serve the
needs of the residents and their guests, and it would not impact the availability of
offsite street parking.
Sidewalks and drainage facilities would be provided along the project’s street
frontages to serve the project.
The existing Planned Development Ordinance requires at a minimum 30 foot wide
private street/driveways, however, the proposed 24 foot wide private driveway would be adequate to provide safe and efficient traffic circulation, vehicle turn
movements, and emergency access. The City’s Parking Ordinance requires a
minimum standard width of 24 feet for a two-way traffic aisle containing ninety
degree parking on both sides. A 24 foot driveway aisle provides adequate
separation and distance for vehicles backing out of garages and guest parking spaces
and adequate separation for two-way traffic (12 feet per travel lane).
a. Prior to January 1987 the City’s Planned Development Ordinance permitted
24 foot wide private streets/driveways in planned residential developments.
Under this old ordinance the existing multi-family projects surrounding
Village “L-l” in Calavera Hills were developed with 24 foot wide private
streets/driveways. Based on these neighboring residential developments the
24 foot wide driveways have been proven functional and historically have
not resulted in traffic circulation and public safety problems.
A pedestrian circulation system that is separated from the 24 foot wide driveways
is also provided that would allow sufficient and safe access to the adjacent public
streets.
Adequate emergency access is provided by primary and secondary access points
leading from Edgeware Way. The 24 foot wide driveway is wide enough to
accommodate emergency vehicles, and the project would be conditioned to prohibit
parallel parking along this central access way. In addition, all residential structures
would be conditioned to contain fire sprinklers. The project has been reviewed and
approved by the Fire Department.
The project is in conformity witb the General Plan and adopted policies and goals of the City, and would not have a detximental effect on public health, safety, and
Wd.faIE
Conditions:
1. All conditions of approval for CT 92-5 as contained in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3404 are applicable to this approval and incorporated through this
reference. _
PC RESO NO 3406 4
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
1 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of July, 1992, by the
2 following vote, to wit:
3 AYES: Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm,
Noble & Hah.
4
NOES: None. 5
6 ABSENT: Commissioners: Savary & Welshons.
7 ABSTAIN: None.
a
9 --lRwLL-
10 TOM ERWIN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
11 ATTEST: 12 II . 13
14
15 II PLANNING DIRECTOR
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO 3406 5
DATE: JULY 15, 1992
APP ,,..h JON COMPLETE DATE:
APRIL 23. 1992
STAFF REPORT
0 2
TO: PI.+NING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CT 92-5/PUD 92-6/SDP 92-5 - CAIAVERA HILLS VILLAGE “L-l” - Request
for approval of a Negative Declaration, Tentative Map, Planned Development
Permit, and Site Development Plan to construct 58 townhome residential
dwelling units on the northwest comer of Harwich Drive and Edgeware Way
in the PC Zone in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 7.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3403,
recommending APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and
ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3404, 3505, and 3406 recommending APPROVAL of, CT 92-5, PUD 92-6, and SDP 92-5 based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Map, Planned Development Permit, and
Site Development Plan to construct 58 residential dwelling units on a relatively level,
rectangular lot located on the northwest comer of Harwich Drive and Edgeware Way. The
parcel would total 6.28 acres and has been previously rough graded into a relatively level
building pad adjacent to steep natural slopes that incline downward to the west.
The property is located in the Planned Community Zone (PC), and is subject to the
requirements of the Calavera Hills Master Plan and a General Plan Land Use Designation
of Residential Medium High (RMH).
As shown on Exhibits “A”- “W”, the proposed project would consist of four, five and six-plex
townhouse buildings all developed around central 24 foot wide driveways. Along the
driveways there would be seventeen centralized guest parking spaces, trash enclosures, and
a large active common recreation complex containing a spa, swimming pool, and restroom
- facility. The project would contain an additional flat grassy common passive and active
recreation area at the north end of the site that includes a horse shoe pit and shuffle board
court. The townhomes would all be split level with two or three stories, have attached
two-car garages, two or three bedrooms, and would range in size from 904 to 1,577 square
feet. The project would feature contemporary Spanish architecture consisting of tile roofs
with a varying roof line, stucco exteriors, and rear entryways that contain a patio area
enclosed by a 42 inch high wall and a partial single-story roof overhang.
CT 92-S/PUD 92-6/SDP‘ 92-5 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE “L-I
JULY 15, 1992
The surrounding neighborhood is developed with three-story multi-family residences to the
west, two-story duplex residences to the north, and vacant land to the east and south. The
Calavera Hills Community Park is located approximately 700 feet to the south along
Harwich Drive.
III. ANALYSIS
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, and standards:
A. Residential Medium High (RMH) General Plan Land Use Designation.
B. Calavera Hills Master Plan 150(F).
C. Planned Development Ordinance.
D. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.53, Section 21.53.120 - Site
Development Plan.
E. Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 7).
F. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20) and the California Subdivision Map Act.
G. Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .
A. GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE ELEMENT
The property has a Residential Medium High (RMH) General Plan Land Use Designation
that allows the development of low rise condominium projects that range in density from
8 to 15 dus/acre with an 11.5 dus/acre growth management control point. The project
would contain four, five, and six-plex townhome buildings developed at a density of 11.3
dwelling units per acre, therefore, the project is consistent with the allowed density and
land use designation’ of the General Plan.
HOUSING ELEMENT
The Calavera Hills Master Plan requires that affordable lower cost condominium for sale
and/or rental housing be provided in Village “L-l”. To fulfill this requirement the applicant
is proposing to provide 15% of the total 58 units (9 affordable units) in this project as
homes available and affordable to lower income-households. Providing 15% or 9
CT 92-S/PUD 92-6/SDP 92-5 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE “L-I
JULY 15, 1992
PAGE 3
affordable housing units in the project is consistent with Policy 3.6.a of the City’s General
Plan Housing Element, therefore, the project would be consistent with the Housing
Element. Policy 3.6.a states that, “A minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of all units
approved for any master plan community or residential specific plan shall be affordable to
lower incomeihouseholds”. The 9 proposed affordable units are designated on the site plan
with an asterisk. The affordable homes are all two bedrooms, contain an attached two-car
garage, and are all 904 square feet in size, exclusive of the two car garage.
B. cALAvERA I-IILLs MASI'ERPLANlSO(F~
The Calavera Hills Master Plan designates the Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M)
of the City’s Zoning Ordinance as the implementing zone for development standards in
Village “L-l”. A Planned Development Permit is being processed as part of this application
and Section 21.45.020(a) of the Planned Development Ordinance requires that the project
meet the standards of the underlying zone unless otherwise modified by the Planned
Development Permit. The proposed project would comply with the standards of the RD-M
Zone as follows:
REQUIRED PROPOSED r
LOT SIZE 10,000 sq. ft. 6.28 acres
LOT COVERAGE 60% Max. 18.5%
FRONT YARD SETBACK lo-20 feet lo-30 feet
STREET SIDE YARD S-10 feet 15-25 feet
SETBACK
SIDE YARD SETBACK 5 feet 10 feet
BUILDING HEIGHT 35 feet 34 feet *
The proposed project complies with the requirements of the Calavera Hills Master Plan
as follows:
1) Village “L-l” is designated as a planning area required to contain affordable housing
and the proposed project would provide 9 affordable “for-sale” townhomes.
2) The proposed development has been clustered adjacent to Han&h Drive and the
natural steep slopes that border the existing flat areas of the site along the west and
northwest would not be regraded. The natural slopes would be placed into an open
space easement for their protection as required by the master plan.
3) Grading would not occur on naturally occurring slopes of 20 per cent or more and
a geotechnical/soil report has been submitted with the project.
CT 92-S/PUD 92-6/SDL 92-S - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE ‘*L-A JULY 15, 1992
C. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
A Planned Development Permit was processed for this project along with a Tentative Map
in order to allow common ownership of the private driveways, and open space, and to provide a method of approving small postage stamp lots that do not have frontage on a
dedicated public street. The postage stamp lots underlie the individual townhouse units
and the lots include the townhouse dwelling unit, patio and in some cases the individual
driveway area leading directly to the garage. The Planned Development Permit implements
the Land Use Element of the General Plan by allowing a residential density that is
consistent with a Residential Medium High land use designation (RMH - 8-15 dus/acre).
The townhouse buildings would be developed around central driveways that are landscaped
with a combination of trees and shrubs and enhanced with textured paving material at the
entryway to provide visual transition from the public street (Edgeware Way) to the private
driveway and to provide interest at the project entryway. The dwelling units would have
a rear entryway with a concrete patio area. There would be two active recreation areas,
one containing a spa, swimming pool, and restroom facility, and the other containing a
horse shoe pit and shuffle board court. Each unit would have an attached two-car garage
with internal access. Individual trash containers would be stored within the two-car garage
of each home, thus, alleviating the need for central trash enclosures.
When a Planned Development Permit is required the Planned Development Ordinance has
a separate set of requirements in addition to the master plan requirements. The proposed
project would comply with the requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance as
follows:
II DRIVEWAY WIDTH
DRIVEWAY SETBACK
PARKING: RESIDENT:
GUEST:
RV STORAGE
II STORAGE SPACE
REQUIRED PROPOSED
30 Feet I l * 24 Feet l *
5 Feet I 5 Feet
116 Covered Spaces
17 Spaces
58 Two-Car Garages
17 Spaces
1,160 sq. ft. Provided in the Master
Plan RV Storage Area
480 Cubic Feet
ner unit I
Storage provided in
l-Car Garages
RECREATIONAL SPACE
A. COMMON ACTIVE
B. PRIVATE PASSIVE
5,800 sq. ft.
Patio or Balcony
5,800 sq. ft.
10 ft. X 10 ft. Patio
-
CT 92-S/PUD 92-6/SDP 92-5 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE “L-A
JULY 15, 1992
** The proposed 24 foot wide private driveway does not meet the standard **
D. CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 21.53. SECIION 21.53.120 - SlTE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.53.120 is currently being amended (ZCA 92-2)
to require a Site Development Plan for any multi-family residential apartment development
having more than 4 dwelling units or an affordable housimz moiect of anv size. On June
3, 1992 the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that ZCA 92-2 be
approved. The City Council will make the final decision on ZCA 92-2 on July 14, 1992.
This project has been conditioned based on the requirement that the City Council approve
ZCA 92-2 and that the zone code amendment be enacted into ordinance. Without final
enactment of ZCA 92-2 there is no mechanism in the code to allow this project to be
developed.
This project would have 58 residential units of which 9 units are designated as affordable
to low income residents. The proposed project does not meet the Planned Development
Ordinance’s 30 foot standard for the width of a private street/driveway (24 foot wide
driveways are proposed). In order to provide affordable housing in this project the
applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that
this standard be waived under the revised Section 21.53.120(c) Development Standards
(See ZCA 92-2). A Site Development Plan for an affordable housing project may allow less
restrictive development standards than specified in the zone code or underlying zone if the
project is in conformance with the General Plan and would not have a detrimental effect
on public health, safety and welfare.
In addition, before the Planning Commission recommends approval of the project to the
City Council the zone code amendment (ZCA 92-2) changes to Title 21 of the Municipal
Code under Section 21.53.120(c) requires that the following finding be made:
1) ‘That the Droiect is in confoxmitv with the General Plan and adoWed policies and
goals of the Citv. and it would have no detrimental effect on Dubtic health. safetv
and welfare”.
a. The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Calavera Hills Master
Plan as explained in Sections A and B of this report. The project would not
have a significant impact on the environment as discussed below in Section
F of this report.
b. The bulk and scale of the proposed two and three-story townhouse l&lings
would be compatible with the surrounding residential development. The
proposed townhouse multi-family residential land use would provide an
appropriate transition between the duplex multi-family uses to the north and
the future commercial and existing community park land uses to the south.
A 20 to 30 foot building setback along Harwich Drive would provide an
CT 92WPUD 92-6/SDP 92-5 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE “L-1
JULY 15, 1992
adequate buffer between this project and the public street and exceed the
existing street setbacks of the duplex residential buildings located to the
‘north.
C. ‘The townhouse buildings would maintain S to 20 foot setbacks from the
internal driveways and there are no areas along the driveway where there
would be three-story elevations opposite each other on either s!de of the
driveway. The driveway elevations are not visible from the public street.
The driveway building elevations have single-story roof elements, multiple
insets and offsets along the facade, and sufficient material detailing to
provide pedestrian scale and visual interest along the driveways.
d. The project site is fairly geometric in shape and as illustrated on the attached
exhibits, the proposed 58 residential dwelling units would be accommodated
on the existing level areas of the property without encroaching into the steep
slopes located along the western portion of the site.
e. The design of the project would assure a unique mix of residential
development, and enhance the aesthetic quality of the area as follows:
i. The front yard and street side setbacks would be landscaped with a
combination of trees and shrubs to partially screen the residential
structures from the public streets.
ii. The building elevations would have textured stucco exteriors and tile
roofs, varied roof lines, architectural accent features and building
forms, and varied building facades.
. . . 111. The dwelling units would be orientated at various angles along the
driveway to provide an enclosure of space between the homes and to
provide more visual interest when the project is viewed fkom the
public streets.
f. The project would provide adequate onsite parking and circulation to serve
the needs of the residents and their guests, and it would not impact the
availability of offsite street parking.
g* Sidewalks and drainage facilities would be provided along the project’s street
frontages to serve the project.
h. The existing Planned Development Ordinance requires at a minimum 30 foot
wide private street/driveways, however, the proposed 24 foot wide private
driveway would be adequate to provide safe and efficient traffic circulation,
vehicle turn movements, and emergency access. The City’s Parking
Ordinance requires a minimum standard width of 24 feet for a two-way
CT 92WPUD 92-6/SLr 92-S - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE L-.
JULY 15, 1992
PAGE 7 .
traffic aisle containing ninety degree parking on both sides. A 24 foot
driveway aisle provides adequate separation and distance for vehicles backing
out of garages and guest parking spaces and adequate separation for two-way
traffic (12 feet per travel lane).
i. Prior to January 1987 the City’s Planned Development Ordinance permitted
24 foot wide private streets/driveways in planned residential developments.
Under this old ordinance the existing multi-family projects surrounding
Village “L-l” in Calavera Hills were developed with 24 foot wide private
streets/driveways. Based on these neighboring residential developments the
24 foot wide driveways have been proven functional and historically have
not resulted in traffic circulation and-public safety problems.
i A pedestrian circulation system that is separated from the 24 foot wide
driveways is also provided that would allow sufficient and safe access to the
adjacent public streets.
k. Adequate emergency access is provided by primary and secondary access
points leading from Edgeware Way. The 24 foot wide driveway is wide
enough to accommodate emergency vehicles, and the project would be
conditioned to prohibit parallel parking along this central access way. In
addition, all residential structures would be conditioned to contain fire sprinklers. The project has been reviewed and approved by the Fire
Department.
-
CT 92-S/PUD 92-6/SDr 92-S - cALAvER HILLS VILLAGE "L-,
JULY 15, 1992
PAGE 8
E. GROVVI’H MANAGEMENT
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 7 in the
Northeast Quadrant. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and
compliance with the adopted performance standards are sununarized as follows:
COMPLiANCE WITH FACILITY IMPACTS STANDARDS
CITY ADMINISTRATION 201.6 sq. ft. Yes 1.
LIBRARY 107.5 sq. ft. l : Yes
WASTE WATER TREATMENT 58 EDU Yes
PARKS .40 acres Yes
DRAlNAGE N/A Yes
CIRCULATION 464 ADT Yes
FIRE Station #3 Yes
OPEN SPACE N/A Yes
SCHOOLS CUSD Yes
SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM 58 EDU Yes
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 12,760 GPD Yes
The project is .9 dwelling units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance
for the planning area. Based on the constraints analysis in the Local Facilities Management
Plan for Zone 7, Village “L-l” was allocated 70 dwelling units. The larger scale project
level constraints analysis determined that 58 units would be allowed for the project. In
addition, there is currently an approved Site Development Plan (SDP 85-13) on the
property that approved the development of 80 apartment units. Since this project would
develop with only 58 dwelling units there would be 22 additional dwelling units available
for the City’s bank of surplus units in the Northeast Quadrant.
F. SUBDMSION ORDINANCE
The proposed Tentative Map would comply with all the requirements of the City’s
Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20. Adequate drainage would be provided with Edgeware
Way and the entire lot draining into an existing storm drain that flows north through the
project. Grading quantities would consist of 6,730 cubic yards of cut, 8,000 cubic yards
of fill, and 1,270 cubic yards of import to create split level building pads and to
accommodate the central driveway. All required public street improvements are existing
along Harwich Drive and paving, curb, gutter, and sidewalk would be provided along
Edgeware Way. Access to the townhome residences would be provided by a 24 foot wide
private driveway containing one ingress and egress point onto Edgeware Way and an
additional gated emergency access off Edgeware Way.
-
CT 92-S/PUD 92-6/SDP 92-S - CALAVERA HiLLS VILLAGE “L-,
JULY 15,1992
PAGE 9 ’
G. ENWRQNMENTAL~
The property has been previously rough graded into a relatively level pad and no grading of steep slopes will occur. The previously graded areas contain no native vegetation and
as a rnsult of past disturbance the site has no biological or cultural resource value. The
Planning Director has determined that based on the EtA Part II “Initial Study’ and field
review conducted by staff, no significant environmental impacts will result from this
project, therefore, a Negative Declaration was issued on April 30, 1992.
Iv. SUMMARY .
The proposed project: (1) is consistent with the General Plan; (2) complies with the
Calavera Hills Master Plan; (3) meets the requirements of the Planned Development
Ordinance; (4) findings for the Site Development Permit can be made under revised Section
21.53.120; (5) complies with the subdivision ordinance; (6) is in conformance with
Growth Management; and (7) will not significantly impact the environment, therefore, staff
recommends approval of CT 92WPUD 92-6/SDP 92-S.
‘. ATZACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3403
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3404
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3405
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3406
5. Location Map
6. Background Data Sheet
7. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
8. Disclosure Form
9. Reduced Exhibits
10. Full size Exhibits “A’‘-‘W”, dated July 15, 1992.
June 12, 1992
JG:km
\ .’ ,
I\’ ‘\
i u-Y\
’ I?
‘i
Y \
-\ a
‘. --- , /’
1’ /’
)
I$
i 3 lx
fi%&
I I I’
/
,J( /f$4-G$$j&
\ , 1. I.
CAL?‘./ ERA
HILLS
CCMM. PARK
4
City of CWd
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE “L-l” CT 92-WPUD 92-6 SDP 92-5 a
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 92-S/PUD 92-d/SDP 92-5
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE “L-l”
APPLICANT: SUNDANCE FINANCIAL INC.
REQUEST AND LOCAtiON: 58 RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE DWELLING UNITS
LEGAL DE!XlUPTION: LOT 1 OF CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 85-30 ACCORDING TO MAP NO. 11826
IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA.
APN: 167-554-01
(Assessor’s Parcel Number)
Acres 6.28 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 58 UNITS/l LOT
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH
Density AIIowed 11.5 Density Proposed 10.7
Existing Zone PC Proposed Zone N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements)
zoninq Land Use
Site PC VACANT
North PC DUPLEX MULTI-FAMILY
south PC VACANT
East PC VACANT
West PC MULTI-FAMILY
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District CARLSBAD Water District CARLSBAD
Equivalent DweIIing Units (Sewer Capacity) 58 EDU
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated APRIL 13, 1992
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
x Negative Declaration, issued APRIL 30. 1992
Sewer District CARLSBAD
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
_ JG:vd:lh
.
.-
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GR0Wl-H MANAG- PROGRAM
ILKZAL FA(XLlTDS IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY ti IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE “L-l” - CT 9iWPUD 92-6/SDP 92-S
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 7 GENERAL PLAN: RMH ZONING: PC
DEVELOPER’S NAME: SUNDANCE FINANCIAL INC.
ADDRESS: 3900 HARNEY STREET, SAN DIEGO. CA 92110
PHONE NO.: (619) 299-5100 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO: 167-554-01
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 6.28 ACRES/S8 DU’s
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: N/A
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 201.6
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 107.5
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) N/A
Park: Demand in Acreage = .40
Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A
Identify Drainage Basin = N/A
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =
Open Space: Acreage Provided -
Schools:
464
NO. 3
N/A
N/A
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demand in EDUs -
Identify Sub Basin -
58
N/A
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand ‘in GPD - ’ 12.760
The project is .9 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. JG:vd
.- - * c -. .
RECE1VED
A!?
DISCLOSURESTATEMENT
j PPXICAKTS STATEMENT OF OkCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHlf’ ~MEAESTS ON AU APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE
/ ZSCAETiCNAil’l ACTION CN THE PART OF THE CiTY COUNCIL. OR ANY APPCIMED BOARD. COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE.
I 1 .i!aaaa F rim)
3.0 fdlowing information must be disclosed: .
% :3m!icant i .
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. SY?DJXE FCWXXAL, INC.
(fc~mrlv hmwn as PACIFIC SCENE, INC.) 3W30 I-IAEiiY STREET .
SAL! Dnxo, CA 92110
3 -. :z;vn ;-I’
list the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the propeq involved. 'mEEzmPsLJNLIMm
3. if any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresse
of all individuais owning more than 10Y0 of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in th
~ZtileiShip.
A If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organitatlon or a trust, list the names an
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee Or beneficiav ( ,i:e trust. SAME Atxmss As: Tmfiq N. Kho~ry (Trustee) SUNDANCE J?INANCIAL. mcl- Jason B. Khourv (Beneficial)
Brian F. Khourv (Beneficiary)
:belle Khouv (Beneficiary)
~?,:.‘“:L^COl 4191
3075 Las Palmas Orlve l Carlsbad. Callfornla 92009-4359 l (619) o3f3-1 ’ 61
2isslosure Statement
(Over)
Page 2
: ;. ,Lr’se JJOU had more than- $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City stati, Boards,
’ Sf,-i-rmissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? 1.. , 2 -: - No & If yes, please indicate person(s)
7:T1;> .c defined as: ‘Any mdividuai. firm. copartnarship. joint venture. association, social club, fraternal orgamzation. corporatron. estate. trust. tecewe .
L~X:C%J. thus and any orner county, city and county, crty murwpallty, district or other political subdivision. or any other group or comblnatlon acrrng as ’
d?L’
_. Mach acldzional pages as necessary.) - ‘rJT
SL-IIGAXCE FINXPJCIAL, INC.
3y:
?,
, ,.J::\.-,3Jj,~,~~ i ,{
S&~‘a?se of Owner/date April 10, 1992
L.z'---j
bJl3il 2. Xe ner
- tz7.r Gr type name cf owner
1111 I
applicant/dat$ April 10, 1992
Jon B. Werner
Print or type name of applicant
-. . .\ >‘i,.. ,‘.4 ., r31 4;9:,
.
:
::
I .
:
2
: d
*
I
k
:
: m
.”
:
”
:
::
.
t ”
::
: a
c
:
:
I
1:
: m
f 4
l
Ii,
I I iii! II ij// D 1 *; I ii 5 , j’/j ‘I
IIll +j ii I 2’ ,’
ti ‘I 11 I/)
I !i It
; 1
I 1 I’
h’
~ J
I$ D
I ! 11 IIf I I ’ I$ t 111 1 ’ j! i 11 + Ii
q 11 I fi 111 I!1 I I 1: if 11
I !I iI Ii
I’if t ,I1 1 Iif i lrr’ 1 i$i ! jw If ‘111 :I : f I”, ‘1 f i /!I! !l 5
i “I *I/
1 1 IS ‘1 : ‘I’
1’ 111 1’ I’1 I I
111 iii ii ’ ‘1, I,; ;, Ii ill ‘; I J Ii ’ ! I![! ;,
/iI /I!1 I! ril !ili fl!
- .
f - Ir( n-z* m P-.aL
; pn’ k s . m z u 2.
c’ on’ 8 a .
z u d
a 5
z f d
8
2 d 5 iii A f z d 9
x4
W
gg
=r9 O-
G
il s Ie J a f #! ti4.
.
I t I
t
,
i
.
.
r
.
-
.O-.tE , ,
>J&91 i > *
. 5 7 h
“2 :E s id 4 W.
a
u
.g I-
12 IQ iC
,s
ii W
9 W a
i
-
4 u .0-m 4’ .o-.Ob
f 6 ; i f : f : c P t B B
k \
.
. .
L
- 0 E l
3
H I”, 3 0 E I
3
w
J
1
? .
?
5
hg&q!j!j . . . . .
:
-
B 1
il I
I ! 4 ?? rei E i’f all
I . . . . . . . .
.O-.N
. *. * .
i.
0’ i= s 6W 3s dl- 8 E
f
f,
5 z i
; i
z a
-
. . . .
. .
a t f i f -
.
-
MINUTES
July 15, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 COMMISSIONERS v
in requested a legal opinion. He doesn't want false signal that we might approve three units
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney,
aff recommendation.
RECESS
at 7:13 p.m.
2) CT 92-5lPUD 92-a/SDP 92-5 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE "L-l" -. Request for approval of a Negative Declaration,
Tentative Map, Planned Development Permit, and Site Development Plan to construct 58 townhome residential dwelling units on the northwest corner of Harwich Drive and Edgeware Way in the PC Zone in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 7.
Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is requesting approval to construct 58 townhome residential dwelling units
on a 6.28 acre lot located at the northwest corner of Harwich Drive and Edgeware Way in the Calavera Hills Master Plan. Mr. Gibson showed slides of the project site and
surrounding area.
The surrounding neighborhood is developed with three-story multi-family residences to the west, two-story duplex
residences to the north, and vacant land to the east and south. The Calavera Hills Community Park is located
approximately 700 ft. to the south along Harwich Drive.
The proposed project would consist of four, five and six-plex buildings, divided into townhomes, containing attached two-car garages. The hbmes range in size from
904 s.f. to 1,577 s.f. Nine of the 58 proposed townhomes are designated for sale to lower income households. The
affordable units are all 904 s.f. in size, exclusive of the attached garages. The project meets all of the requirements of City ordinances and standards except the PUD standard
requiring 30' wide private vehicle access ways. The project proposes 24' wide vehicles access ways. At last night's council meeting, the City Council approved ZCA 92-2 which provides a mechanism to waive development standards for affordable housing projects permitted through the SDP process. In order to provide affordable housing in this project, the applicant is requesting that the Planning
Commission recommend to the City Council that the 30' wide vehicle access standard be waived.
Staff supports this request based on the findings that 24' wide vehicle access ways leading from public streets to garages and guest parking spaces within the project are safe
Erwin Hall
Noble Schlehuber
Schramm
i - -
MINUTES
July 15, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 COMMISSIONERS ’
and functional. The City's parking ordinance requires a minimum standard width of 24' for two-way traffic aisles
containing 90 degree parking on both sides of the aisle. The 24' traffic circulation lane provides adequate
separation and distance for vehicles backing out of garages and guest parking spaces. In addition, 12' per travel lane is adequate separation for two-way traffic circulation. The
narrow 24' wide circulation lane, the short length of the lanes, and the numerous corners within the project would
keep residents and guest traffic at slow speeds for pedestrian safety. Adequate emergency vehicie access is provided by a gated emergency access point and one traffic
access point, both leading from Edgewater Way. The 24' wide driveways are wide enough to accommodate emergency vehicles,
including fire trucks. Parallel parking would be prohibited
in the vehicle access way by the use of red curbs or signage. In the event that an 8' wide vehicle was blocking
one side of the driveway, there still would be 16' of clearance, which is sufficient for emergency vehicles. In
the event that one of the drivewavs was entirelv blocked by
ing
ocked
vehicles, the project has an internal loop circulation
system that affords secondary routes of access to dwel 1
units. In the event that all internal driveways are b 11
for some unforeseen reason, the dwelling units are all
equipped with fire sprinklers and over one-half of the perimeter of the project is accessible from the public
right-of-way along Harwich Drive and Edgeware Way. Mr ~. Gibson showed some other projects within the Calavera Hills
Master Plan which contain 24' driveways. Staff recommends
approval.
Chairman Erwin inquired why the affordable units are clustered rather than spread throughout the development. Mr.
Gibson agreed that there is a certain amount of clustering, however, upon close examination there is no building devoted
entirely to affordable units. Staff feels that the developmem represents a good mix of affordable and standard
units.
Chairman Erwin referred to the 30 year window for
affordability and stated that he would like to see the affordability continued for the life of the structure. Mr. Gibson deferred reply to the applicant.
Chairman Erwin referred to the waiver of design standards
for affordable housing and inquired if there have been other requests for waivers on this project. Mr. Gibson replied that there have been some inquiries but no formal requests in writing.
Chairman Erwin opened the public testimony and issued the
invitation to speak.
Mike Howes, Hofman Planning Associates, 2386 Faraday,
Suite 120, Carlsbad. addressed the Commission and stated that this is the first affordable housing project to be built in Carlsbad under the recently certified Housing
Element. The site is currently approved for 80 apartment units and the proposed affordable housing project would
represent a density reduction. Nine units within the development have been designated as affordable for a period of 30 years. He believes this site is an excellent location for affordable housing because it is in walking distance from an elementary school, a City park, and a future commercial center and junior high school. The project will be developed to the same standards as surrounding projects
. -
MINUTES
July 15, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8
in Calavera Hills. The applicant is Pacific Scene, who
nopes to start grading this September and have the units available for sale next Spring. If it is the Commission's
desire, the applicant is willing to extend the 30 year affordability to the life of the structures. The only other subsidy which has been discussed with staff is the waiver of
all fees except sewer and schools (for the nine units only). He hopes that the Commission will approve the
project.
John Warner, Pacific Scene, 3900 Hamey Street, San Diego,
addressed the Commission and stated that Pacific Scene's primary business is housing and they plan to have a quality
project. He requested support of the staff recommendation.
Chairman Erwin inquired about the cost spread between the affordable and standard units. Mr. Warner replied that the
fair market value of a 904 s.f. unit would run in the neighborhood of $125,000 to $135,000. Designated as
affordable housing units, they would probably sell in the $65,000 to $70,000 range in today's market. If the rates
come down, the price could go up.
Chairman Erwin inquired if Mr. Warner has a problem changing
the 30 year affordability window on the nine units to life. They opted to use 30 years only because other cities they
have dealt with use 30 years. Mr. Warner replied that he has no problem with this. An agreement would have to be
worked out which would contain the necessary requirements.
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, stated that there may be a problem phrasing an agreement for the life of the property because it creates an uncertainty. The useful life of
property is normally 30 years based on the standard depreciation. After 30 years, people would be litigating as
to whether there are any good years left. She would prefer
the wording to state 40 years rather than life because it is
too ambiguous. There could be a review at 30 years. Mr. Warner replied that his legal counsel suggested that the City of Carlsbad would have the option to purchase the units
at the end of 30 years. The City could make the
determination at that time and, if desired, purchase the property and sell it back at the market rate.
Chairman Erwin stated that the useful life for tax purposes is only 27 years. He thinks we should consider at least 50
years but would like to know how that would be stated in writing. Karen Hirata replied that she would recommend 30 or 40 years with contingencies for review by the City to see
if the circumstances and intent of the ordinance still
apply.
Chairman Erwin stated that applicants would be different at
the end of 30 years. He doesn't want to see this create a
windfall profit for someone at that time. The intent is to provide affordable housing for the actual life of that property. Ms. Hirata replied that we need to provide some process to determine the life of the property without having to litigate it in court. She will work up some wording
which could be used.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about the language which states that the City has a right to purchase the units after
30 years. Mr. Warner replied that a separate agreement would be created to allow the City to purchase the units after 30 years if it so desired, however the City would not
-.
MINUTES
July 15, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9
be required to do so. If the City purchased the units and sold them at market value, the fees waived at the time of construction could be recaptured.
Commissioner Schlehuber feels that this sounds like a fair
agreement which could be worked out. He will oppose anything beyond 30 years unless he can be convinced that it Mould be in the best interests of the City to make it longer.
411an Butler, 3654 Harwich Drive, Carlsbad. addressed the
Commission and stated that he lives in a duplex to the north of the project site. These duplexes (128 units) are part of the Trails of Calavera Hills project. There are another 128
units in the Trails project which are located down near the Hope School. Mr. Butler stated that the majority of the
residents in the Trails project use Harwich Drive for their access. He disagrees with the Negative Declaration that this new development will not generate substantial traffic. There is a sharp 90 degree corner at Harwich and Glasgow which is very dangerous and he has nearly been sideswiped on
nore than one occasion. Mr. Butler sees a 100% increase in
traffic when you include vehicles, joggers, walkers, and students going to and from school. Furthermore, there is already a lot of vandalism in the area and the proposed project will add more bodies and, no doubt, more vandalism.
The area needs a sidewalk going to the park and the road needs repairs. He believes the project may be nice but he
gives it's "B" grade because of the impacts it will create in his neighborhood.
Joe Valenti, 3491 Lawrence Street, Carlsbad. addressed the
Commission and stated that he is the property manager of the Trails project'which is adjacent to the project site. He is concerned about the parking aspects. Although there are
two-car garages and 17 guest parking spaces, he knows that when units are small like these 904 s.f. units, garages are
commonly used for storage or additional living space and it is difficult to enforce the CC&R's. People end up parking on the street. He feels that this project is too dense and is concerned that no play area has been provided for the children. The streets then become the playground. Some
kids will go to the park but the park was not intended to replace front or back yards. He doesn't want to see the
City waive the fees because there are additional costs incurred with low cost housing, such as who will monitor
their use over the 30 year period.
Larry Brown, 3614 Ashby Court, Carlsbad. addressed the Commission and stated that he is concerned about the parking. Because there will be back door access to Harwich
Drive, it will prompt many people to use on-street parking. He would like to see some type of buffer between the back doors and the street. Also, there is a stigma attached to
low-cost housing when it is clustered as this project proposes. He would like to see the affordable units more spread out. Mr. Brown feels there may be a problem selling units in the development because of the affordable units.
There is currently a glut of condominiums available and they are having to be auctioned off because they are not selling. He would like to know what will happen if the units do not sell as planned.
Tye Turley. 3668 Harwich, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he agrees that people wiil use on-street parking because of the back doors. He doesn't think
4
COMMISSIONERS ’ \
i
IiillNUTtS
July 15. 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10
shrubbery will stop them but maybe a wall will. As far as the 24' wide vehicle access in'the proposed project, he
drives a pickup truck and knows from experience in the Trails project that it is difficult to negotiate a comer on a 24' wide roadway with garages. Lastly, Mr. Turley would like to see some type of play area for children to keep them off the streets. They will not all go to the park to play.
Mr. Howes of Hofman Planning Associates was given time for rebuttal. He stated that:
. The proposed project actually reduces density. The site has already been approved for 80 apartment units and the applicant is now requesting 56 units instead of 80.
* Carlsbad has received a mandate from the State to build
affordable housing: the State did not make it an option.
* The current plans call for Glasgow to be extended: that should eliminate the traffic problems.
. Both the Fire Department and the Police Department have indicated that 24' wide roadways are adequate for the project.
* There should be no problem putting up a wall which was recommended, as long as there is access for emergency vehicles.
He requested that the Planning Commission approve the
project as proposed.
Chairman Erwin inquired about what the fees will amount to that the City has been requested to waive. Mr. Warner replied that the fees are approximately $10,000 per unit,
excluding the school and sewer fees. Pacific Scene will pay the school and sewer fees.
There being no other persons desiring to address the
Commission on this topic, Chairman Erwin declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner, responded to the public
comments which were made and stated that:
. The original EIR for the project was done in anticipation of the higher density of 80 apartment units; the street
system was determined to be adequate at that time. When
Glasgow is expanded, it will take a lot of the traffic
away.
. With two-car garages and 17 guest spaces, the project does
meet the requirements of the Parking Ordinance.
* Staff does not have the purview to review the size of the
units: therefore, they cannot speak to this issue.
* In regards to recreation amenities, the project meets the standard for active and passive recreation.
* As far as the buffer between the rear of the units and Harwich Drive, there is a ZO-30'ft. setback to the pubiic right-of-way. This exceeds the setbacks of the duplexes in the Trails project by 10 ft. Furthermore, there will
f
MINUTES
July 15, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 11
be very heavy landscaping between the units and the street.
* The applicant has indicated that he could provide a wall
along the northeast boundary to keep pedestrians out and to discourage vehicles from parking in the utilities maintenance easement area.
Chairman Erwin stated for the record that he had received a letter dated July 12, 1992 from Robert A. and Susan J.
Quaney, 3676 Harwich Drive, who oppose the project due to excess traffic, limited guest parking, and noise. If the project is approved, they would like to have signs and a
gate installed to restrict access to the utilities maintenance easement. Mr. Gibson replied that this easement
is part of the Trails project and not Pacific Scene. However, Pacific Scene has agreed to construct a block wall along the northern boundary as a barrier to pedestrians.
Chairman Erwin inquired if the proposed project will have a
homeowner's association to help maintain the exterior of the properties. Mr. Gibson replied that this is correct; however, homeowner associations can't always be relied on.
Chairman Erwin stated that the design standards and fee
waivers are being waived for the entire period that the nine units are designated as affordable housing, which could be
much longer than 30 years. The affordable housing is intended for persons with lower incomes and not intended to
enrich someone at a later date. He feels we should look at the problems that San Diego is now experiencing so we don't
make the same mistakes. He would like to see the 30 year time period extended to the useful life of the project.
Commissioner Schlehuber stated that it is correct that many people will use their garages for storage. He requested staff to state their position about parking along Harwich.
Bob Wojcik, Principal Engineer, replied that Harwich will be a standard 45' wide curb-to-curb street which does allow
parking along both sides of the street. Even if both sides are parked, there still remains 24' for vehicular traffic.
It is no different than any other street in Carlsbad.
Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner, reminded the Chair that the changes outlined in staff memo dated July 13. 1992 should be
incorporated in the motion when it is made.
Karen Hirata. Deputy City Attorney, read aloud a recommended
new condition to Resolution No. 3404 as follows:
13(h) A statement granting the City an option to purchase the low-income affordable units under
terms similar to the described in the Sales Agreement for Income Restricted For-Sale Units referred to in Condition %14 below.
Ms. Hirata then read aloud her recommended revision to Condition No. 13(e) of Resolution No. 3404 as follows:
13(e) The tenure of affordability shall be the useful
life of the property, but in no case shall it be less than 30 years from the date of the sale of
the first affordable unit, After 30 years, the City Council may, at the request of any owner of an affordable unit, review the condition of the property to determine if it still has a useful
- -
MINUTtS
July 15, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 12 COMMISSIONERS \;;
life. The parties shall agree that the decision of the City Council shall be binding on the
applicant and all future owners and successors in interest.
Zhairman Erwin believes that the conditions sound okay but le thinks reference to an option to purchase may cause some serious problems and could cloud the title to the property.
It could cause a problem if the property is put up for sale.
Commissioner Hall believes that the way the staff report is tiorded (a minimum of 30 years) is more than adequate to nandle all contingencies.
Zhairman Erwin replied that the various references to
30 years throughout the resolution are not consistent. He strongly believes that designation should last for the life of the dwelling.
Commissioner Schlehuber stated that the language in this
resolution is just a general outline: the end result will be a negotiated agreement. He agrees with Commissioner Hall
that we shouldn't try to make any changes to the resolution tonight. Commissioner Schlehuber likes the project and thinks it is a good one. Since the State is requiring that
tie provide low cost units, we don't have much choice in the
matter. He feels this project will create pride of ownership where rental units will not.
Commissioner Schramm likes the proposed project. She thinks
it is needed and we should all be thinking about our children and grandchildren. They may not able to afford the
market units now in Carlsbad.
Commissioner Noble stated that the State law requires affordable housing and the standards are not being reduced overall. There must be compromise and trade-offs such as
smaller homes and lots and more narrow roads. He does not
believe the construction in this project will be shoddy. He
feels that the source of vandalism referred to by Mr. Butler may be as a result of the undeveloped property and not
necessarily neighborhood kids.
Commissioner Hall feels that parking is critical and that the Commission should be giving some thought to where the
children will play. He does not feel that a swimming pool is enough.
Commissioner Noble requested that on future projects, staff
should try to encourage developers to put something other than horseshoe pits and shuffleboard as recreational amenities. He thinks they are a waste of space because they don't get much use.
Chairman Erwin made a motion to approve the project with the
inclusion of a new Condition #13(e), as read into the record by the City Attorney. which states that the tenure of affordability shall be the useful life of the property. The
motion died for lack of a second.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3403. recommending apprcval of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3404. 3405, and
3406 recommending approval of CT 92-5, PUD 92-6. and SDP 92-5
Erwin Hall Noble
Schlehuber Schramm
I --
MINUTES
July 15, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 13
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein with the following changes: (1) inclusion
of the staff memo dated July 13. 1992 deleting Condition 1155 in Resolution No. 3404 and adding a new finding.to
Resolution No. 3406 stating the project is in conformity rlith the General Plan and adopted policies and goals of the :ity and would not have a detrimental effect on public
wealth, safety, and welfare: (2) addition of a condition to
require a fence to be constructed along the northern boundary of the site, the design and material to be approved
by the Planning Director: (3) addition of a condition which states that the CC&R’s shall stipulate that the primary use of the garages will be used for parking vehicles: and (4)
striking the words “for 30 years” from line 6 of Condition l/13, Resolution No. 3404.
Chairman Erwin requested that the record show he favors the affordability span to be the life the project rather than a
set number of years. Otherwise, he believes it may cause problems down the road.
lanning Cosmnission recessed at 8:32 p.m. and reconvened
: Introduction and
Dennis Turner
Planner, gave Inclusionary H
the Planning C draft ordinanc
controversial housing . Futu
ordinance, at
d public in their review of this s with the complex and
lusionary housing, aka affordable arings will be held on the dditional details will be
Introduction and Overview
e an overview of the ante t _ provide some
and public in their
deals with the complex and controversial issue of densi nuses as it relates to affordable housing. Future public ings will be held on
the ordinance, at which time additio details will be presented.
Chairman Erwin opened the public testimo and issued the invitation to speak. There being no pers
speak to either of the ordinances, he clos testimony and opened it up to questions by C
Cormnissioner Schlehuber stated that he believe manager should be required in affordable housin
discourage some of the problems inherent in big development.
Commissioner Hall believes the affordable housing inve should be the top priority. He would like to see five used as a basis but he feels that 1,400 units is very optimistic.
Stanley K. Pearce
3625 Harwich Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
September 12, 1992
City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, Sept. 15, 1992: 6:OO p.m.
In response to your notice of a public hearing: CT 92-S/PUD ?2-
C./SDP 92-5 - Calavera Hills Village "L-l", this letter is in
protest to the tentative planned unit development as proposed.
This plan is unacceptable as presented for the following reasons:
TEm3C : Traffic on Harwich Drive is heavy and fast for a narrow
neighborhood street. Many local people from other streets use
Harwich Drive as a short cut to reach Carlsbad Village Drive
and Tamarack Avenue. Since the blind curve area of Harwich
Drive has no sidewalks and only berms on either side of the
road, it is extremely dangerous for pedestrian traffic.
Children walking to school or to the park would have to walk
in the street, in the gullies, or through chaparral to escape
the fast moving cars.
To alleviate the traffic in the general neighborhood of
Calavara Hills, it is mandatory that Carlsbad Village Drive --...-. - ._.__-.-
be constructed and opened through to College &venue. Traffic
congestion at the intersections of Carlsbad Village Drive and
Tamarack Avenue; Carl-&ad Village Drive and El Camino Real;
and congestion at El Camino Real and the Shopping Center at
Highway 78 would be all greatly relieved with this
thoroughfare opened.
S.eEc.TY : The developer's plans for the 58 townhomes do not provide
for adequate play ground areas for the children who will be
livinq in the proposed development. This will necessitate the
children playing in the dangerous street, the unsafe canyons,
or walking in the dangerous street to the park. The street
lights in the blind curve area of Harwich Drive are often
broken. This creates another safety hazard for residents
walking on Harwich Drive after dark.
!fT.m!sLNE : As presented, the developer provides inadequately planned
parking facilities. With 55 units proposed, there will
probably be at least 10-O automobiles, trucks, campers, etc.,
to accommodate. Experience has shown that many residents
store their belongings in the garage, and the car or truck
gets parked outside. With no, or short, driveways planned,
most of the cars, etc., will be parked on Harwich Drive: a
street which was never designed for foot traffic, street
parking, and through traffic. host cities require developers
to provide at least 100 off-street parking spaces, including
garages, as a minimum arrangement for a development of this
size.
WATER: ._-” ..-..... “_- The City Council must provide an explanation to all the
residents of Carlsbad if they approve this proposed
development, in light of our chronic water shortage. The
citizens of Carlsbad, and all of California, are penalized for
using too much water now. Every day we hear from the State
of California that the water reservoirs are depleted more than
at any time in the history of our state, with no relief in
sight. The City Council wants to approve more housing
developments and provide millions of gallons of water to new
developments while insisting that the current residents ration
their water use. There is no argument which can calm the fear
and anger of the residents when we are told to take short
showers, do not water the lawns, do not wash the cars, so more
water can be provided to the developers who can make millions
of dollars by building more housing units. It is obvious that if water is available to developers for new housing, then
there is plenty of water for the current residents, and there
should be no rationing. If water _mur~*t. be rationed now, then
there should be NO water for more construction of housing
units.
I urge the City Council to withhold its approval of this
development. If the development MUST be constructed, then all the
above issues raised MUST be resolved.
Stanley%. Pearce
. . ’ ,
TO: The Carlsoad City Council
FROM: Homeowners/Residents of Harwich Drive and Other Streets of The Trails of Calavera Hills
RE: PETITION TO REJECT TRE REFERENCED PROPOSAL AND TO SEEK RE-ZDNING OF CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE L-l SITE
Ref: CT 92-*UD 92-6/SDP 92-5 Calavera Hills Villaqe.L-1. Negative Declaration, Tentative Map, Planned Unit Development and Site Development Plan to Construct 58 Townhome Residential Dwelling Units on Calavera
Hills Village L-l Site
We, the homeowners and residents of the above-mentioned properties,
are opposed to this high density development, or any other high
density development on this site.
The proposed development is not compatible with the Aarwich Drive and
surrounding residential area and will aepress property values of the
nearby existing twinhomes. It will overload the existing roads anu
create unnecessary traffic hazards to vehicles, pedestrians, and children vralkinq to Hope Elementary School. The development will
cause too many vehicles to be parked on adjacent streets, especially
from the fourteen (14) units which open directly upon Harwich Drive.
In addition, it will generate excessive noise, light, and glare for the residents of the nearby existing twinhomes. One very important point, too, is that there is no planned play area for children within
the prooosed development.
A large portion of the site is steep slope so the effective density is considerably higher than the 11.3 dwelling units per acce stated in the Planning Department Staff Report. The proposed 24-foot wide cen- tral driveways deviate from the Planned Development Orainance's 33-
foot standard. There has been no consideration of setback (buffer
zone) between the proposed and existing developments.
Therefore, because of these, and other: reasons which may be presented
verbally, we hereby petition the Carlsbad City Council to reject this high density proposal and take the necessary action to re-zone the Calavera Hills Villaqe L-l site to the same lower density zoninq that
exists along Harwich Drive, just north of the L-l site.
GNATURE
gijgt//&/&--
ADDRESS DATE
1
Page 2
-
PETITION TO REJECT THE REFERENCED PROP3SAL 4ND TO
SEEK RE-Z3r\lIN~J OF C4LAVERA HILLS V!‘~L~GE: !,--I 5 ITE
v m&J&& (&k&4& 3tm B-+‘iz
3 .
TO : -- The Carlsbad City Council
FROM: Homeowners/Residents of Har&ich Drive ana Other Streets of The Trails of Calavera Hills
RE: PETITION TO REJECT THE REFERENCED PROPOSAL AND TO
SEEK RE-ZONING OF CALAVERA BILLS VILLAGE L-l SITE
Ref: CT 92-yhUD 92-6/SDP 92-5 Calavera Hills Village L-l. Negative Declaration, Tentative Map, Plannea Unit
Development and Site Develocment Plan to Construct
58 Townhome Residential Dwelling iJnits on Calavera - Hills Village L-l Site
We, the homeowners and residents of the above-mentioned properties, are opposed tothis high density development, or any other high density development on this site.
The proposed development is not campatible with the Harwich Drive an3 surrounding residential area and will depress property values of the nearuy existing twinhomes. It will overload the existing roads &nJ create unnecessary traffic hazards to vehicles, pedestrians, and children walking to Hope Elementary School. The development dill cause too many vehicles to be parked on adjacent streets, especially from the fourteen (14) units which open directly upon Harwich Drive. In addition, it will generate excessive noise, llqht, and glare for the residents of the nearby existing twinhomes. One very important point, too, is that there is no planned play area for children withla
the proposed development.
A large portion of the site is steep slope so the effective density is
considerably higher than the 11.3 dwelling units per acre statea in
the Planning Department Staff Report. The proposed 24-foot wide cen- tral driveways deviate from the Planned Development Ordinance's 30-
foot standard. There has been no consicleratlon of setback (buffer zone) between the proposed and existing cievelopments.
Therefare, because of these, and other reasons which may be presented verbally, we hereby petition the Carlsbad City Council to reject this high density proposal and. take the necessary action to re-zone the
Calavera Hills Village L-l site to the same lower density zoning that exists along Harwich Drive, just north of the L-l site.
SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE
36 78 hh Loid 3-ab-qz
PETITIOI~ TO REJECT THE REFERENCED PR(3WSAL .lNC! TO * SEEK RE-ZONING OF CALAVERA HILLS VIL,L,AGE L-l SITE
4
-SIGNATORE ADDRESS DATE
~*zb=*42
.
' TOi ' The Carlsbi;. City Council
5 .
, FROM: Homeowners/Residents of Harwich Drive and Other Streets of The
Trails of Calavera Hills
RE: PETITION TO REJECT TRE REFERENCED PROPOSAL AND TO -
SEEK RE-ZONING OF CALAVERA BILLS VILLAGE L-l SITE
Ref: CT 92-$UD 92-S/SDP 92-S Calavera Hills Village L-l.
Negative Declaration, Tentative Nap, Planned Unit
Development and Site Development Plan to Construct
58 Townhome Residential Dwelling Units on Calavera
Hills Village L-l Site
We, the homeowners and residents of the above-mentioned properties, are opoosed tothis high densitv development, or any other high aensitv
development on this site.
The proposed development is not cempatible with the Harwich Drive and surrounding residential area and will depress property values of the nearby existing twinhomes. It will overload the existing roads and create unnecessary traffic hazards to vehicles, pedestrians, a'nd children walking to Hope Elementary School. The development &ill cause too many vehicles to be parked on adjacent streets, especially from the fourteen (14) units which open directly upon Harwich Drive.
In addition, it will generate excessive noise, light, and glare for the residents of the nearby existinq twinhomes. One very important point, too, is that there is no planned play area for children within
the proposed development.
A large portion of the site is steep slope so the effective density IS considerably higher than the 11.3 dwelling units per acre stated in the Planning Depart,ment Staff Report. The proposed 24-foot wide cen- ttal driveways deviate fcom the Planned Development Ordinance's 30-
foot standard. There has been no consideration of setback (buffer zone) between the proposed and ex=ing developments.
Therefore, because of these, ana other reasons which may be presented
verbally, we hereby petition the Carlsbad City Council to reject this
high density proposal and take the necessary action to re-zone the
Calavera Hills Village L-l site to the same lower density zoning that
exists along Harwich Drive, just north of the L-l site.
. .-, _. .._ . c .
*
‘Ipaqdr3r’
b
--
. PETITION TO REJECT THE REFERENCED PROPOSAL AND TO
SEEK RE-ZONING OF CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE L-l SITE
SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE - - --
Paqk 2 ’
PETITION TO REJECT THE REFERENCED PROPOSAL AND TO
SEEK RE-ZONING OF CALAVERA HILiS VILLAGE L-l SITE
SIG$ATURE r ADDRESS DATE I,’
7
p -
- -- .._ ..,.-. ,-. _ __
-
‘K AVEMJE
Carlsbad Journal
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
W.C.C.N. Inc. P.O. Box 230878, Encinitas, CA 92023-0878 (619) 753-6543
Proof of Publication
Sl
C
unneu 3rares ana a resiaent or tne county aroresald; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal, a newspaper of general circulation,
published weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper
is published for the dissemination of loca1 news and intelligence of a genera1 character, and which
newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the
saidCity of Oceanside, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next
I&ICE OF ment Zone 7. and more uartieulmrlv PUBLIC HEARING CT SZ-S/PUD 9243/SDP %?4 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE “Ll”
Drive and Edgerare Way, in.the PC
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carl-
Zone. in Local Facilltier Yen*
rbad will hold I publle hearlnp at the City Counell Chsmben, 1100 Carlabad Wllage Drive. Carlrbad. CaIlfomia. at (1:OO PM.. on Tuesday. September 15. lS82. to consider approval ofa Negative Declaration. Tentative Tract Map. Planned Unit Development end Site Develop meat Plan, for the constructlon of 58 townhome residential dwelling unlta on property generally located on the northwest comer ofRarwleh
described as:
Inc.
- Let 1 of Carlsbed Tract No. S3.w. In the City of Carlrbad. County of
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
San Diego. State of Californle. aCwdi&oMapthercoCNo. llt3&I, tiled in the Otllee of the San Dlego 1 Counb Recorder, on May@, IDB?. Ifyou challenge the Negative De- ela+on. Tentative Tract Yap. Planned Unit Development l n#or Site Development Plan In court, you mw he Ilmlted to rahlng only *ore isruea ralaed by you or some one elee at the public hearing db scribed in tble notice, or in urttten rorreepoadenee delivered to the City of Carlrbad City Clerk’s Oftlee at, or prior to, the public hearing Applicant: Sundanee Finanbhl.
preceding the date of publication of the
notice hereinafter referred to; and that the
notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy, has been published in each regular
and entire issue of said newspaper and not
in any supplement thereof on the follow-
ing dates, to-wit:
September 03
19-
I certify under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California on the 3rd
day of September, 1992
L” - Clerk of the Printer
u sltuz septemtter 3. lmz
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CT 92-5/PUD 92-6/SDP 92-5 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE "L-l"
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, September 15, 1992, to consider
approval of a Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development and Site Development Plan, for the construction of 58 townhome residential
dwelling units on property generally located on the north west corner of Harwich Drive and Edgeware Way, in the PC Zone, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7, and more particularly described as:
Lot 1 of Carlsbad Tract No. 85-30, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 11826, filed in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder, on May 9, 1987.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development and/or Site Development 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 correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad
City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: Sundance Financial, Inc. PUBLISH: September 3, 1992
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad wilI hold
a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 15, 1992, to consider approval of a Negative
Declaration, Tentative Map, Planned Unit Development and Site Development Plan, to
construct 58 townhome residential dwelling units on property generally located on the
north west corner of Harwich Drive and Edgeware Way in the PC Zone in Local Facilities
Management Plan Zone 7 and more particularly described as:
Lot 1 of Carlsbad Tract No. 85-30 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California: According to Map thereof No. 11826, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 9, 1987.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after July 8,1992. If you have
any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department‘at 438-1161, ext. 4455.
If you challenge the Tentative Map/Planned Unit Development/Site Development Plan in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City
of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 92-S/PUD 92-6/SDP 92-5
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE “L-l”
PUBLISH: JULY 2, 1992 *
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE “L-l” / CT 92-5/PUD 92-6/SDP 92-5
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of
Thank you.
MARTY ORENYAK
Assistant City Manager
812u92
Date
< . . 0 82 . c 7 * 4 ., / --- 0 .‘I ‘.) .T.
_I
HC-B
Ja9”z w w 0 0 UY
W
n @Q
*m
I-Q- CD
Fz
4 en
:
0
r
4 (0 T
w IQ N 0 CI
r-4 0 wo tn 03 WS
EL4 m- IpIp* I-Y
IO al r/l 0 P- SO
E*Z
:r h)
z
2 v 1 c
w Fs
8 2’ d 00
w
E
0
co
w
z
0
cn
nW4
P, mo
c( WV
rws
km7
FXP,
4 c-0
rmv VI fu VSXlr p, P. t-3 an mr CtfD 0 *a*
ON 0 a
2 Y
aa*
r&J LD m”a 1 w c-l- 3
Er mP,
& @O YS
W
f: 0 03
W
:
W
z 0 0,
W
f: 0 m
0
0
0)
0
ca
W t4 0 0 -_
-J -\ - 3 9 ? 3 - \
c3hl*
0 009
c( m*
I-NS
v1
V&
EL
d&J
*mm
cji-
%i m
cJN34
P, WrD
c1 uc(
O-4
0 wo
ID -s
P, 005 c w !-J. cn Y v1 cnm
x CD W t: : 0 w Y
W
W
z 0 w
W
fz
W
N
W
N
z
w
W
E 0 w
W
N 0 0 w z w W
W
x WC3 0 -P, 0 09 a b-w CI
w cx JP, alJc3
CINr
e, WY
9 ms
l-a-5
c3NW
P, wc(
c( o--m
r-s
v1
V&
WY
nnc3
0
ns CA z-m 3 c(rD
cs
pj
a
W
z 0 W
W
z QI v
W
r:
W N
z W
W
Et 0 W
W
N
z W
W
N
z W 0 W
nNU
P, WP,
c( mc(
POO
VI Y
V*
054
an
OW
as (0
*ID c(
clue
5:
ID
w * w .
E
N
0 z pn
W
N W
r:
W
z 0
W
z 0 * 0
cl)N4
P, 00
1 as l--S rn
V*ZC P’S aae
d4
*x CD
i:
-.
W
r: 0 W
W
z 0
W
ONm
P, WC
c( cl* l-WV
burn PSS aa-
OPJ clscc *m T
s m
vlvrw P, wc( s QIOJ -0.
u CI. w w
::a, ov OFi
F- d CS Kl
r:
0 0 a
n
w
N
z W
W
N
c
w
-4
w W
N
z
=: 0 W w
0-q 0 WP, CD OS p, o- F. 3 ul rG ci. P, nc r ID CI w ma ml-VI * f+
::
.
W
N
W
N
0
N
f-
W
N
z W
0 w *
C3-g
P, wo
c( w’v
cl&l-n E wo 5 OS
0
Y c‘;; *o 0
Y5
W
n&
EuplY
K c1
nz
*
F
F
a
z
m
0
w n
N CI.
QI PJ *
0” ID
MWc3
pl w-i
s OP, 0 l-J*
z x 2;’
KO 03-I
2 0 * P, Vlr 5-w $ CD
2
W
N F
- s
;; :
2-Pr
m .PY
E: wo
5 OS
: c;
*oo
55
w -
m ??m
KY
3s c3
PP, cl5 v
* K
F
a
W-Z 0 NW.
c @-CI
ZNM
P, wz w* c a
s *o
CL
PCI -0 c
-CP,
(Par
w
*z
c::
m
r
ONI Ip w w
c( *- WWF
ZrnE
PSn aw
rr
CL-
Zr a0
r: E.
4:
m
c( P-
c:
W 2
WWC P, ww s o- or m E x cn
‘X0
OS-4
ID
r3-i c)
* P, tn-
I-P
4
10
2
X
W
+
rJ
w x N
- ;
0’ :
ZrnZ SJJ aw cl
“L?
*c OOY OC am
22
Yr
:
Y a
W
N W
N
2 W
W
N W
z
W
z 0 w
N
z W
0 0 W z W 0 W
c’c-4 0 00
c -3
Z‘ E
5
mrJ3Z
P, WP
T mc(
- N W
cn
VtL
B’S5 nw
-4
ESW
05
WNW
r-D u-1
arc 0 00
LJ
m
oow
WE-C?-
XL
000,
3s 5 a
2
XN’3
0 -Jv
ClNvI
w WV
1 w-
-0-G ul
v m L’
Em: z
-ID
mm v
*E co
09
c‘ P, 0
-ii n r+CJ-
P. r, P- 0 5 :
z z 0
W
N
0
0 W
W
N
W w -I
N
W
W
: 0 W
W
N
z W
0 0 W
c3NW P, WCS c( Q\c WQ\O VI CD
zL?+ aw -IF CICDY
*c 5 004 OP, a
c2 Pa w w
‘2 m w
C1N4
P, 000
cs -v
m-u
P wm 3 -Jv
wc(
urpl
Kcr op CI.
OWu;rc
rl&
5rc( r, l%N v1
c W ul
z ul
-NJ cll
W
z
W
z 0 W
W
0” . 0 W
W
N
El 0
W
N
0
ki
W
z 0 w
W
N
E W
0 W
1 --I .
--. c? - ----
_,i..
ONe
Q, wr-
c( -3
FNS
VI Y
fix a I.J. 0
C(-
Cl--
3- P.09
(DP,
Lx
a
z
ID
ON4 0 wo 1053 -0s WJ
vm*
ESQ-
4LJ
*E P’ oc*
: r”. 0
2: q
m l-n
N??
v1
3c W : ti s 0 W
w
z 0
W
W
N
W
z 0
W
W W
N N
. W
2 0 W
z W z z
W W
mN3jk: 0 w w-
T Noel
-0%
Llm
wwun
a w. 3‘
1s CJmm
* w. c1.
ma
::
mNX P, WP, 1*- l-00 VJ 0 v-w ZVPP a P-
TW
xl?- m -* ac: 0
zz (DC0
w P.
;:
3‘
W
CTN34
P, NJpl
3 OS VI w c( ws I-6rD
m-ti
ETq
PPX a P.
22 Lb c1* 0 t-on
K
5 t-D
U-J- w- Y
ELl
OVI r+r
c3V(D
*v
2 ID
m a
* w w IDnl
a
P, S P* ID
w - W
z 0 W
W
z 0 W
W
z 0 W
W
z 0 W
W
=: 0 W
N
0
0
N
0 0 W W
nNGJ
plwo
‘I N’i
rcra
v1
Vd ti,P, a c.r* x
c3NW
P, 053
9 ws -Na
OY
VS
Qp13
a P. a
LLl
* w
(PX -0
ar
I-
x&
i
::
P
w N
cJN,3c P, WD CI 43 -Q--CD VI J vm I=& C’
-7F m tD w
*ccc OVI 00 a=t
r: Pc( w
>
.Y
: 0 -i
i
-0 A. I $ z
nn
5::
t3
W
z u-l
W
N
0 0
W
N
0
0
w . N
z
W W N
=:
W N
z
z 0
-. I -- $3 3 :...a 3 -‘.
3 .
mNU
0 WfD
-$ NW
WC-l
k&
p, w CD
a3
ccc3
car9
YE
- 5s’
$:
m
v)mr 0, *w s WC w P* u s w. CrJw
ZL 0 l-m (PUQ
zyID 2 -!a
Ei c1.
guarn w. x
S r s
7; c 0 c(
W s
z 0 W
W
r: 0 W
W
ki 0 W
W
: 0 W
W
N w
N
N
W
z 0 * w
W
N
N
w
QI
wxm
5PY 00s
wm
VJ I m
P, **
c3NP P, wm CI N W '-0s m
VW: (u tQ w
0-n 0 -Jv CD N W -Corn ul Vd
-NV
m c
ii c.ak
w 0 0
a*
CDOY
~cfJl3 Lb s-t w c,
w
P,
amtl
s
Xfm
?IP’E:
ccnaJ
PO0 s
s I ol-
F
rl c? sf3
%i
z
x PX !=-c fB *:y
0” wo
N 0
0 W
W
z W w
W N
z W
W
N
00 W
W m QI 0
W
W
z 0 W
W N
0
0 W
W
N
0
:
0 -0
n 0’2
CD NS
P em
3
fJJ *!a
GLJ
ID mw
1S (3 rro
*a’v,
m-X P w w 1 WI? -053 WI V& &I cI* c a3 rcL
EL
mNc3
P, WV
1 NO
-mEI
P, kcuJ
EZ a
&X
*ccn 00 5-
x4
iTin
0 5vI
2
pl m
z
5 w (0 c-r z - 0
h rc c1. S W
: 0 -*
W
z 0 -^
W
N
0
0
W W
4: r:
W
N
z c VI
w
E 0 09
W
: 0 03
W w w
z 0 03
.
0 0 0)
clwm m VI- CI or-0 r-0 cn 0
cl-x 0 WP, c( tQ- W-rLn
SW u
c-CT -0
W Id W
f:
W t-2 0
W
8 0 00 00 a, 0 Co 0
co
. ul e
W
z 0 “c
W 0
h) f-
W
2 0
W
z 0 .-
W N 00
.
-.- -1
3 -7 > d -- q 9
w
z 0
co
rNz 0 Q\ I-J. s 00 w 03s
tnrii mEu- Pa 004 uw we
Lx
201 Y
z
ii a I.J.
s
g aJ - WI
ciwr.4 P, ocr - -m -w-G ul u&s S- afD w
&a, *cc
:iz A7 0 Vll- *y: S
r (P E P- m
.
c3Nr P, w w -i ws -ma
EL Q,
wrr am SLIJ OU- *1m
0": xm 9 cn r+
zvltn 0 on 9 wm c* woco P J
gy
-mu
xts t -- 0 -0
Ls
02 Lm
W
z 0 -4
W N 0 0 CQ
W N 0 0 43 0
al
c3*4
0, wm 1 wm -mm
cn
UtfG
0 u’y
nw
UJ??
P60,
rdm
!-(D
7
v
I
2
0
s
m-4 P, wo
nNr p, w bJ. nom
P, oa
1 NO
-0cl
VI Y
UZ
:“c 4
vlq,
$z.w
90
1DS
S
WAY
4-t
2 00
P,
5
W N 0 0 CD
W N
z 03
W N 0 0 00
w
N
5:
cu
W W N N
=:
l.d
Q,
_- --
m-@
~~~
0 c1*
u P* x t;
El0 03m
4 cl * CL HP, 4 fD
2
X P. C
F
w x N
- z - m
O&W
01 Q\c
-f-a
r-40
m -
iEm as 0,
W N W
z
W
z
W
2 3 0 0
-.u -. . \ 2. a
c)WU 0 mo 9 ws --S
Lc P,
B P* b a-(P
&4 P Pm c ‘I- CD we
5;
m
ONX
x% -N3 WI
U&
w --
am
514
xcr
L
XP,
m
et
a w 0, w
N
z
aJ
W N
:.
.oo
z S
0 00
flW7, w 0 P. 1 -n l-033 P, :09 w-a am sn
EP, 0
y
cnc( I-‘0 S
u
5 w
nN%
p1 wc(
c( WDP,
-ws
z 0 2.
w -VI
PIm S4
Kc?
:4 XID
ONX 01 w P. c( -0 -0-u
S”: P -- czm 1%
kz?-
flWP
0 or0
‘I 00
l--l3
kc
wc(a
am
rOX
CL W
x
@
VJnl t-‘O
J
0
;I
w 0 N ?P
0
0
Q,
W
N
00
m
W
E 0 w
E-2 =r*P, P* w a I-’ 0 w. *OS
L’ m m
cs *
s3
s-
K u n c(
z: r,
g
L W 0 QI 0 f-
0 0 0
clN!S P, WDP, *corn
XNZ I-J. cr, @I v1 OS
flNP
0 w w.
c( wcn
-NP)
ul
uln4
KL¶
s w.
OUC
YE
03
x
m
ct
W
z 0 Q,
W
: 0 0)
W
0” 0 m
W
z 0 0,
’ - . *’
-.. 3 i -4 , \ 9
c)W4
al QIO
osm
X W I-
w x
N 0
- a c,
0
r. CI.
z 0
cn
w e
W
22 0 co
W
N
z
03
W
N
z
00
W
N
z
co
W
N
=:
m
1e 7w )W -0
c3W4 P, 00 3 -43 l-03 07 uxw PJP, a- 4 c’l 0 t-J. p, >OY 3m cl u c(
WNX (0 v-0 a-f 0 WP, 5 a& 00 np, WX mmm w ms ntD3 u - I-r.
&S *cs *
rza Jr0 P* an WS
mwm Lu 00,
m F
* m
I-’ l (o
‘1
1
aY 4 a 0 ~1. m *n v, 3-w
u Z’ cs
m
J CI. P
2 a (0 c( W
:
E
W
z 0 0,
w u: N W N
z 0,
W N W
8 0 00
W 0
N
2
0
0
co
0
0
03
--
nWX 0 Q\ !A-
CJ u-0 -QIU 07 ux:
Pw- al ce c3 P* *o r 10
u 2. c(
fit c P. 1
z
mWc3 P, 00 c( oa CIW
$0 z
P, l--P atD In mu* LPT s
:s x CI- D,
::W
:
;:
? 5
W
z 0 00
m c1. w
SJ mop (0
*
UO
73
P-
I
z: W c
W
QI la’
W W
z . N
0 =:
& ca
.
W
N
z ml
W
N
is
m
, ,-$‘ --7” I ---7
t . . 2’ ?J ‘-. ’ :*I) pj k ..9
mwr p, m c1.
c( ms -*a
SX P
tx"
c3 2. z *or* 3r
W
N
W
8 0 0,
0 0 a3
-NY
G-l
UJ wq 0, WY s OP, 0 P* U w* SK
X0 osm
o& * 0, WI- *P, d m
2
X P- -
t;
W N 2 - Eil w-6 0 ;
W
z 0 Co
XU-- c cow Y ow e-0
:* x ?I WP,
t--m
ornr
s urn
ta%
m -3
P
E
g
wwc e, ws Y or 0 P. u I w. x P. ID e,rr w TSCD 0 sa
4el * rnz rtm
0” ‘d rn
CsWr: @ m P. qw- ror m ux: &ma a3 clv P$P
Uo4 5s W n m
X 0
2
z w s
z 0
w . N c,
W
z 0 *