The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-02-01; City Council; 12573; Sea Gables-TY OF CARLSBAD - AG- JDA BILL 95 @k m AB#/a..(;33 TITLE: APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. 2-1-99 DECISION TO DENY A TIME EXTENSION - CITYATT DEPT. PLN SEA GABLES - CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/ HDP 93-01/V 93-02/V 93-03 RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT Resolution No. qY-37 upholding the Planning Commission denial of a time extension for Carlsbad Tract 92-09, Planned Unit Development 92-09, Hillside Development Permit 93-01, Variance 93- 02, and Variance 93-03. I ITEM EXPLANATION On December 1, 1993, the Planning Commission denied a request by the applicant for an extension to the processing time for a proposed 16-lot/l5-unit Planned Unit Development located at the western terminus of Chinquapin adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard. The Planning Commission then denied the project. California Government Code Sections 65950 and 65957 establish maximum time limits for approving or disapproving development projects when a Negative Declaration is adopted. The City has six months from the date on which the application is accepted as complete to make a decision on the project. This time limit may be extended once for a period not to exceed 90 days. The subject project (prepared with a Negative Declaration) was deemed complete on March 10, 1993. The six months expired on September 10, 1993. The allowed go-day extension expired on December 8, 1993. Major issues remained unresolved at that time. California Government Code Section 65956 (b) states, "In the event that a lead agency... fails to act to approve or disapprove a development permit within the time limits required..., the failure to act shall be deemed approval of the permit application for the development project". Based upon the above requirements of the California Government Code (CGC) sections 65950 and 659587 mandating timely government actions on development proposals and the potential consequence of automatic approval if the established processing time limits are exceeded (CGC Set 65956(b)), the Planning Commission decided that it should take action on the project at the December 1, 1993 hearing. Therefore, the Commission on a 7-O vote, denied a motion for continuance. Subsequently, the Commission found that the proposed project did not comply with many City policies and codes and unanimously denied the project. Please refer to the attached staff i report and Planning Commission minutes of December 1, 1993 for further information regarding the project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental review was conducted for the proposed project, and a Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director on September 16, 1993. - PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL HO. M, 5-9 3 FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact is anticipated from Council action on this appeal. EXHIBITS 1. City Council Resolution No. 94-39 2. Location Map 3. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3582, 3583, 3584, 3585, 3586, and 3597 4. Staff Report dated December 1, 1993, with attachments 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated December 1, 1993 6. Letter of Appeal I /I EXHIBIT 1 1 2 3 4 5 RESOLUTION NO. 94-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING A PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A TIME EXTENSION FOR CARLSBAD TRACT, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND VARIANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF CHINQUAPIN ADJACENT TO CARLSBAD BOULEVARD. CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HDP 93-01/V 93-02/V 93-03 - SEA GABLES - (APPEAL) 6 WHEREAS, on December 1, 1993, the Carlsbad Planning 7 Commission voted to deny a request for an extension to the 8 processing time for a 16-lot/15 unit Planned Unit Development: 9 adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 3582, approving a 10 Negative Declaration; and adopted Planning Commission Resolution 11 Nos. 3583, 3584, 3585, 3586, and 3597, denying Carlsbad Tract 92- 12 09, PlannedUnitDevelopment92-09, Hillside Development Permit 93- 13 01, Variance 93-02, and Variance 93-03; and 14 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on 15 February 1 I 1994 considered an appeal of the Planning 16 Commission decision to deny a time extension for the referenced 17 PM ect , which subsequently lead to the denial of CT 92-09/PUD 92- 18 OB/HDP 93-01/V 93-02/V 93-03. 19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Councii 20 of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in 23 Resolution Nos. 3582, 3583, 3584, 3585, 3586 and 3597 on file with 24 the City Clerk constitute the findings of the City Council in this 25 matter. 26 27 28 . . . . . . - , PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the ity Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 1st 3 ay of February , 1994, by the following vote, to wit: 4 AYES:Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin, Nygaard and Finnila NOES: None 6 ABSENT: None 7 8 9 R TTEST: 10 11 12 4LETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clera 13 (SEAL) II 14 15 16 17 18 I! 19 II 20 21 22 23 24 II 25 26 27 28 EXHBIT 2. AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON SEA GABLES CT92-09/Pln92-091 mP g?i%F-02’ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3582 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND VARIANCE FOR A 15-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT TO BE DEVELOPED ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF CHINQUAPIN AVENUE. CASE NAME: SEA GABLES CASE NO: CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HDP 93-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of December, 1993, 9 II hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and I 10 11 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, 12 13 and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all 14 factors relating to the Negative Declaration. 15 /I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission 16 as follows: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “ND”, dated September 16, 1993, and “PII”, dated June 30, 1993, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinm: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. 24 2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project. 25 26 27 28 3. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly impacted by this project. . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 1c 11 1% 1;5 14 15 ltz 11 1E 1s 2c 21 2: 21 24 2: 2c 2: 2t PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of December, 1993 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Welshons, Savary, Erwin & Hall. None. None. None. ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMItdER PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3582 BAILEY NOBI$ Chairperson CARLSBAD PLkNING COMMISSION LX- - NOTICE OF COMPLETIOF- nail to: State Clearinghouse, 1401. ,ei. .treet, Rm. 121, Sacramanto, CA 95814 - 916, -0613 SW ROTE Relou: 1 SCH t Project Title: Sea Gables - CT 92-OO/PUD 92-09/HDP 93-01 Lead Agency: City of Carl&ad Contact Person: Elaine Blackburn Street Address: 2075 Las Palmas Drive Phone: (619)438-1161. ext. 4471 City: Carlsbad Zip: 92009 county: San Dieso _-_-_-___________---____________________--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROJECT LDCATIOR: county: San Dieso City/Nearest Comnunity: Carl&ad Cross Streets: Chincwapin Avenue and Garfield Drive Total Acres: 1.57 Assessor's Parcel No. 206-070-04/206-013-12 thru 17 Section: TW. Range: Base: Uithin 2 Miles: State Hwy t: Uaterways: Awe Hedionda Lagoon Airports: Railways: Schools: __._____________________________________---------------.------------------------------------.------------------------------------ DoamY TYPE CEQA: - NOP - Supplement/Subsequent REPA: OTHER: - Joint Document Early Cons - Final Docunant x Neg Dee EIR (Prior SCH No.) - Other -Draft EIS T Other -Draft EIR - FONSI .--_____________________________________---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOCAL ACTIOR TYPE - General Plan Update Specific Plan - Rezone - Annexation - General Plan Amendment z Paster Plan - Prezone - Redevelopment - General Plan Element X,Planned Unit Development Use Permit Coastal Permit - Comwnity Plan - Site Plan x Land Division (Subdivision, r Other HDP Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) ---------------------,---.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEVELDPMETIT TYPE X Residential: Units 15 Acres 1 57 - - Water Facilities: Type l&D - - Office: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees - Transportation: Type Comwrcial: Acres Mineral 1 Industrial: Sq. Ft. - Errploy=s - Mining: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees 1 Power: Type Uatts - Educational - Uaste Treatment: Type - Recreational - Hazardous Yaste: Type - Other: ,..,.,,,,-,,-,,,------..-,,.,..,,,,,,,,,----------------------------------~--------------------------------.-------..------------ PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED II DOUBWT X Aesthetic/Visual - Flood Plain/Flooding - Schools/Universities - Uater Quality - Agricultural Land - Forest Land/Fire Hazard - Septic Systems - Uater Supply/ - Air Ouality - Geologic/Seismic - Sewer Capacity Ground Uater Archaeological/Historical - Minerals X Coastal Zone - Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading -Uetland/Riparian Noise 1 Population/Hwsing Balance - Solid Uaste - Uildlife - Drainage/Absorption Toxic/Hazardous - Grouth Inducing - Economic/Jobs - Public Services/Facilities x Traffic/Circulation - Landuse Fiscal - Recreation/Parks - Vegetation - Cumulative Effect -Other ----_------------------.-------------------------------------------------------.---------------------------------------------. Present Lmd Use/Zoning/kncrel Plan Use Undeveloped/R-3/RH -- -________.-___.-_-__---.--------------------------------------.--------.-..-..........----....-.--.---.-------------.----------- Project Description A 15 unit 16 lot residential condominiun project RDTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all neu projects. If ,a SCH number already exists for a project (e.g. from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft docunent) please fill it in. Revised October 1989 NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Western terminus of Chinquapin Avenue, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A lhnit, 16-lot residential condominium project 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, C&bad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4471. DATED: CASE NO: SEPTEMBER 16,1993 CT 92-09/PUD 92.09/HDP 93-01 Planning Director CASE NAME: SEA GABLES PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 1993 EB:km 2075 Las Palmas Drive l Cartsbad, California 92009-l 576 - (619) 438-l 161 @ A - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NO. CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HDP 93-01 DATE: JUNE 30.1993 1. CASE NAME: Sea Gables 2. APPLICANT: Golden Sunset Ltd. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 11315 Ranch0 Bernard0 Rd. #133, San Dieno. CA 92127 6191741-9921 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 25. 1992 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 15unit. 16-lot residential condominium nroiect ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist 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 significant 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 significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings ‘YES-s@” 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 determined significant. - PHYSICAL FJVVIRO~ WILL- THE PROPOSAL DtRECTLY OR INDKIECTLY: YES YES big) (insig) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure 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 in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 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 surface water, ground water or public water supply? Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? NO x x x x x x x x x x x -2- C BIOLOGICALENVLRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DlRECTLY OR INDIRJXTLY: 12. 13. 141 15. 16. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass,’ microflora and aquatic plants)? Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop’or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? YES YES NO big) (insig) x x x Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO big) (insig) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? x x x x -3- WILL THE PROPOSAL DlRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? bigl (insigl 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 tr&ic? Increase traffic .hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? Affect the quality or quantity of . _ . _ _ . x x x x x x x x x X x x X existing recreational opportunities? 4- x MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE v/ILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDRECTLY: YES YES big) (insig) 33. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 34. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) 35. 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.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? NO x x x x - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is for 15 new condominium units (16 lots) on a 1.57 acre site on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard just north of the SDG&E power plant. The site is currently undeveloped except for one small single family residence on a portion of the site. The central portion of the site is relatively flat with a steady downward slope toward the west. There are steep slopes downward to adjacent properties along the western and southern boundaries. Properties to the north and east are developed with residential uses. On the west, the property is bounded by Carlsbad Boulevard, a major arterial street. The northernmost portion of Agua Hedionda Lagoon lies just south of the subject site. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT The proposed project would not have potentially significant impacts upon the physical environment. A total of approximately 6,000 cubic yards of grading (including about 5,500 cubic yards of export) is proposed. There are no beach sands, rivers or streambeds on the site. The lagoon to the south would not be impacted by the proposed development as the project would be required to direct all runoff to the storm drain system. Adverse effects on ambient air quality would be of a small incremental nature for the proposed 15 residential units. Structures would be required to provide setbacks such that air movement, temperature, etc. would not be affected. The proposed 15 units would not use substantial energy or natural resources. Due to previously disturbance, the site is unlikely to contain significant archaeologica.Vpaleonto1ogica.l resources. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT The site has been previously disturbed and contains no vegetation with the exception of occasional small patches of grass and some iceplant (on the slope area). Adjacent sites to the north, east, and west have been developed with residential uses and a major street. The adjacent property to the south, containing the northernmost portion of Agua Hedionda Lagoon is currently undeveloped. The proposed development presents no threat of introducing new species into a natural area. It also presents no threat to the migration/movement of native animals. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT The Agua Hedionda segment of the Local Coastal Plan requires provision of a public access scenic vista point at this location. The project is being revised to eliminate the gates and provide adequate signage to satisfy the vista point requirement. When completed, the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in noise or glare. Some temporary noise impacts would occur during construction. No risk of explosion is anticipated with this residential project. The project would not substantially alter the density of the population, as it is consistent with the General Plan designation for the area. It would provide additional housing to meet current demand. The traffic to be generated by the proposed project (120 ADT) would also not be substantial. All parking requirements would be satisfied onsite. -6- - ANAL% OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alternate sites for the proposed project, and g) no project alternative. a> W c> 4 d fl g) Phased development would not be feasible for a project of this size, and would not offer any environmental benefits. The project is being re-designed to eliminate the gates and provide adequate signage for the public access vista point. The re-designed plan will be consistent with the Agua Hedionda segment of the Local Coastal Program. The proposed scale of development is generally compatible with surrounding uses, which include condominium and single family residential developments. However, the project does include development of a portion of the site which would have to be vacated (see b above). A design generally similar in scale but which preserves the public access view corridor would provide additional environmental benefits by being consistent with the Agua Hedionda segment of the Local Coastal Program. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan designation of the site and with surrounding development. An alternate use would not offer environmental benefits. Delayed development of the site would not offer environmental benefits. The site is surrounded by parcels already developed with similar uses. The proposed development would not preclude development of similar uses on other sites. In its undeveloped state, the site provides a totally unobstructed view corridor with full public access. However, the site is designated by the General Plan for high density residential uses and development is anticipated. The required view corridor can be provided while still allowing the site to develop. -7- - DETERMINATION (TO Be Completed By The planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: x I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLJIRATION will be prepared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant 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 significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. - 1 fmd the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. if’ /’ _.- 7 2 Date if To- a/?/1 f- ’ &.‘/C 3-G ’ Signature r - Phnning Director LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE1 ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature EB:km -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 h PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3583 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A 15-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF CHINQUAPIN AVENUE. ’ CASE NAME: SEA GABLES CASE NO: CT 92-09 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit: A portion of Block W of Palisades #2, according to Map thereof No. 1803 and Lots 3-8 of Palisades, according to Map thereof No. 1747, 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 1st day of December, 1993, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. Bl That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES CT 92-09, based on the following findings: Findims: 1. In order to develop the project as proposed, Variances are required. The required findings for those Variances cannot be made. . 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 - h 2. The proposed project does not satisfy the requirements of the Planned Unit Development regulations (Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). 3. The proposed project does not satisfy the requirements of the Hillside Development regulations (Chapter 21.95 of the Carl&ad Municipal Code). 4. Significant unresolved issues remain, which would require a redesign of the project. These issues include failures to comply with City ordinances, standards, and policies as identified in Exhibit “Z”, staff’s issues letter dated November 1, 1993, included herein by reference. Any redesign could, in turn, result in additional issues not cumntly identified. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of December, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Welshons, Savary, Erwin & Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. BAILEY NOB@ Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILEER PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3583 -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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3584 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A 15-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF CHINQUAPIN AVENUE. CASE NAME: SEA GABLES CASE NO: PUD 92-09 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit: A portion of Block W of Palisades #2, according to Map thereof No. 1803 and Lots 3-8 of Palisades, according to Map thereof No. 1747, ’ 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 I WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 1st day of December, 1993, ~ 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 1 factors relating to the 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 DENIES PUD 92-09, based on the following findings: Findin~: 1. In order to develop the project as proposed, Variances are required. The required findings for those Variances cannot be made. . . . . h 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Significant unresolved issues remain, which would require a redesign of the project. These issues include failures to comply with City ordinances, standards, and policies as identified in Exhibit “Z”, staffs issues letter dated November 1, 1993, included herein by reference. Any redesign could, in turn, result in additional issues not currently identified. The granting of this permit will adversely affect, and will not be consistent with, the zone code, and all adopted plans of the city and other governmental agencies because the project does not provide a common recreation area as required by the Planned Unit Development regulations (Chapter 21.45 of the Municipal Code) and does not comply with the. intent of the Hillside Development regulations (Chapter 21.95 of the Municipal Code). The project includes structures located over the top of the slope. The proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the neighborhood and the community because the area is designated for residential uses by the General Plan, and the proposed type of use is a residential use. The use will 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 because the project design does not comply with the applicable regulations and standards which would be applied to other proposed PUD developments in the area. The proposed planned development does not meet all of the minimum development standards set forth in Section 21.45.090 because the project does not provide a 40- foot setback from Carlsbad Boulevard, does not provide a common recreation area, and does not provide a S-foot front yard setback from the private drive. The proposed planned development does not meet all of the design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.080 because it does not provide the required recreational area amenity. The project is not designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural topography of the site because it includes structures to be located along and extending over the top of the slope. The proposed project does not maintain and enhance significant natural resources on the site because there are no significant natural resources on the site. The proposed design and the density of the developed portion of the site is not compatible with surrounding development and does create a disharmonious or disruptive element to the neighborhood because the project is designed to extend PC RESO NO. 3584 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 1% 12 14 15 16 17 If 1s 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - over the top of the slope and would be located approximately 16 feet closer to the street than the neighboring project. 11. The proposed- project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with the project and does not dominate the project. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of December, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Welshons, Savary, Erwin & Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. BAILEY NOBI%, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3584 -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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3585 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A 15-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF CHINQUAPIN AVENUE. CASE NAME: SEA GABLES CASE NO: HDP 93-01 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit: A portion of Block W of Palisades #2, according to Map thereof No. 1803 and Lots 3-8 of Palisades, according to Map thereof No. 1747, 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 1 st day of December, 1993, consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Hillside Development Permit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES HDP 93-01, based on the following findings: Findiwzs: 1. . . . . In order to develop the project as proposed, Variances are required. The required findings for those Variances cannot be made. - 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. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Significant unresolved issues remain, which would require a redesign of the project. These issues include failures to comply with City ordinances, standards, and policies as identified in Exhibit Z, staffs issues letter dated November 1,1993, included herein by reference. Any redesign could, in turn, result in additional issues not currently identified. Hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages. Undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 4O%, have been properly identified on the constraints map. The development proposal is not consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, because the proposed project is designed to project over the top of the steep slope area, and therefore does not preserve the natural appearance of the slope. The proposed grading and development will occur in the undevelopable portions of the site because the structures at the southwestern comer of the site extend over the top of the slope and development occurs along the top of the slope such that extensive retaining walls are required. The project design and lot configuration does not minimize disturbance of hillside lands because grading and development are proposed into the steep slope area. The proposed project does not substantially conform to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the hillside development guidelines manual because it proposes development extending over the top of the slopes. PC PESO NO. 3585 -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 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of December, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Welshons, Savary, Erwin & Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. /q~-ue BAILEY NOB Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: . V MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3585 -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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3586 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAIUSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 40 FOOT SETBACK FROM CARLSBAD BOULEVARD ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF CHINQUAPIN AVENUE. CASE NAME: SEA GABLES CASE NO: V 93-02 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit: A portion of Block W of Palisades #2, according to Map thereof No. 1803 and Lots 3-8 of Palisades, according to Map thereof No. 1747, 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 1st day of December, 1993, 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 V 93-02. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES V 93-02, based on the following findings: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. 2. 3. 4. . . . . Findings: Significant unresolved issues remain, which would require a redesign of the project. These issues include failures to comply with City ordinances, standards, and policies as identified in Exhibit Z, staffs issues letter dated November 1,1993, included herein by reference. Any redesign could, in turn, result in additional issues not currently identified. There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances ,or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. The subject site includes an aggregation of several smaller lots, none of which have any unusual configuration or condition which would make the site difficult to develop to the existing standards. The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question. While some other properties along Carlsbad Boulevard have been built in the past with a smaller setback from the street, those projects were approved prior to the requirement for the 4-O-foot setback. Therefore, no variance was required. (The PUD ordinance was amended to include the 40-foot setback requirement January, 1987.) Were those properties to be developed today as PUD’s, they would be subject to the 40-foot requirement. The project immediately north of the subject project has a setback of 23 feet from the existing right-of-way line. The applicant is proposing structures at 5 feet from the existing right-of-way line (30 feet from the proposed right-of-way line). The variance would allow the applicant’s proposed structures to be located approximately 16 feet closer to the street than the neighboring project was allowed. The only reason the applicant needs the variance is to allow the proposed development to extend further westward into currently existing public right-of-way. The granting of such variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. According to the Scenic Corridor Guidelines, Carlsbad Boulevard is a Scenic Corridor of special importance because it runs through the entire City and provides unique views of the City to visitors. The North Beach Plannir$TrafIic Study also cites the importance of sensitive site design in the area. The granting of the requested variance would be contrary to these goals. The variance would also allow the project to be built in a manner inconsistent with the Hillside Development Regulations. PC PESO NO. 3586 -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 5. The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan because the area is designated for residential uses and the proposed project is a residential use. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of December, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Welshons, Savary, Erwin & Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. BAILEY NC&LE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER PLANNING DIRECTOR 1 PC RESO NO. 3586 -3- - 1 2 3 4 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3597 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE REQUIRED AISLE WIDTHS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF CHINQUAPIN AVENUE. CASE NAME: SEA GABLES CASE NO: V 93-03 6 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit: A portion of Block W of Palisades #2, according to Map thereof No. 1803 and Lots 3-8 of Palisades, according to Map thereof No. 1747, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 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 1st day of December, 1993, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to V 93-03. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES V 93-03, based on the following findings: a 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 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findinns: Significant unresolved issues remain, which would require a redesign of the project. These issues include failures to comply with City ordinances, standards, and policies as identified in Exhibit “Z”, staffs issues letter dated November 1, 1993, included herein by reference. Any redesign could, in turn, result in additional issues not currently identified. There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. The subject site includes an aggregation of several smaller lots, none of which have any unusual configuration or condition which would make the site difficult to develop to existing standards. The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question because the reduction of the private drive width is not allowed to any other property by right. A variance would be required for any PUD project proposing a private drive of less than 30 feet. The granting of such variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because the reduction could set a precedent for other such reductions. The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan because the area is designated for residential uses and the proposed project is a residential development. PC RESO NO. 3597 -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 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of December, 1993, ’ by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Welshons, Savary, Erwin & Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. _ . &n&& BAILEY NOtiE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3597 -3- DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 1. RECOMMENDATION EXHiBlT 4 APPLICATIG, _ COMPLETE DATE: MARCH 10, 1993 (extended) STAFF PLANNER: ELAINE BLACKBURN 0 4 STAFF REPORT DECEMBER 1, 1993 PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT CX 92-09/PUD 92-CWHDP 93-01/V 93-02/V 93-03 - SEA GABLES - Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, HlJside Development Permit, and two Variances to develop a 15-unit, 16-lot residential condominium project on property at the western terminus of Chinquapin Avenue within Local Facilities Management Zone 1, That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3582, APPROVING a Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No’s. 3583,3584, 3585, 3586, and 3597 DENYING CT 92-09, PUD 92-09, HDP 93-01, V 93-02 and V 93-03. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The proposed project is for a 15-u&16-lot condominium development on 1.27 acres. Each dwelling unit would contain approximately 1885 square feet of living space and have a two-car garage. The applicant proposes to develop the project by combining several existing smaller lots into a 16-lot PUD. The proposed project design requires vacations of portions of Chinquapin Avenue (from the proposed cul-de-sac to Carlsbad Boulevard) and a 24-29 foot wide strip of Carlsbad Boulevard. The applicant is also requesting two variances from PUD standards (for required setback from Carlsbad Boulevard and for width of the private drive). The proposed project still does not comply with all City regulations and standards, even if the two variances requested are granted. In addition, the Engineering Department has.informed the applicant that the proposed cul-de-sac must be redesigned to eliminate any offsite impacts. The current design would require the dedication of new right-of-way from, and construction of sidewalks on, property not included in the proposed PUD in order to accommodate the applicant’s design. The required redesign would necessitate some redesign of the entire project. The project has been scheduled for public hearing at this time despite unresolved issues because the processing time has expired. Despite a three-month extension of processing time granted previously, and staffs repeated efforts to have the applicant address the . CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HL, 93-01/V 93-02/V 93-03 SEA GABLES DECEMBER 1, 1993 PAGE 2 issues, the proposed project proposal today is essentially unchanged from the original submittal. The project site is located at the western end of Chinquapin Avenue adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard. The project area consists of several undeveloped lots, one lot containing a single family structure to be removed, and three developed lots. The three developed lots are being included in the PUD because of the requested vacation of a portion of Cbinquapin Avenue. The three lots would have to take access from within the proposed PUD. Their incorporation into the PUD is appropriate because the proposed project would eliminate their required frontage on a dedicated street, The subject site is a relatively flat site which slopes steadily down to the west. The western and southwestern perimeters of the site contain steep slope areas. Properties to the north and east are developed with residential uses. Agua Hedionda Lagoon is south of the project site. The applicant submitted essentially the same project proposal in 1985 (Exhibit “W”, site plan). Staff review at that time identified several major issues with the proposal (Exhibit “X”, letter dated December, 1985). (Those issues were essentially the same issues staff has identified on the current application.) Staff repeatedly tried to meet with the applicant and resolve the design issues at that time. Staff notified the applicant that the project would be scheduled for hearing with a staff recommendation for denial (Exhibit “I”‘, letter dated December, 1987) because of unresolved issues and expiration of the review time. The applicant then withdrew the applications. ANALY!3S The proposed project is subject to the following plans, standards, regulations, and ordinances: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. State Planning and Zoning Law (Chapter 4, Article 5, Section 65950 & 65957) General Plan Subdivision regulations (Title 20 of the Municipal Code) R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zone regulations (Chapter 21.16 of the Municipal Code) Beach Area Overlay Zone regulations (Chapter 21.82 of the Municipal Code) Planned Unit Development regulations (Chapter 21.45 of the Municipal Code) Hillside Development regulations (Chapter 21.95 of the Municipal Code) Variance regulations (Chapter 21.50 of the Municipal Code) Scenic Corridor Guidelines North Beach Planning/Traffic Study Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan and Local Coastal Program - - CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HL, 93-01/V 93-02/-V 93-03 SEA GABLES DECEMBER 1, 1993 PAGE 3 DISCUSSION 1. STATE PLANNING AND ZONING LAW The State of California has set maximum time limits for approving or disapproving development projects. If a Negative Declaration is adopted, the City has six months from the date on which the application is accepted as complete. This time limit may be extended once for a period not to exceed 90 days. The six months expired on September 10, 1993. The extension expires December 8, 1993. The current application was submitted in November, 1992, and was deemed complete on March 10, 1993. The applicant was informed at that time that major issues had been identified. Despite several reminders from staff regarding processing time deadlines and an extension of those deadlines, no ‘resubmittals were received until September 30, 1993. The extended deadline for required public hearing will now expire and a number of issues remain unresolved. A copy of staffs latest issues letter to the applicant is attached (Exhibit “Z”). 2. GENERAL PLAN The subject site is designated for RI-I (high density residential) uses by the City’s adopted General Plan. The RH designation allows densities of 15 to 23 dwelling units per acre. The growth control point is 19 dwelling units per acre. The adopted General Plan states that the City shall not approve any residential development at a density that exceeds the growth management control point for the applicable density range without making specific findings relating to the adequacy of public facilities and quadrant growth limits. The adopted General Plan does not include any policies specifically related to development below the designated range. The Land Use Element of the draft General Plan includes a residential goal of providing for a variety of housing types and density ranges to meet the diverse economic and social requirements of residents. It further includes an Implementing Policy (Policy C.2) of requiring residential development to achieve the minimum density stipulated under the appropriate General Plan designation unless approved by a general plan amendment. The project is proposed at a net density of 11.9 dwelling units per acre, nine units below the growth control point for the RI-I designation. The density proposed is only slightly higher than the growth control point (11.5 du/ac) of the next lower General Plan designation, RMH (moderate to high density residential), which allows densities of 8 to 15 du/ac. Therefore, although the proposed project is not consistent with the draft General Plan, it is consistent with the currently adopted General Plan. C CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HLr 93-01/V 93-02/v 93-03 SEA GABLES DECEMBER 1, 1993 PAGE 4 3. SUBDMSION The proposed project can meet all of the requirements of the Subdivision regulations if the requested vacation of portions of Carlsbad Boulevard and Chinquapin Avenue are approved. The Engineering Department supports the vacation of Chinquapin with a redesign of the project. While the City currently has right-of-way to extend Chinquapin to intersect with Carlsbad Boulevard, such an intersection is not planned. An intersection at this location would be too close to the Tamarack intersection with Carlsbad Boulevard. The redesign is necessary for two reasons. First, the proposed cul-de-sac does not meet Engineering Department standards for the cul-de-sac radius. City Standard GS-3 requires a cul-de-sac to have a 40-foot radius. The applicant’s proposed cul-de-sac has a 30-foot radius. A standards reduction approved by the City Engineer would be required to approve the proposed design. The Engineering Department can support this request. Second, the Engineering Department recommending that the cul-de-sac be redesigned to eliminate any offsite impacts. These impacts include the need for additional right-of-way and sidewalks as discussed under the section on “Project Description and Background” above. Redesign of the cul-de-sac wall necessitate a major redesign of the project. The Engineering Department also supports the vacation of the strip of Carlsbad Boulevard. No widening of the street at that location is anticipated. Any vacations will necessitate approval by both the City Council and the California Coastal Commission. 4. R-3 ZONE The underlying zoning of the subject site is R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential). The R-3 Zone standards are not applied because the project is being proposed as a Planned Unit Development and the development is also subject to the more restrictive standards of the Beach Overlay Zone. 5. BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE (BAOZ) The site is also within the Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ). The BAOZ is more restrictive of building height (maximum 30 feet/2 stories with roof pitch) than is the R-3 Zone. The BAOZ also includes parking requirements not addressed in the R-3 Zone. The BAOZ requires two resident parking spaces (1 covered), and would require seven guest spaces for the proposed development. This requirement is exceeded by the PUD requirements. The maximum building height of the underlying zone applies in a PUD development unless further restricted by other regulations (e.g., the BAOZ). See the “Development Standards Comparison” table in the PUD section of this staff report for a more detailed comparison of some of the zone requirements and the project proposal. . CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HDP 93-01/V 93-02/V 93-03 SEA GABLES DECEMBER 1, 1993 6. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The “Development Standards Comparison” table below gives a detailed comparison of the various City requirements, including PUD requirements, and what is proposed by the applicant. The areas in which the proposed project does not meet the PUD requirements are discussed in this section. Specifically: A. B. C. D. E. The PUD requires a special setback of 40-feet from major arterial roadways (e.g., Carlsbad Boulevard). The proposed project provides a 5-foot setback from the existing right-of-way line (30 feet from the applicant’s proposed new right-of-way line). (See discussion under the Variance section of this staff report.) The PUD requires a minimum 30 foot street width (30 feet with no street parking). The applicant has requested a variance to allow a 25-foot private drive for internal circulation. (See discussion under the Variance section of this staff report.) The project plans do not indicate a common recreation area as required by the PUD. No variance has been requested for relief from this requirement. The applicant has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the three developed lots being brought into the proposed PUD meet all PUD standards as required by the PUD regulations. The PUD allows a minimum front yard setback of 5 feet from a private drive when guest parking is dispersed along the entire driveway. The proposed project includes some guest parking dispersed along the drive, but does not provide the required 5- foot setback. No variance has been requested for relief from this requirement. ,- CT 92-09/PUD 92-OY/h& 93-01/V 93-02/V 93-03 SEA GABLES DECEMBER 1, 1993 PAGE 6 DFWFd.OPMENT STANDARDS COMPARISON -- _ ---_ - .___ __ _ -_-_-_--- --_.-- _-----_ BAOZ PUD PROJECT Requirements Requirements Proposal Max height 30’/2 stories N/A 30’/2 stories (3/12 pitch) 24’/2 stories (no 3/12 pitch) Min lot size N/A N/A N/A” Min lot width N/A N/A N/A Max lot coverage N/A WA N/A Min distance b/t structures WA 15’ 15’ Yards: WA Min front 5’ 1’ Min side N/A N/A Min rear N/A N/A Max density 15.1-23 du/ac underlying zone 11.9 du/ac Parking: Res. spaces Guest spaces Ret Areas: Private 2:du(l cov’d) 7 N/A 2:du (cov’d) 7 3200 sf (200 sf:du) common & private 2:du (cov’d) 14** 3750+ sf (250+ sfidu) Common 0 sf EI/V Storage N/A Storage space N/A Special Setbacks WA 300 sf (20 sf:du) 480 cf:du 40’ from Major Art’1 300 sf 600 cf:du 30’ including vacation area The PUD does not designate a minimum lot size for single family attached developments. Including seven tandem which are not counted towards meeting the requirement. CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HDr 93-01/V 93-02/V 93-03 SEA GABLES DECEMBER 1, 1993 PAGE 7 7. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Because of the slopes on the subject property, the applicant has applied for a Hillside Development Permit (HDP). The project plans show proposed structures which appear to project out over the top of the slope in some cases. The placing of structures extending over the top of the slope does not comply with the intent of the Hillside regulations. The encroachment of development into and over the steep slopes also does not comply with the Hillside Development Guidelines. Grading for the proposed project includes 6000 cubic yards of cut and 500 cubic yards of fill, with export of 5500 cubic yards. The proposed grading volume is within the acceptable range. However, some grading is proposed in the steep slope portion of the property, which is not consistent with Hillside regulations. 8. VARIANCE The applicant is requesting two Variances: A) to reduce the required setback from Carlsbad Boulevard from 40 feet to 30 feet and B) to reduce the required private drive widths within the project from 30 feet to 25 feet. Staff review indicates that there is no hardship preventing compliance with either the 40-foot setback or the 30-foot minimum private drive width, and, therefore, that the findings required to recommend approval of the variances cannot be made. Specifically: A. Reduction in setback from Carlsbad Boulevard from 40 feet to 30 feet: a. There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. The subject site includes an aggregation of several smaller lots, none of which have any unusual configuration or condition which would make the site difficult to develop in conformance with all standards. b. The requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question. While some other properties along Carlsbad Boulevard have been built in the past with a smaller setback from the street, those projects were approved prior to the requirement for the 40-foot setback or were subject to different zoning regulations. Therefore, no variance was required. (The PUD ordinance was amended to include the 40-foot setback requirement in January, 1987.) Were those properties to be developed today as PUD’s, they would be subject to the 40-foot requirement. The applicant is proposing structures at 5 feet from the existing right-of-way line (30 feet from the proposed right-of-way line). The variance would allow the applicant’s proposed structures to be CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/Hh' 93-01/V 93-02/V 93-03 SEAGABLES 'DECEMBER1,1993 PAGE8 located approximately 16 feet closer to the street than the neighboring project was allowed. The only reason the applicant needs the variance is to allow the proposed development to extend further westward into currently existing public right-of-way. C. The granting of a variance to reduce the required setback from 40 feet to 30 feet will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. According to the Scenic Corridor Guidelines, Carlsbad Boulevard is a Scenic Corridor of special importance because it runs through the entire City and provides unique views of the City to visitors. The development of structures which would be located 16 feet closer to the street than neighboring units and extending over the top of the slope would deteriorate the open feeling of the corridor. The North Beach Planning/Traffic Study also cites the importance of sensitive site design in the area. Among other recommendations, the study notes that new development should be harmonious with existing development and should emphasize the feeling of being near the sea. The placement of the proposed structures would not be harmonious or compatible with existing development. The granting of the requested variance would be contrary to these goals. d. The granting of the requested variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. The area is designated for residential uses. The project proposed is a residential use. B. Reduction in required private drive widths from 30 feet (minimum) to 25 feet: a. There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. The subject site includes an aggregation of several smaller lots, none of which have any unusual configuration or condition which would make the site difficult to develop in conformance with all standards. b. The requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question. The reduction of the private drive to 25 feet is not allowed to any other property by right. A variance would be required for any PUD project proposing a private drive of less than 30 feet. C. The granting of a variance to reduce the aisle width from a minimum of 30 feet to 25 feet will be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the . CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HDP 33-01/V 93-02/V 93-03 SEA GABLES DECEMBER 1, 1993 PAGE 9 property or improvements in such vicinity and zone. The reduction of the private drive width could set a precedent for other such reductions. d. The granting of the requested variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. The area is designated for residential uses. The project proposed is a residential use. 9. SCENIC CORRIDOR GUIDELINES The subject site is adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard, a Scenic Corridor and Major Arterial street. The Scenic Corridor Guidelines designate Carlsbad Boulevard a “community theme” corridor and one of three scenic corridors of special importance. The Guidelines cite a ’ number of amenities along Carlsbad Boulevard, including “white water” ocean views, stretches of coastline and beaches, visual interest from recreational activities, lagoons, and public parks. The street offers an unusual variety of visual changes from historic buildings to the beach, the flower fields and the lagoons. The Guidelines include special goals for the corridor, including: enhancement of the unique character of the street by encouraging a natural beach-oriented theme for the subject area of the street, encouraging theme- oriented landscaping and street furniture, and encouraging special landscape setback areas to create an open feeling along the developed portions of the street. The development of structures which extend to and beyond the top of the slope, and which extend 16 feet further out than the neighboring project, would be contrary to these goals. 10. NORTH BEACH PLANNING/TRAFFIC STUDY The North Beach Planning and Traffic Study (NBS) was prepared in 1987 as a follow-up to the adoption of the Beach Area Overlay Zone, which dealt primarily with height and density restrictions. The NBS is a more in-depth analysis of land use, circulation, and parking issues. The NBS has two major focus areas: 1) the long-term effect of development in the northern beach area on the circulation system, and 2) a detailed assessment of land use issues, parking requirements, and recreation user demands for the special treatment area (STA) along the western edge of the study area. The NBS intended to lay the foundation for the preparation of a specific plan or other implementing actions to guide future development in the study area. One of the goals of the NBS is to preserve and enhance the uniqueness of the STA. The area is unique because of a number of characteristics, including 1) closeness to beach/lagoon, 2) a diversity of housing types, and 3) the presence of many small lots. The NBS notes that the small lots “can be an asset because they tend to force smaller scale buildings”. The proposed project proposes to combine a number of smaller lots into a l6- lot PUD. The combining of the lots into a PUD allows a development with a larger unbroken building mass, which is contrary to the NBS goals. CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HDk’ 93-01/V 93-02/V 93-03 SEA GABLES DECEMBER 1, 1993 PAGE 10 11. AGUA HEDIONDA LAND USE PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM The subject site is designated a “Special Treatment Area” within the Ag-ua Hedionda Land Use Plan (AHLUP), which serves as the Local Coastal Plan for the area. AHLUP Policy 8.2 requires that “special vista points and viewing areas shall be preserved and made available to the public” as shown on Exhibit “K” of that land use plan. The subject site is identified as a site required to provide a vista point. The applicant has provided a public vista point by creating a public corridor on the northern portion of the project. AHLUP Policy 4.4b states that “Development, grading and landform alteration in steep slope areas (25%) shall be restricted”. The proposed project includes grading into 40% slopes and structures which project over the top of the slope, thus not complying with the Coastal Program requirements. The Coastal Plan also addresses the need for public parking. Policy 30212.5 states that “Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities including parking areas” shall be distributed throughout an area. The applicant’s analysis of the potential loss of public parking due to the vacation of Chinquapin Avenue indicates that three potential spaces would be lost. Iv. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project has been reviewed for environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act, and a Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director on September 16, 1993. V. SUMMARY In summary, staffs review of the proposed project concludes that the project must be recommended for denial for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The proposed project does not comply with the Hillside Development regulations. The proposed project does not satisfy the requirements of the Planned Unit Development regulations. The project is not consistent with the North Beach Study recommendations. The project is not consistent with the Scenic Corridor Guidelines. Staff cannot make the findings necessary to recommend approval of the either of the two requested Variances. The processing time allowed for the project under State law has expired. Significant unresolved issues remain, which would require a redesign of the project. These issues include failures to comply with City ordinances, CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HLw 93-01/V 93-02/V 93-03 SEA GABLES DECEMBER 1, 1993 PAGE 11 standards, and policies as identified in Exhibit “Z”, staffs issues letter dated November 1, 1993. Any redesign could, in turn, result in additional issues not currently identified. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14; 15. 16. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3582 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3583 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3584 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3585 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3586 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3597 Location Map Background Data Sheet Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Disclosures Forms Reduced Site Plan Exhibit “W” - Reduced 1985 Site Plan Exhibit “X” - Letter dated December, 1985 Exhibit ‘Y’ - Letter dated December, 1987 Exhibit “Z” - Letter dated November 1, 1993 Exhibits “A”-“F”, dated December 1, 1993. EB:lh:vd November 3, 1993 BACKGROUND DATA SHEE - . CASE NO: CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HDP 93-01/V 93-02 . CASE NAME: Sea Gables APPLICANT: Tim Connole REQUEST AND LOCATION: A 15Unit/16 lot residential condominium nroiect at the LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Block W of Palisades #2, according to Map thereof No. 1803 and Lots 3-8 of Palisades according to the Map thereof No. 1747 APN: 206-070-04. 206-013-12 thru 17 -Acres 1.57 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 16/15 (Assessor’s Parcel Number) GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RH Density Allowed 15-23 du/ac Density Proposed 11.9 du/ac Existing Zone R-3 Proposed Zone R-3 Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements) Zoning Land Use Site R-3 Undeveloped North RD-M Residential South Undeveloped Lagoon East RD-M/R-3 Residential West OS Beach PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 15 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated November 25, 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT x Negative Declaration, issued September 16, 1993 - Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other, ER:vd:Ih PHONE NO: 487-5116 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO: 206-070-04 & 206-013-12 thru 17 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 1.57 ac . ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: A. City Admmlstratlve Facllltles: Demand m Square Footage = 52.16 B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = 27.81 C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) _ D. Park: Demand in Acreage = 0.104 E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A Identify Drainage Basin = BA (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) F. Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 120 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 1.3,&4 H. Open Space: Acreage Provided - N/A 1. Schools: N/A (Demands ro be determined by staff) J. Sewer: Demand in EDUs - 15 Identify Sub Basin - --a! (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) K. Water: Demand in GPD - 3300 h ‘CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HDP 93-01/V 93-02 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1 GENERAL PLAN: RH ZONING: RD-M DEVELOPER’S NAME: Tim Connole ADDRESS: 11315 Ranch0 Bernard0 Road - San Dieao CA 92117 L. The project is 9 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. EH:vd:lh A z- 8-‘33 4: W;FM : 61”34 -l$'&J-, ;tf ; <ALV CJ~ LUflsbad ” : DISCLOSURE STATEMEM RECEf’Jf-2 FE8 2 d 1993’ ’ I ’ I Af’PUCAhrS StAnMEw OF OiSC~O$UflE of CERTAIN OWtdERStdlp \NfERESTS ON AU ~PQcAno~s WHICH WILL, REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY AClON ON THE PMT bP THE Clpl COUNCIL OR ANY &ppoI~~~~ BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMfTEE, (Pleass Print) She 13ilowing informrtlon must be disclosed; Ust the name8 and addresl6s 01 all pOrSOfl8 having a finrncial intorwt in the appll~tion, GOLDEN SUNSET, LTD. 11315 RANCH0 BERNARD0 ROAD #133 SAN DIEGO, CA 9212/ l List$en;m’p) a;~;~drtrrsr of 011 pOr8OtlU hrvlng ifly ownubhip lntererrt In the preporty involved. . 11315 RANCH0 -c-l RI-I 9173 SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 3. If any person idrntlfied pursuant to (1) or (2) ‘abow I8 8 corporation or pwtnorahip, list tie names adcMade8 of all indfvidurla owning mar0 thrn 10% of UW ghurr in tM corporation or owning my parrne intcr8S! in the partnerah@, 11315 RANCH0 BERNARD0 ROAD SUITE $133 SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 4. If my pa&on Idontifled purruurt to (1) or (2) 8bow is (L non-prdVt argurlrrtlon or a trust, list the nrmr! addrauser 01 my por6an ufbing u offlcrr or dirrctor of the non-proftt orgrniratlon or lb utiateo or bend of the tru,t. ’ h 8 - 8 Oloclosure stat- ’ If yer, plea80 Indicate prrron(e) ‘Any Pertoq ia UofV10d u: organnunlon, wQom.t)on, at joint vontur0, nswcioticm. saclal club, fwerna) thlr md any Whef county, crfy and county. cry (NOTE: Anech additlonrl pages as necrrstfy,) I / ' ! 7-f-H-c --Q, 17uRo Print of typ4 nrmr of owner TIM J. CONNOLE GENERAL PARTNER Print 01 type, namr of applbnt DISCLOSURE STATEMEKT -. APPUCANTS STATEMENT OF OISCLOSUM Cc CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON AU APPIJCA~ONS WHICH Wlu RECUlAE olSC!?~O~Y ACnCt’d ON WE PwT OF THE Clm COUNCIL CR ANY A/=PC[NTEa BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEES (Pleas43 Printj The Wowing inlormrtlon must be disclosed; 1. Aopllcarrt List the name8 and 8ddreSSar 01 all parsons having a firUncial interest in the appllution, GOLDEN SUNSET, LTD. 11315 RANCH0 BERNARD0 ROAD #133 SAN DIEGO, CA 9212/ List the namoa and sddrrr8e8 of all persons h8vlng iny ownership interest In the property involved. JOSHIA C. III & JANE W. MCCRACKEN 135 CHINQUAPIN AVE. CARLSBAD, CA YZUU8 . 3. If my person idantlfiod purruant to (1) of (2) ‘above IS 8 corpor~tf~n 01 pMnorship, IM UN names addream of rll indfvidurlr own&g mora t&n 10% of tha rhurr in tha corporation or owning my panne inttrart in tha partn@rrhip, TTM J. CONNOLE 11315 RANCH0 BERNARD0 ROAD SUITE #133 - SAN DIEGO, CA 9212 I 4. If any parron idantiflod pur8umt to (1) of (2) rbovo II a non-profit organlratlon or I trurt. list thr nrmol addmama al my perwn #w&g u of?Icw or dirrffor of the non-proftt orgmitatlon or as truatw or benef of the VW. /’ uioclowr, stat- ’ . . . . - & - I Have you had mor4 than $250 worth of buslnesl tranmtod with &ny member of City staff, 5ic Comrnirrionr, Committoor rnd Wncii within Vlr pat t~elvo monthr? Y4S - No & tl yes, ploese indlcato prrron(e) Pertoq ia dofmd Y: ‘Any individual, IInn. copartnership, joint ~emurfi, wmciation, soclrl club, Irwrnu 0rQmUallOrt CorpOr8flOtl, OSt*@, tW.U WCCBtvW, SyndicaW. thla and Wrj 0tlW county, city and county, crty municioalkj, distMt w 0th~ polltlcal suWlvlsiorr, w any other group of combination aalng aa a L ’ ’ (NOT& Attach additkml paqw as neccrsr~~) I Y ’ GOLDEN S&SET, LTD. TIM J. CONNOLE osr/w @. )+tffcc#Pf&EA D mt of typa nrma of mm4f GENERAL PARTNER Print of typa nmr a ” . or rppircant 5~1 I r PI : (. i T 1’ OF &tELSEiilj DISCLOSURE STATEMEKT APPUCANrS STAtEMEw OF OlSCLOSUAE Of CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INRRESTS ON AU APPUCA~OFJS WtWH WU. REQUIRE D~~CMTGNAAY ACTKiN ON THE PAAT OP THE CITY COUNCIL 0~ A&Y ~pp,o~/,,~~~ BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE. (Plealca Pm) She 1$fOwing informrtlon must be disclosed; 1. Apprlcarrt Ust thr name8 and addtesrrr of all prrso!~ having a financial inter)bt in the appJlc&ion, GOLDEN SUNSET, LTD. 11315 RANCH0 BERNARD0 ROAD #133 SAN DIEGO, CA 9212/ . List I;;,n;~r; ancIAy’;asIoI of all p4r3OtU having by ownqrrhip interest In the proporty involved. . 145 CHINQUAPIN AVE. CARLSBAD, CA 92008 3. If any person idrntlfied purtumt to (1) or (2) ‘above ir a corp<)ratJon 01 pwtnorrhip, Iht tha names addr@a$em of ril indfvidurla oWng more vl~r 10% of the ghurr in th4 corporetlon or owning any parrne intoraN in the paftn*rrhip, 11315 RANCH0 BERNARD0 ROAD SUITE #133 SAN DIEGO, CA 9212 I 4. If any person Idontiflod purrulnt to (1) or (2) rbovo lr a non+rNt ocganlrrtlon or a trust. list the nrmos rddterrea 01 any parson wfving 4.9 of?lcrr or dirrctor of tha non-prortt orgmkation or u lrusteo of benefi of tn. tfurt. r’ t - t ,19c.l03uf@ St&t- ’ ’ Page 2 9. Have you had more than 5250 worth of buaine~ trrnmted with any membrr of City staff, 3c Ccmmirsionr, Cwrmitteor and Council within the pact twobe montha? Y88 - No A tf yer, ploaae lndlcato porton Pertoq ia dofined &s: ‘Any ihdivkiuai, km. copUV~Ship, joiN ve~?urt rrosociatiofl. soclJ club, fraternal orgamx8tlOrl, Corpor8tlul, Llitao, tfuk reCervat, Syndtrxr. thb8 8i-d Wry other cmmty, crty and %my. cry municipality, dMr&t w WhW pdhlcal rubdiuisiw w any other group or combination acting aa 8 L * ’ . * (NbTg: Attach additional pages 81 necwtry,) qq - Slgnotura 01 rpp icafif/dete j GOLDEN SUNSET, LTD. TIM J. CONNOLE GENERAL PARTNER Print of VfiN nun4 of rpptlcont EEf 1 r p , : I- i T’,’ OF cciFL5EkD 7-. ;r;‘-. &‘&I3 4: WZFbI : Gl’gyFy?J-, :I3 L or U&sbad I ! DISCLCWRE STATEMENT . , APPUCArJTS STATEMENT OF OtSCLOSURIl OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INnREStS ON AU APPUCATJQNS WHICH WIU. l%QUIRti bi%ff mOwY ACqO/‘d Ot’d WE PbdT OP l-+lE Cl-J-f CC,JUNClL OR A&‘f @POI~J~;J BOARD, CoMMrSStON OR COMMfTTEE. , (Please Print) The following informrtlon must be dlsclosed: 1. AoDllcarrt Uat tha name8 rnd addressU of ali parsons having a finmci8i interast in the appllution; GOLDEN SUNSET, LTD. 11315 RANCH0 BERNARD0 ROAD #133 SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 List the names and eddrrssw of 011 per8OrM having ifly Ownorbhip Interest In the property involved. 3432 CASABLANCA WAY FALLBROOK, CA 92028 3. if any person idrntlfied purruurt to (1) or (2) above IS 8 corpora&m o.f pwtnwahip, list tie names rddterses of ail indtvidurlr ownlng mar0 tnur 10% of the rhurr icr the corporrtlon or owning any panne lntrrart in the prrtnrrrhip, 11315 RANCH0 BERNARD0 ROAD SUITE 8133 SAN DIEGO, CA m27 If any paraon Identified punuant to (1) of (2) rbovr k II non-proftt organlrrtlon or 8 trust, list tha nrmo: rddrmaer 01 my parson urving u o#lcor or dirrctor 01 the nonprofft orgmkatlon or m trulrteo or benel 01 the tfU$t. . /h.rrl ;. a40s;rl statnmrrt ’ -+ -t 5. Have you had more than $250 worth of buainear W8nJactod with u\y mambrr of City staff, Bc Ccmmirriong, Cdmmitteoa rnd Council within thr part h~/ve monthr? Yea - NO ,& If yes, pIoWe indicate parson(e) Persoq i8 Mined u: ‘Any, individual, lkm, copUtnership, joint ~enlur@. ksscciatti, sxlrl club, fra!ernal orgWU8tlW CorporrtkHl, OS!&@, WbS& MCBNOI, SyMicar. thla and Wry Wflw runty, crfy uld county, cny municipdty, cfbttlct w OthOf pdltrcal subdirislorr, w any other group or combination actlng M I L ’ ’ - , . (NOTe: Artach addttlonrl page8 8.0 necrrstry,) I I-/F- 23 Print of typ4 firme of 0wm I- ,,,.+c--=- ~ -- 1 I- ii? ‘I *---I { -J t--- 1 1 --7’ 4 h ‘iu- 1 *v-m- l : .Ld I r---t-,. -A I J&~-f ---! I * mt E.XHIBIT "W" i I ‘I$ I I i I \ ._ _- I I I ill It- . ..-j-- - -; - - 1 r ’ : ! -- 1 - -J r - i / I CitpdCnlr)ib -r 19, 19.5 EXHIBIT “X” II. W~le1 J-l.4 Jama@ usccurn 2146-A wed48 k h Pl8p La foLl8, Cdlforsla 92037 808 blmqnplm AT- prwrty cow sr. JoasToUr t-ta mrlu tbo -rms that w pr*se8ta4 to yva ye8tordry -a yw8r propad 8&dlwtmior 8t the d ot Qlaqsw~lm Awew la --lw &ad uea. ‘Ibyr uo a8 l011ew8 1) Iso esistlag wlsm1 oorrl*r rlll k slq8:rlc8rtly isped by tbo popod &sigs Crcmse tfw ~113th of t?u oorrltsr ls qo1to mimlnl, MO boaraual& j-a to ft& rlp%t hued of belsp b l straight 11~ fr- Olaqsrpim, rsJ laahcapiw 8bd l qoest grrklsq m* ut ta aPacea ts8 petaa~ fr- the p?hdle. If that rieupoin. IS. 28 cut, t.!% tee propwed to ntisfy -ta1 wJirm?s# it vfll %#e ‘3 & Y also polstd ass. l Lot mre frfarmtfse viz1 b reqalmd ior t&o rlvht exwa cm zZ* SZsf plcpertr. 1.0. aall ss&I 8llaw it. &et Ltrd cf prrffrq ui.11; k imolmd, rd ywa hrr, wer res.podd to rettared qmtloaa ooscvrnivg uce8s c3 tht r:n-puinr frera th +!A of cblqa.mpl8, dicb l8 scu t.ke gusfc cJcf*atl~ g.afRs -88 u tbl8 VlSJ81 -ta1 r*W1rc*w EoqarJbso of *id rimqaoirc io ~c~sd Itr tkr pr5tte. 8taff blIem0 a stralg52 vlssal corriber l ?:a3 C?bic~pa~ 1s -ry. kcw4w of ta q~stlaes & ‘.rr.*s 51=*;5t op It ywst8rday’s etleq , u ba r&f *tiw* pa ?L&#T adequately &dressed the issm of gcwldiaq a rreupf.tc t% ucord8am ntb am lotal coast8: FfqCM?. U.-R mprS% tsaz ~08 loo& rc tb possibility of l t&iq tt* c-A-.*-rle tw :exqtI¶ 02 the ptopotty rsd proride a u.411 lrwll u+a u -s!w abd rich beuS for the p&lie. ue alee rJvLY* ywa l e et uitb tko eitlurs grorp ia t-4 5eYh l rea *a Cc3 w rwdnd t&r- &a kacb. Mr, kniel .Jesl-old wr 19a 1965 Page frro 3) 4) 5) 4) 7) To8 uill ued several ru4tions trP8 r-le Ci%f to i-?premwkt per pcojut -- l street rU8+iam 048 Chityxagir uv) a rig%- ofny t~aies fcr ctbe *lopa a Carlr%d &aLeard- ta ten of baildisg .~c8lnl~ -1~s tr crib ~11s mt l em helgbts pa r+stiaed tfGta)iJq 9 to 16 feet) 00 tE:r, slqm. Irr) irdicatd ear mrld ka n,-c~ta?rl* t3 sta?f, Yom iaol$ k cr*atimg a hiqb -1; CIQ l Steep slog. fs a 4ipiy r?riblo ud ueiaac area. tt also weativztd cat t??? l ccut owatia for C%iqzapia ~13414 r+q-aic* l aoatal pemir becasw pobLiC~ ris-.ml ets8. mttics is l ccartal roswarce, rroJld Lr affutad, no +w8tioe uw:lJ b cuditiomod uiu a pealie BU Bt to l Tieujwtat, setboca roq8iruesrr ar8 u folteust ,, Pcortyard - M feet Sideyrrd -1SfMt ru8Jyrrd -WI+++ At this poist. th calm flextbi!Xty ta ?-k&me met%-wka uy be the naq!ad. a ube mutb 8lh f8ci.g *Y&m BtQieeh ~;&-&fofrd gl0f-t dms - - 81-r ef +?p* f.8 dditiom. thre mmt 5. ‘,te fett riaiwu nQwrtl# wt- l ad gre 3f 3zildirsps. kvea gust prkiq o?ues l $e feqliltd la duitfod4 to trro spues mr aait. i-e, ta Si.djih ear gl?qer art -jLay. 5at tw w?e 8pu8-s PSSf 9 ~OTfCoq ia diitita to rst gaut perkilg. hro 9#rr ms raa?d 5e ~~Lcv& as t.u’-ee. u Clyse uicuu ;oieted eat. et CII;i.?uri-~ 38gartneEt hu umr81 rr00~1rz8 uitb circolatim, ',4t rtii=J of the cd-&-sac ;ar wald uatM a ?ttrtr Irtca nib Sai:5. - jast a sip& sap) si&ualk*. wciae ZYr csi= x0- l * rd bar street pBrLiag for Joe f.me~‘S ;re;c:r 9as: t&ur till be -tad la par de8iqsw Dotb bgtmricq aed tlaetrj 8re -XJtd -*r tie FCY-C@ l 1euing- or $Mct of rLa* &?cfpcty. tt uorl3 -Fe&r rt 18ast ~ellrlnarily* tlrt t?* wo:ezt shoII3 tr pf2--*s*S as orolot. * rnll ueed Or* clarlfrcatica cm t%L* is**. UrsooQS mt Cis&suJ -flst*rJq, pl8rre 8:So r*:r:? 3Zr eats ,+a+ t2.e l lrrariocrr brkIC% ca7to:r:p uter :.trt* 8tories. iutrd ef cm. nr. Dad*1 am~0l.d 0ecaa.r 19, 1985 ?aqo i+ru OveraLl, um bellm tba City h kiap u+ed to mke may cacwsiou tar rk k-f it 0: the de-tlo*r- ma projut. u ~ropoud. wdd 80; get st8ff.s -8tiaa fw wraral. a@ roc6gmiu year &slre t4 prorido l pm&e tm atalc stilts sinql~fril~ ;esUemms ia this 8r*a arms mall*; cudomimimsa be;, pa must rrcgaiu t2m eaartr8irPts c,t t!w cputal plu ud Srub are8 aerlq OolDI Jlicil *rtrla to -1s ww-w- fr addltiiccr. tsm ew oe tbo dui~¶. i-8.. t&a ~ieus.codimoduitb tb mseof brgeummalr*, Ilmits tbr 0-r of aAts that caa flt 0 t& *ito. A but& l e8 l& wm md trrffic st* is to bag58 #9mzlf, rd th8 r*ulta of tk8t St* w M ta0 herra+ l&it raqairmmeets, Wity, ec.,.. Jdor clfemt'ay m w wit mt11 th8t mtdy is ooqpletd.*ld mbedak C8 doat 81X uths. If pa karr uy qw8tiou rqacdimg t!tir letcw, plr-0 cuetut so- &acy 1. iJllau kslrtut ?l-r ca rruitoa bpimrimg C-18 Castrloctia w. tse- curli* err mike 8oues Clyde Wick&m - PLA NNlNG DEPARTMENT City of Gnkibflb . .A 2075 LAS PALIAAS DRIVE GWLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 920?94859 (GI’J) 13fJ-1161 EXHIBIT “Y” December 9, 1987 fl r . Tim Connole Connole Construction Company 13715 Poway Road, Suite E Poway, CA 92.064 SUBJECT: Sea Gables Condos (CT 86-4/PUU-100/V-370) Dear Mr. Connole: Because the processing deadline for your project is approacl\lng, it has been tentatively scheduled for the January 20, 1988 Planning Commission hearing. Staff will be making a recommendation of denial based on the numerous, unresolved issues associated with this project, including: inadequate vlew corridor and public access, street vacations, slope variance, setback variances, engineering variances, lease encumbrance, building and sltc design. We have twice attcrnpted to c.ct 111) mcctlrlgs to continue processing tlhc? a~)pli.catiorl--tllc tlmf* Ilac, run out and it must be taken to Planning Commission. 111’3 only opt!on would be for you to withdraw the application and reapply, if you desire not to go tg Planning Commission. As part of the CEQA process, we have completed a Conditional Negative Declaration which is attached. It requires your signature on the last page. An EIR would have to he processed if you do not slgn the Conditional Negativ? Declaratiorl. I need to receive the Conditional Negative Declaration back by Thursday, December 17, 1987 at the latest. Ple;lse call mc tF you have any questions. Sirlcerely, ~4AlICY E .UoLLf41\ti Associate Pldri~ier cc: Mike ffobes Charles Grimm F ‘IBIT “Z” Carlsbad November 1, 1993 Mr. Tim Connole 11315 Ranch0 Bernard0 Road San Diego, CA 92117 sumcr: CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HDP 93-01 - SEA GABLES This is to inform you that your submittal responding to the issues detailed in the correspondence dated September 30, 1993, for your Tentative Map, Planned Unit Development, and Hillside Development Permit application 110’s. CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HDP 93-01, have been received and reviewed by the Planning Department. Please note that although the application was considered complete on March 10, 1993, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Attached is a list of issues of concern to staff. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling for a public hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the applicatign, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the information required for this application. Please contact Elaine Blackburn at (619) 438-1161 extension 4471 if you have any questions or wish information. Sincerely, 2:-</T. L’ *id / i?l ,/;lpc L L- / ELAINE BLACKBURN Associate Planner c: Bobbie Hoder File Copy 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-1576 - (619) 438-l 161 @ - Mr. Tim Connole November 1, 1993 Pane 2 Planning: ISSUES OF CONCERN 1. As stated in our letter of September 2, 1993, the northernmost view corridor shown on the plans can meet the intent of the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan requirement for a public access vista point if a) the project is never gated and b) adequate signage is provided to identify the public vista point. Such signage would include signs at the project entry and, possibly, signage at the eastern end of the street. Should be project be approved, it would be conditioned to provide such signage as approved by the Planning Director. 2. As stated in our previous letters, the PUD regulations require a 40-foot setback from streets classified as Major Arterials (i.e., Carlsbad Boulevard). You recently submitted materials intended to support a request for a variance to this requirement. However, no Variance application form or check for processing fees was submitted. Staff has reviewed the materials submitted, but no official variance application exists until the application form and processing fee have been submitted. Based on materials submitted, staff is unable to support the variance requested for the 40-foot setback requirement. 3. As stated in our previous letters, items intended to be future options (e.g., pools and spas) must be deleted from the plans. 4. The plan notes indicate provision of common recreation area. However, the common recreation area is not identified on the plans. 5. As stated in our previous letters, all property included within the PUD is required to comply with current PUD standards. The three existing developments included within this project may n.ot comply with current PUD standards. 6. As indicated in our previous letters, the project design includes a large number of retaining walls. The visual mass of the walls as seen from Carlsbad Boulevard is unacceptable. 7. The location of the proposed trail access appears to be awkwardly located (behind proposed parking spaces rather than in front of them). Staff recommends you try to locate the trail access in an area more easily accessed by the public. . Mr. Tim Connole November 1, 1993 Page 3 Entieerinq: Transportation/Circulation 1. Since the extension of Chinquapin Avenue to create a cul-de-sac at the bluff top above Carlsbad Boulevard is no longer an issue with regards to view corridors, the approximate location of the Chinquapin Avenue cul-de-sac as originally submitted is acceptable. However, as was previously indicated to the applicant, the design of this cul-de-sac is still an issue. As currently designed the proposed cul-de-sac does not meet City standards. Discussion with Fire Department staff has indicated that the 30’ radius for the cul-de-sac will be acceptable, however, a letter requesting a standards variance for the overall cul-de-sac design must be submitted to the Assistant City Engineer. Off-site construction would be required to construct this cul-de-sac as proposed. Since this proposed project is on vacant land, impacting off-site property to construct this cul-de-sac is unacceptable, therefore, staff requests that the cul-de-sac be redesigned. Use of City Standard GS-3, concentric cul-de-sac or GS-4, off-set cul- de-sac, is acceptable, with the previously mentioned variance. 2. Under the General Design Notes, Item 7, please change the sentence to read: “Any existing curb, gutter or sidewalk along the Carlsbad Boulevard property frontage which has damage shall be repaired to the satisfacti,on of the City Engineer.” 3. As was previously requested, please supply a profile of the end cul-de-sac/driveway grade break so that change in grade can be reviewed with regards to the potential for vehicles bottoming out while accessing the site. 4. Please adjust the sidewalk widths on the Chinquapin Avenue typical section so that the dimensions add up correctly. 5. The public access sidewalk to the existing trail south of the project looks good; however, to better define that it is intended for public use the sidewalk must be continued around to Chinquapin Avenue, and have a public access easement placed over it. Additionally, pedestrian delineation to the on-site view point must be provided. One way to accomplish this would be to have decorative street pavers placed in the project driveway from the sidewalk to the viewpoint. A public access easement will also be required to the view point. Please refer to the attached redlined check print. Mr. Tim Connole November 1, 1993 Pane 4 6. Please indicate directional signage to the public trail and on-site vista point in accordance with Planning Department criteria, as shown on the attached redlined check print. Sewer 1. As was previously requested, please show a 20 foot clear easement width between proposed Unit 7 and 8. The applicant stated in a previous submittal that only water facilities will be placed in this corridor, however, that is not what is shown on the tentative map submitted for a second review. Regardless of what utilities are intended to be installed in this corridor a 20 foot clear easement width must be provided. I am aware that the applicant’s engineer said that he would acquire a letter from Carlsbad Water District stating their concurrence on a less than 20 foot wide easement; however, I still have not received correspondence from Carlsbad Water District regarding this item. Therefore, this item is still an issue. Additionally, the tentative map shows multiple retaining walls encumbering this easement. There should be no permanent structures located above an easement. Please revise the slope so that the retaining walls can be dclcted. 2. As was previously stated, the proposed private driveway raised median is located over existing sewer and waterlines and a proposed storm drain. The applicant’s engineer stated that he met with Carlsbad Water District to discuss this issue. I will need written correspondence from Carlsbad Water district staff as to their requirements regarding this issue also. Additionally Fire Department staff has requested that you please delete the circular planter to facilitate truck turning maneuvers. Drainage 1. Please show storm drain pipe invert elevations for the on-site private storm drain as indicated on &e attached redlined checkprint. Soils 1. As was previously requested, please provide staff with a copy of the project’s original soils report dated April 2, 1986. Field Conditions 1. As was previously requested, please show the existing curb, gutter and sidewalk on Chinquapin Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard located adjacent to the project. Mr. Tim Connole November 1, 1993 Page 5 Administration 1. Please be advised that the requested street vacation will be taken forward to City Council after the tentative map has Planning Commission approval. 2. The tentative map General Notes indicate that multiple final maps may be filed for this project. If this is your intention please show a phasing boundary qn the tentative map for multiple final map recordation. If this is not the case then please delete this general note. Construction 1. Unit No. 1 cannot be constructed over existing SDG&E and public access easement. Please delineate future disposition of easement or relocatc/acl.just the building. - EXHIBIT 5 PLANNING COMMISSION December 1,1993 PAGE 14 ancially viable. He disagrees with Commissioner Erwin that this is short terms. He believes it is long ery day it gets more competitive. He doubts it can be turned around by the year 2000. ble stated that he uses the telephone directory to find out where he wants to do business. He ssioner Erwin that it is a short term problem. He is not convinced that precedent setting rrect the problem. hat he cannot make the findings for deviation, however he does agree need to look at the overall ordinance. He will vote to support the Commissioner Betz stated t ition will always be a factor in business. Signage is a very important part of that business. It mig cost effective for the owner to redesign the sign to current standards and maybe the new sign d attract attention just because it is different. She realizes this might be expensive but in the long y solve the problem. Commissioner Welshons inquired if a den1 Id be appealed to the City Council. Karen Hirata replied that a denial could not be appealed. Commissioner Welshons inquired as to when the ce was built. Mr. Rick replied that he did not know. Commissioner Welshons inquired if the sign could be m the interior of the center. Mr. Rick replied that he would be willing to look into the possibility. Commissioner Welshons inquired if the additional names could if the sign were dropped to the 7 ft. height. Mr. Rick replied that staff could not accept the multi ignage based on other issues. Commissioner Erwin believes this is an economic issue and not a signag He might be in favor of making a concession like they did in the Village area for signage by givin ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Welshons, and duly second Commission Resolution No. 3579 upholding the Planning Direct PS 93-21, based upon the findings contained therein. VOTE: 6-l NOES: Commissioner Hall ABSTAIN: None 0 4. CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HDP 93-01/V 93-02/V 93-03 - SEA GABLES - Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Hillside Development Permit, and Variances to develop a l!%unit, 16-lot residential condominium project on property at the western terminus of Chinquapin Avenue with Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Elaine Blackburn, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is proposing a i5-unit/l6-lot residential development on a site located at the western terminus of Chinquapin Avenue. The application includes a tentative tract map, PUD permit, Hillside Development permit, and two variances to PUD requirements, as well as two proposed street vacations for Chinquapin Avenue and a portion of Carlsbad Boulevard. The applicant is proposing a two-story condominium development. Each unit would contain approximately 1,885 sf. Staff has reviewed the application and has concluded that the project does not comply with City ordinances and standards in several respects, as follows: 1. It does not comply with the PUD requirements. It does not provide the required 40 ft. setback from Carlsbad Boulevard, which is a major arterial. It does not provide the minimum 30 ft. private street PLANNING COMMISSION December 1, 1993 PAGE 15 width. It does not provide the required common recreation area. Finally, it does not provide the required 5 ft. structural setback from the private street within the development. 2. The project does not comply with the hillside development regulations. The project proposed grading and development in the 40% slopes along the western edge of the property and structures which project over the top of the slope. Both are prohibited by HDP regulations. 3. Staff cannot make the findings necessary for the two requested variances as discussed in detail in the staff report. There is no hardship preventing compliance with either the 40 ft. setback from Carlsbad Boulevard or with the 30 ft. minimum private street width requirement. There are no extraordinary circumstances or conditions which apply to the subject property, nor is the applicant being denied a right being given to other owners in the area. 4. The project is not consistent with the scenic corridor guidelines or the North Beach Traffic and Land Use Study recommendations. Carlsbad Boulevard is a scenic corridor with special importance to the City because it runs the entire length of the City. The proposal for structures to be located approximately 16 ft. closer to the street than those of the nearest neighboring development, and projecting over the top of the slope, is counter to the recommendations of the scenic corridor guidelines to provide an open feeling along the developed portions of the street. 5. The project does not comply with all of the requirements of the Agua Hedionda coastal segment policies. Specifically, Policy 4.48 of that document prohibits grading and development on slopes of 25% or greater. The proposed project does include such a proposal. 6. Lastly, the allowed review period for this project has expired. State planning laws, specifically the Permit Streamlining Act, requires that a decision on this project be made within six months from the date the project was deemed complete. It does provide for one go-day extension to that time period. The six months expired on September 10, 1993 and staff granted a go-day extension which now expires on December 8, 1993 which means that the extended time period is now expiring. Normally, project issues are resolved during the time period granted. In this case, that simply has not occurred. Ms. Blackburn stated that the project clearly fails to comply with City ordinances and standards and, consequently, staff must recommend denial of the project. Since Monday, staff has received numerous letters regarding the project which have been passed out to everyone. It has also come to staffs attention that SDG&E has some specific concerns about the project proposal related to their existing 20 ft. roadway easement which they have on the property. Commissioner Hall inquired about the letter from the attorney dated December 1, 1993 requesting an extension of the time period. Ms. Blackburn replied that it is planning staffs understanding that the Permit Streamlining Act requires that a decision be made on this project tonight. She does not know of any basis for extending the time period. It is her understanding that there is no possibility of an additional continuance. Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, commented that the arguments in the attorney’s letter have to do with extensions of time to prepare the negative declaration. Since the negative declaration has already been prepared, our position is that those arguments are not applicable. They do make an argument that there are two cases on record which, by analogy, would permit an extension to be granted. However, the plain wording of the statute only allows for one go-day extension. She cannot foresee whether or not a court would uphold an agreement between the applicant and the City. There is no case directly on point and in her consultation with the City Attorney, he has stated that he would be inclined to follow the wording of the statute. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 1, 1993 PAGE 16 Commissioner Hall inquired what the applicants fallback position will be--will he have to pay all the fees over again. Ms. Blackburn replied that the 90 day extension has been given and has expired. He would have to begin the process again. Commissioner Hall referred to the letter which states that differences could easily be worked out within the next 90 days. Ms. Blackburn replied that the differences have not been worked out over the last 9 months. She doesn’t see how they can be worked out within the next 90 days. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that a denial without prejudice is not necessary. If the applicant wants to resubmit a substantially different project, it would not be subject to a moratorium. Commissioner Schlehuber commented that if we go along with the applicants attorney’s request, the City takes the risk. If it ends up in court, the City pays all the costs. The City has nothing to gain. Chairman Noble opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Joseph Solomon of Worley, Schwartz, Garfield & Rice, 401 “B” Street, San Diego, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that the sole purpose of his letter is to request a 90 day extension of the statutory time limit. He feels the Commission has the discretion to grant the continuance. It would be legally impossible for his client to state the project was approved based on the continuance. He realizes that there are problems which need to be resolved and his client’s representative will address these issues. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired why the applicant has waited 9 months to address the problem. This is the very same project he saw four years ago. Mr. Solomon replied that this project application was deemed accepted as complete in March 1993. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if Mr. Solomon was aware that the City would be required to pay court costs should this end up in court. Mr. Solomon replied that he believes his client would agree to pay court costs because he has no intention of it ending up in court. He is aware that the Permit Streamlining Act states that if a City does not act on an applicants project within 9 months, it is deemed to be approved. However, the Act was not designed to penalize applicants. Mr. Solomon referred to the cases he cited in his letter to Karen Hirata dated December 1, 1993 which is on file in the Planning Department. He requested that the Commission grant a 90 day time extension to provide his client with an opportunity to satisfy the concerns of staff. He assured the Commission that his client would waive his rights under Government Code sections 65950 and 65956(b) and will absolutely not claim that by granting the discretionary extension of the statutory time limit, the project would be deemed approved. Brian Regan, Manitou Engineering, 350 West 9th Avenue, Escondido, addressed the Commission and stated that one of the reasons this has taken so long is that no redesign of the project could take place until a decision was handed down on whether or not Chinquapin Avenue would be retained as a cul-de-sac or whether it would be cut through to Carlsbad Boulevard. That decision was finally made on September 1, 1993. After a discussion with Mr. Holzmiller on November 17, 1993, he talked to Ms. Blackburn and advised her that he would remove everything in the project that caused her problems. Unfortunately, there is not time left to view the new design. He is not asking the Commission to bend the rules, he only wants a short extension of time to enable staff to review the revised project. Daniel Jensvold, 2244 Carmel Valley Road, Del Mar, the applicants architect, addressed the Commission and stated that he has been working on this project for a long time. He thinks it is a good project but because of the infill, they are being pushed into a corner. There are many things which can be done to make this project fit the site and meet all of the standards. Tim Connole, 11315 Ranch0 Bernard0 Road, San Diego, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he purchased this property in 1984 and began processing the proposed project in 1986. MINUTES CORRECTED . PLANNING COMMISSION December 1, 1993 PAGE 17 Unfortunately, the property was tied up in court for 7 years which is why it has taken him so long. The past few years have been rough for him because his son was in an accident and is paralyzed. That takes most of his time. However, during the past few months, things have begun to stabilize and he was able to concentrate on the project and get involved 100%. He would appreciate having an additional 90 days to put the project in place. He has no intention of bringing suit against anybody. He only wants to complete the project. ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to continue Sea Gables for 90 days, per the applicant’s request. VOTE: O-7 AYES: None NOES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Hall, Savary, Schlehuber and Welshons ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Erwin is still concerned about liability to the City if an extension is granted. He would like to know if there is a way for the City to be held harmless. Commissioner Schlehuber replied that the applicant has stated that he would not bring suit. Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, commented that staff needs to evaluate the risk even though the applicant has stated that he does not intend to bring suit. Commissioner Hall inquired what the applicant has at stake besides a certain amount of dollars. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that if the extension is denied, the applicant can resubmit the project but he would have to comply with the current standards, including the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance. Of the 15 units, two would have to be affordable to low or very low income households. In addition, new fees have become effective. There is more to it than just engineering a redesign. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he cannot go along with an extension. He does not believe that 90 days will solve all of the problems. Brian Regan, Manitou Engineering, stated that when this project was submitted in 1985, there was a lot of discussion about Chinquapin Avenue. He worked extensively with Planner Nancy Rollman. The reason it has taken so long is that staff wanted to evaluate the feasibility of Chinquapin becoming a through street. In addition, several of the adjacent property owners were opposed to the gates on the project and the parking. Some neighbors have voiced concern about losing their views. One of the neighbors, Mrs. Hall, stated that she would be in favor of the project because it would eliminate the abandoned vehicles in the area. He has lowered.the site to protect the view and he has corrected the gates, setbacks, and parking issues. In his opinion, the revised project meets all of staffs objections. Chairman Noble inquired why the Commission can’t vote on the revised project tonight. Ms. Blackburn replied that the Commission cannot vote without a recommendation from staff. She can’t make a recommendation on a project she has not had time to evaluate. In their request for denial, staff identified many major items which were not acceptable. She has no assurance that these items have been adequately addressed. Chairman Noble advised Mr. Regan that the Commission is wasting time listening to all of his proposed changes since there is no way they can vote on the revised project tonight. Mr. Regan inquired if the project could be denied and let staff work out the issues before it is presented to the City Council. Chairman Noble replied that he has the right to appeal to the City Council but it must be done within 10 calendar days from tonight. MINUTES CORRECTED PLANNING COMMISSION December 1, 1993 PAGE 18 Mr. Regan inquired if staff has the ability to work on the resubmittal. Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, replied that when a project comes before the Commission, they either approve it, deny it, or recommend it to the City Council. It would probably depend on how much the project has changed. Mr. Regan inquired if the proposed changes could be considered. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that he has never seen that happen. If the Planning Commission denies the project for reasons other than non-compliance, i.e. design or policy issues, and you change the project to address these items. the City Council would be looking at a different project. Mr. Regan inquired if they file an appeal to the City Council, does the Council have the ability to send it back for redesign. This is frequently done by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. Ms. Hirata replied that when a project is appealed, they normally don’t send it back. Commissioner Hall inquired when the decision was made to keep Chinquapin as a cul-de-sac. Ms. Blackburn replied that the only real discussion on Chinquapin took place when the project was originally submitted. It did not happen in September as Mr. Regan stated. Mr. Regan feels he has satisfied all of staff’s concerns. This is an infill project and he is trying to blend it into the neighborhood. The only problem he might have would be with the variances which have been requested. Mr. Regan is asking to go from a 40 ft. setback to a 37 ft. setback on one variance. One PUD just north of the project site was given a variance for 10 ft. setbacks. Warren Frinchaboy, 3981 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he spoke with his neighbor Mrs. Hall yesterday and she really doesn’t know what she agreed to. She lost her husband three years ago. Many of the letters mailed to staff were from renters or from people who live in another area. He has lived in his home for 23 years and he has only had one problem with an abandoned vehicle. He moved into his home with the idea that it would have a‘view down a dedicated street and this project would take that away. He also feels it will create a traffic problem getting to Carlsbad Boulevard. He is definitely against the project. Ronald Vincent, 321 Redwood, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that any value this developer gets out of this project would be taken away from his home. He hopes the Commission will deny it. Joyce James, 3931 Garfield, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she has fought for a long time to reduce densities in that area. However, she understands that PUDs are allowed to have higher densities. She also wants to know why this building can be 30 ft. high when the height ordinance only allows 25 ft. She is also concerned about people walking down Chinquapin. She would like to know if there is a public right-of-way and if it will always be a public right-of-way. Lastly, she believes there are other issues in the beach overlay which are also not being addressed. She is opposed to the Sea Gables project. Margaret Bonas, 231 Olive, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she is concerned about the health and welfare of the general public in that area. Twenty years ago a developer named Jim Behr wanted everyone to vacate their homes along Chinquapin so he could develop the area. The City fathers denied that request. There may come a time when the City needs to extend Chinquapin to Carlsbad Boulevard. She sees no problem extending it as long as it is done with a right-turn-only onto Carlsbad Boulevard. Paul O’Neal, SDG&E, addressed the Commission and stated that he was noticed appropriately on this project but it slipped through the cracks and he only just reviewed it this week. SDG&E has a problem with the applicant interfering with the 20 ft. easement but they would be willing to work with them to correct the problem. MINUTES CORRECTED PLANNING COMMISSION December 1,1993 PAGE 19 . Brian Regan, Manitou Engineering, was given time for rebuttal. He stated that he had met with Mrs. Hall on her property and she personally indicated to him that she would support the project. He asked tier to write a letter supporting it and she told him she would. Regarding view retention, he stated that there would be two view points which the public could reach via sidewalks. There would be signs posted for the public and the pavement would be different in that area. He has tried to soften the impacts so that views can be preserved for the public and adjacent residents. Commissioner Welshons inquired if he had it to do over again would he do another PUD. Mr. Regan replied that he would advise his client against a PUD. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Noble declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he would accept the staff recommendation even though his concern is different from staffs. He does not support the vacations. Commissioner Erwin stated that he would like to deny the project without prejudice. Commissioner Schlehuber could accept that. Commissioner Welshons will also accept the staff recommendation. Chairman Noble stated for the record that five letters had been received regarding this project and they will be on file in the Planning Department. A motion was made by Commissioner Erwin to deny the project without prejudice but it died for lack of a second. ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3582, approving a Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3583,3584, 3585, 3586, and 3597 denying CT 92-09, PUD 92-09, HDP 93-01, V 93-02, and V 93-03. VOTE: 7-o AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Hall, Savary, Schlehuber and Welshons NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular meeting of December 1, 1993 was adjourned at lo:47 p.m. BETTY BUCKNER Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED. MINUTES (619)5 Golden Sunset, Ltd. 7323 Engineer Road San Diego, CA 92111 73-0800 (619)573-088 (619) 573-1801 TDD 6 FAX EXHBIT 6 December 8, 1993 MS. Lee Rautenkranz City Clerk City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Ms. Rautenkranz: The purpose of this letter is to appeal a decision made by the Planning Commission, to the City Council on C.T. 9209 (Sea Gables). My name is Tim Connole and I am the General Partner of Golden Sunset, Ltd., owner of the property at the west end of Chinquapin Avenue in Carlsbad. I have been processing a map on this project which was accepted complete on March 10, 1993. The allotted time for the processing ran out and I was granted a 90 day extension by the City of.Carlsbad only to find that the extension left me too little time to complete changes to the map required by the City of Carlsbad. As a result of the time factor I requested a continuance to the Planning Commission. The matter for continuance was heard and denied at the Planning Commission meeting on December 1, 1993. I know this project has taken longer than it should and that is primarily my fault. I have not been able to devote the necessary sufficient time as a result of a tragedy that occurred in my family. I have the responsibility of tending to my son's constant needs. He is a ventilator dependent quadriplegic, caused by an accident. However, things have been stabilizing recently and I feel I can certainly complete this process now. I cannot afford to lose the time or the money that has gone into this project. I simply don't have the dollars required to start over, which would be necessary if a continuance is.not granted. I am requesting that the appeal be heard by the City Council on January 11, 1994 to grant a time extension of 90-120 days so that I am given a chance to complete the process. I am willing to relinquish my right to any automatic approval and I WILL NOT SUE the City of Carlsbad regarding this issue. Thank you for your prompt Sincerely, attention to this matter. RCU Bk’:xEROx TELECOPIER 7010 ; 2- l-94 1:07PM ; + 6194380894; ci 1 Supraporte, Inc. I 431-7940 - Created: 9) Tuesday. February 1, I?. 1:07 PM - Page 1 of 1 --------,----------_--------------------------------------------------------------------- . ATTENTION : Elaine Blackburn FAX: 619 438-0894 City of Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office Public Hearing CT 92-9/ PUD 92-9/ HDP 931V 93-2-Sea Gables Extension of Time for a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Hillside Development Permit and Variance to develop. FROM : Nina B. Eaton Owner of Unit C at 111 Sequoia Ave . : Property immediately North of property in question. FAX : 619 431-7940 TEL : 619 431-7944 **MAILING ADDRESS : 1106 2nd Street, x22,4, Encinitas, CA 92024 DATE : February 1,1994 Per our phone conversation this morning, 2/ 1/ 94, I am respectfully request that my following fax statement be entered into the record of this evening’s public hearing. I am unable to attend due to being in route to a family emergency out of state. I would ask that it be a matter of record that: I am presently unopposed to the granting by the City Council of an extension of time for a Tentative Tract Map as long as it requires a complete redesign of the project to conform with all of the site requirements as were active at the time of previous plan submission and filling. However, I am extremely opposed to any setback variances, either side, front, back, or height variance, or variance of any other type not specified here in name. I am further extremely opposed to the granting of vacation of any street or highway in relationship to this site. I am aware that this project was denied by Coastal Commission and/ or City Council at least twice previously, in 1985 and December 1993. I would not object to the development of this property once plans meet all site requirements and it becomes apparent that no negative impact will felt by current residents of the area. Respectfully, Nina B. Eaton February 4, 1994 Tim Connole Golden Sunset, Ltd. 7323 Engineer Rd. San Diego, CA 92111 RE: SEA GABLES - CT 92-9/PUD 92-9/HDP 93-1/V 93-2/V-93-3 The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of February 1, 1994, adopted Resolution No. 94-39, upholding the Planning Commission denial of a request for an extension of time for the tentative tract map, planned unit development, hillside development permit and variances for Sea Gables, CT 92-9/PUD 92-9/HDP 93-1/V 93- 2/v 93-3. Enclosed for your records is a copy of Resolution No. 94-39. Enc. 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2808 @ c b y in , I I t I 1 I ,: I ‘:., , \ I : NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL CT 92-9/PUD 92-9/HDP .93-1/V 93-2 - SEA GABLES 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, February 1, 1994, to consider an appeal of Planning Commission denial of an application for an extension of time for a Tentative.Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Hillside Development Permit and Variance to develop a 15-unit, 16-lot residential condominium project on property generally located at the western terminus of Chinquapin Avenue, within Local Facilities Management Zone 1, and more particularly described as: A portion of Block W of Palisades 12, according to Map thereof No. 1803, and Lots 3-8 of Palisades according to Map thereof No. 1747, filed in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department, at 438-1161, ext. 4471. If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Hillside Development Permit and/or Variance 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. APPELLANT: Tim Connole PUBLISH: January 20, 1994 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL -mDIwzam 4 -- City I( CubM SEA GABLES Cl 92-09/Pw 92-091 mf93-01/v 93-02 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 1, 1993, to consider a request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Hillside Development Permit, and Variance to develop a Is-unit, 16-lot residential condominium project on property generally located at the western terminus of Chinquapin Avenue within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as: A portion of Block W of Palisades #2, according to Map thereof No. 1803 and Lots 3-8 of Palisades, according to Map thereof No. 1747. 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 November 29, 1993. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at 438- 1161, ext. 4471. If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Hillside Development Permit, and Variance 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 92-09/PUD 92-09/HDP 93-01/V 93-02 CASE NAME: SEA GABLES PUBLISH: NOVEMBER 18, 1993 tww\mu LG. co. HOMER & NINA EATON 1106 t&ID ST #225 206-013-20-01 0 I ENCINITAS, CA 92024 DAVID W. BLACKBURN TRUST 468 SEAWARD ROAD 206-013-20-03 0 3 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 RICHARD W. ULMER 111 SEQUOIA AVE #E 206-013-20-05 0 5 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 HARLEY & JOYCE NOEL P.O. BOX 802195 206-013-20-07 0 3 SANTA CLARITA, CA 91380 HELEN MCCONNAUGHAY 143 SEQUOIA AVE. 206-013-04 0 4 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 GEMINI TRUST 1520 KING ST. 206-013-06 0 .[I SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 JANNETTE & VIRGIL IKE 3955 GARFIELD ST. 206-013-08, 18 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 WARREN & ALICE FRINCHASOY 3981 GARFIELD ST. 206-013- 19 0 IL\ CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JAMES & BETTY HARRIS TR. 144 SEQUOIA AVE. #2 206-011-07-02 0 ic1 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ELLIE HARRIS TRUST 1012 S. HILL ST #8 206-011-07-04 0 21, OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 MICHAEL PAPPAS 111 SEQUOIA AVE #B 206-013-20-02 0 2 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 EDWARD & ELIZABETH NANCE 1408 E. VISTA DEL MAR DR. 206-013-20-04 FULLERTON, CA 92631 0 4 FRANK & LINDA WEAVER 111 SEQUOIA AVE. #D 206-013-20-06 0 b CARLSBAD, CA 92008 FREDERICK & MARTHA KOHNKE 111 SEQUOIA AVE. H 206-013-20-08 0 B CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JEFFERSON & EVELYN HEARD 1306 BASSWOOD AVE - 206-013-05 0 IO CARLSBAD. CA 92008 ALAN P. OGDEN 169 SEQUOIA AVE. 206-013-07 9 \2 CARSBAD, CA 92008\ JACK & DOROTHY HALL 2619 COVE ST. 206-013-11 0 13 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 MAQUILA MANAGEMENT INC. 51 BLUE ANCHOR CAY RD. 206-011-07-01 CORONADO, CA 92118 0 10 DORIS ELG 4312 APRICOT DRIVE 206-011-07-03 0 m IRVINE, CA 92720 PAUL & DOREEN RYAN 152 SEQUOIA AVE. 206-011-08 0 22 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 f-U11 aNYlJ6K 3032 SKYLINE DR. 206-011-09 0 23) OCEANSIDE, CA 92056 LARRY & GAYLOR TIMMERSTET 3941 GARFIELD ST. 206-011-11 0 25 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LILLIE BLACK 3921 GARFIELD ST 206-011-13 0 27 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JAMES ZATHAS 6384 LOURDES TERRACE 206-011-15 SAN DIEGO, CA 92120 0 “4 FRANK & JEANETTE TAYLOR 30502 VIA LA CRFSTA 0 32 206-011-18 RANCH0 PALOS VERDE, CA 90274 SHIN-KAI & NANCY CHANG 111 TAMARACK AVE #101 206-011-21-01 0 34 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BERNARD & JAME MAZELSKY 1022 DANCOVE DRIVE 0 36 206-011-21-03 WEST COVINA, CA 91791 WALLY & HELEN ALBRIGHT 111 TAMARACK AVE. #El06 206-011-21-06 0 30 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MARSHALL & NANCY MONTGOMERY TRUST 20025 NEWTON ST. 206-011-21-07 0 40 CORONA, CA 91719 HARRY & MARIETTA MAYS 6571 MONTE VISTA 206-011-21-09 0 42 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 CLIFFORD & JOAN PIERCE 111 TAMARACK AVE. #205 206-011-21-11 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 WILLIAPI & NLUKn bkWNUI!iK:, 160 SEQUOIA AVE. 206-011-10 0 24 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOYCE JAMES 3931 GARFIELD ST. 206-011-12 0 26 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JAMES & SHERYL GOT0 3911 GARFIELD ST. 206-011-14 0 28 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BERNARD & MARGARET 1988 TRUST 604 19TH ST. 206-011-16, 17 MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 ROBERT & BERTHA GILLINGHAM 2628 WILSON ST. 206-011-19 0 33 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 GERALD & LINDA WILLIAMS 865 N. MAIRFAIR CIRCLE 206-011-21-02 0 3 MESA, AZ 85213 LOUISE ADAMS 111 TAMARACK AVE. #105 206-011-21-04 0 3 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DWIGHT & MARIAN WYMORE 111 TAMARACK AVE. #107 206-011-21-06 0 34 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOHN&MARY HYLKEMA 1711 ROSSMONT DRIVE 206-011-21-08 0 41 REDLANDS, CA 92373 RICHARD & JUANITA GEIERMAN 2111 WALES DRIVE 206-011-21-10 CARDIFF, CA 92007 0 q3 ROBERT & AGNES WALTON 111 TAMARACK AVE. #206 206-011-21-12 CARLSBAD, CA 920@p- 0 6 lJJNf3.W bc YXULA MCCULLUUCiH .1125 COUNTRYWOOD LANE 206-011-21-13 VISTA, CA 92083 GASKINS FAMILY TRUST 548 N-. 13TH. AVE. #304 206-011-21-15 0 98 UPLAND, CA 91786 THOMAS & DONNA QUACKENBUSH 1817 MT. SHASTA DRIVE 206-011-21-17 0 50 SAN PEDRO, CA 90732 CHARLES & VIOLET LEDGERWOOD 3862 CARLSBAD BLVD. 204-253-13, 15, 16 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MAC & MARY ROSGEN 1950 OAKLAND HILLS ROAD 204-253-17 0 IL?4 CORONA, CA 91720 JEFFERY QUEEN & ROBERT WILDER P.O. BOX 2781 204-253-19 0 62 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 MICHEAL & CAROL ENRIGHT 72 FREMONT PLACE 204-253-01 0 61 LOS ANGELES, CA 90005 FRANK & KATHRYNE STEVENSON P.O. BOX 63 204-253-02-02 0 60 GUATAY, CA 91931 WILLIAM & NIKOLICHA VAGENAS 316 W. COLORADO 204-253-04 ARCADIA, CA 91007 0 56 IRWIN 6i MARILYN WERTHIMER 150 TAMARACK AVE. 204-253-06 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 0 56 JANIE JONES 3630 SURFWOOD ROAD 204-270-22 0 b0 MALIBU, CA 90265 Luur41s .YnkllLY ‘I’HUS’1’ 516 PEACHTREE LANE-. 206-011-21-14 ARCADIA, CA 91006 0 47 ROBERT AXTELL 111 TAMARACK AVE. #304 206-011-21-16 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 0 J44 BERNARD & ANTOINETTE WALSH 10781 EQUESTRIAN DR. 106-011-21-18 0 51 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 BONNIE SAKAMOTO 11101 SUNSET BLVD. 204-053-08, 09 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 CALVIN & MYRA MARANTZ & ANNA MARANTZ 159 REDWOOD AVE. 204-253-18 0 63 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARI,OS & CONSUELO ALEMEDRA 3878 CARLSBAD BLVD. MITZE EUBANKS 0 52 204-253-20 CARLSBAD. CA 92008 ALBERT & CAROL GRAMS 280 N. GLENDORA AVE 204-253-02-01 0 60 COVINA, CA 91724 KEVIN AGNER 3881 GARFIELD ST. 204-253-03 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 0 54 BERNARD GOLDSTEIN 160 TAMARACK AVE. 204-253-05 0 57 CARLSBAD. CA 92008 JAMES & NAOMI SEVERANCE 3500 CATAMARAN ST. 204-253-07 0 55 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 JACEK & TAMARA PERSIDOK 7807 ESTANCIA ST. 204-270-41 0 71 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 SABlNH Wll&kiH 444 W. DUARTE RD #C-8 204-270-42 ARCADIA, CA 91007 0 674 THERESA OSTERHOUT 245 TAMARACK AVE. 206-020-03 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 0 14 SEA PINE PARTNERS P.O. BOX 1306 C/O MICHAEL STRAUB sl 0 206-020-16 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 THOMAS MERCER, LAURA PAHL, ROD PAHL 1200 N. MAIN ST. STE 910 206-020-32 SANTA ANA, CA 92701 0 73 SIDNEY SEARLS 3912 GARFIELD ST. 206-012-02 0 17 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ARTHUR & CLARA DOCKHAM 3930 GARFIELD ST 206-012-04 0 14 CARLSBAD. CA 92008 DORIS LINDAMOOD TRUST 3950 GARFIELD ST 206-012-06 0 01 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MARJORIE RUZICKA 3970 GARFIELD ST. 206-012-08 0 83 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 THOMAS & JANET NOTEY 1831 DEERHILL TRAIL 206-012-10-01, 02 C 85 TOPANGA, CA 90290 GREEN FAMILY TRUST 290 CHINQUAPIN AVE. #C 206-020-35-01 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 0 84 JOHN SNYDER 1788 DORKING AVE. 206-020-35-03 0 91 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 I-- WKLi.l’r;K 61 I-EiLSiN NCk.iWl5N 3940 GARFIELD ST. 204-270-43 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 0 70 NORMAN & ERSILIA ENGEBRITS P.O. BOX 651 206-020-15 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 BOWERS, BOWERS & STOSCHER 3885 MONROE ST. 206-020-17 0 /12 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 HARRISON EALY 2521 l/2 S. VISTA WAY #212 206-012-01 CARLSBAD. CA 92008 0 16 SCOTT- GARNER, THEA TR. 721 PASSIFLORA AVE. 206-012-03 LEUCADIA, CA 92024 0 78 WALTER & HELEN McEWEN 3940 GARFIELD ST. 206-012-05 0 80 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOAN HERBERT 3960 GARFIELD ST 206-012-07 0 82 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LORRAINE YOUNG 3978 GARFIELD ST. 0d 206-012-09 0 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 VINCENT FAMILY TRUST 4494 N. PERSHING AVE. 206-012-11 0 86 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407 JEANNE GREEN 290 CHINQUAPIN AVE. #B 206-020-35-02 0 40 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 GREGORY & ELIZABETH RUMORE 18 SERENO CIRCLE 206-020-35-04 OAKLAND, CA 94619- 0 42 l%UREEN MEEHAN ANNE COLLINS HOME SAVINGS OF AMERICA . 403 WESTBOURNE ST. P.O. BOX 5300 .-h - 2@5-@28-35-05 C 43 206-020-35-06 0 44 LA JOLLA, CA 92037 BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706 JACQUELINE CROSSMAN ORELL & NANCY CLEM 292 CHINQUAPIN AVE #B 292 CHINQUAPIN AVE #B 206-020-35-07 206-020-35-08 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 0 46 RICHARD & PATRICIA SIMUN 1019 LONGWOOD AVE. 206-020-35-09 0 47 LOS ANGELES, CA 90019 JUNE GOLLAHON & JAMES LOEPP 2610 BROOKDALE LANE 209-020-35-10 DUARTE, CA 91010 0 $3 MARIA & RICHARD TRAVINO & ANNA ROBLES WADE & ELFIE ALEXANDER 26230 WESTERN AVE. 296 CHINQUAPIN AVE. #8 206-020-35-11 206-020-35-12 LOMITA, CA 90717 0 c39 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 0 IO0 KARLRADKE JOHN SNYDER 61 KENNYON MIEDEMA 296 CHINQUAPIN AVE. #A 1245 CATALINA AVE. 206-020-35-13 206-020-35-14 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 0 IQ\ PASADENA, CA 91104 SOREN, AHERN, CHRISTENSON, BARTELL P.O. BOX 8010 & WALLOCH lo3 206-020-35-15 0 REDLANDS, CA 92374 CAROL LAU CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JAY & GLORIA ROTHENBERG EDWIN & SUSAN CARRIGAN 10153 CREBS AVE. 0 4364 CANTEBURY DR. 206-020-35-17 10s 206-020-35-18 NORTHRIDGE, CA 91324 LA MESA, CA 91941 0 lo6 WILLIAM & JUDY MuNGA JAYCE DANIELS 17400 BROOKHURST ST. #200 P.O. BOX 20668 206-020-35-19 0 161 206-020-35-20 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 RIVERSIDE, CA 92516 JAMES & LII VINE LEITTE SHARP 280 CHINQUAPIN AVE. #A 206-020-35-21, 206-080-13 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 00 (09 \\o 838 OAKWOOD ST. 206-080-01 GLENDORA. CA 91740 0 \I+ JAMFS&PAMFLAGALLADE JOSEPH & BARBARA DONEGAN 4016 GARFIELD ST. 0 7712 ROMERIA ST. 206-080-02 115 206-080-03 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CAIUSBAD, CA 92009 0 tlb KUTLESA LIVING TRUST MARY RALEIGH 4024 GARFIELD ST. #8 9816 BONNIE VISTA DR. 206-080-04 0 u7 206-080-08 133 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LA MESA, CA 91941 0 riL&LlY lzHJKnt!i 1791 PREMIER ST. 206-080-10. 11 FALLBROOK, CA 92028 FRANCIS & MARGARET McCORMACK 975 SINGING WOOD DR. 206-080-31-01 0 M3 ARCADIA, CA 91006 ROBERT & MYRNA 2906 SAN JUAN DR. 206-080-31-03 0 120 FULLERTON, CA 92635 WARREN A CHRISTENSEN TRUST 4026 GARFIELD ST. 206-080-31-05 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ALANSAKAL 4042 GARFIELD ST. 206-080-31-07 0 KLf CARLSBAD. CA 92008 OSCAR ORTIZ 2331 DESERT GARDENS DR. 206-080-31-09 EL CENTRO, CA 92243 WILLIAM & DAURINE IRVIN 1212 BEVERLY VIEW DR. 206-080-31-11 0 128 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 THOMAS GONZALES & TERESA GONZALES 19437 WINDROSE DR DONALD & ARLENE WHITMARSH 206-080-31-13 0 Ia ROWLANDS HEIGHTS, CA 91748 STEVEN SAAR 4046 GARFIELD ST. 206-080-31-15 0 132 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ROBERT &I BARBARA CUPPOLA 197 CHIQUAPIN AVE. 206-070-01-01 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 0 \37 PHILIP & ANN FLORY 187 CHINQUAPIN AVE. 206-070-01-03 0 r34 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ,- KU’ll-l WKIJUN 4224 MOONLIGHT LANE 206-080-12 0 I\\ OCEANSIDE, CA 92056 GARCIA RILEY 4032 GARFIELD ST. 206-080-31-02 0 I\9 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOHN & DEBORAH STEINBACH 4028 GARFIELD ST. 206-080-31-04 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 0 \2l LLEWELLA DAVIES 4044 GARFIELD ST. 206-080-31-06 0 \23 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 V. R. & MOUNEAN DIXON 4040 GARFIELD DR. 206-080-31-08 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ALAN & JANET NEWMAN FAMILY TRUST P.O. BOX 749 206-080-31-10 0 127 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 WILLIAM & PHYLIS RAWLINGS 4052 GARFIELD ST. 206-080-31-12 0 R4 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RICHARD & NANCY ROBERTS 3432 BRAVATA ST. 206-080-31-14 0 1331 HENTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 ELISABETH GERUM 13342 DEL MONTE DR. #5F 206-080-25 0 I34 SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 KARLHARTMANN 1939 AVENIDA PLAZA REAL C/O MICHAEL MERGET 206-070-01-02 OCEANSIDE, CA 92056 ROBERT HARGER & JAMES HARGER 1230 6TH AVE. 206-070-02 0 v-u MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 92066 WN'l' ix CiNUY kXJHGl5UN I 185 CHINQUARIN AVE. 206-070-01-04 c IL' CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOSIAH & JANE MCCRACKEN 135 C%INQUAF'IN AVE. 206-070-07 0 w-l CAIUSBAD, CA 92008 KARL 6;t VIRGINIA HOFFBAUER 3432 CASABLANCA WAY 206-070-09 FALLBROOK. CA 92028 IRENE SURO 11315 RANCH0 BERNARDO RD. 206-013-16, 17 SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 GERALD & MYRNA JONES 510 CLUB DRIVE 206-011-06 0 17 SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 GUldJJ5N WNSr;'l' 11315 RANCH0 BERNPPnO RD #133 C/O CONN0L.L CONST 0 206-070-04&206-013-L2,13,14,15 SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 BRUCE TABER 145 CHINQUAPIN AVE. 206-070-08 0 143 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 101 ASH 206-070-10, 11 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 TAMARACK NO. 237 580 BEECH AVE. 206-020-01 0 75 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ‘1 9 CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. - 801 PINE AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 *I TO: FROM: RE: (Form A) CITY CLERK’S OFFICE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A TIME EXTENSION - SEA GABLES - CT 92-091 PUD 92-09/HDP 93-01/V 93-02/V 93-03 for a public hearing before the City Council. Please notice the item for the Council meeting of a/r /qq Thank you. MARTY ORENYAK JANUARY 6, 1994 Assistant City Manager Date Attachments