The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-02-01; City Council; 12574; Calavera Hills Master Plan Village U. ‘i”TY OF CARLSBAD - AGWDA BILL CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN - VILLAGE “U” CT 90-25/PUD 90-25/HDP 90-31 I- RECOMMENDED ACTION: If the City Council concurs, the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare documents APPROVING CT 90- 25/PUD 90-25/HDP 90-31 I ITEM EXPLANATION On December 15, 1993, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval (6-1, Erwin) of the Calavera Hills Village “U” multi-family project, which is generally located east of future College Boulevard, south of approved Village “T” and north of approved Village “w” within the Calavera Hills Master Plan in Local Facilities Management Zone 7. The project consists of 138 multi-family dwelling units to be developed within 27 buildings (two 8 plex’s, eleven 6 plex’s and fourteen 4 plex’s). The project site is 59.3 gross acres with 42.6 net developable acres. 37 acres of the project site will remain as natural open space. Village “U” has a residential General Plan designation of RLM (Residential Low-Medium density) and along with the Calavera Hills Master Plan allows up to 138 dwelling units on-site. The project area for Village YJ” has topographical, biological and other constraints which prevents typical single family residential development with standard 2 car garages. The master plan, therefore, placed a multi-family designation on Village “U” and required the use of the Planned Development Ordinance to provide private streets and clustering of units in order to achieve the allowed 138 units while promoting sensitive hillside development and grading. In recommending approval, the Planning Commission debated two aspects of the project. The first issue involves the guest parking requirement and the ability to count on-street spaces for guest parking. City code allows a private street per the Planned Development Ordinance to accommodate guest parking spaces (parking on one side on a 32 foot wide private street and parking on both sides on a 36 foot wide private street). This project requires 44 guest parking spaces of which 39 are provided in off- street open bays. The balance of the requirement (5 spaces) is satisfied by private street guest parking which yields another 68 spaces for a project total of 107 guest spaces. The second issue deals with the fact that this project does not propose a 2 car garage with each unit. The Planned Development Ordinance requires two covered spaces per unit (covered means a carport or garage space). This yields a requirement of 276 covered spaces of which 218 are provided as garage spaces. The remaining 58 spaces are provided as carport spaces. While the Village “U” proposal complies with all applicable regulations, the issue of providing two car garages within multi-family projects was discussed. No other significant issues were identified with the project and all required development standards and design criteria have been met. The attached staff report dated December 15, 1993 gives specific details regarding the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit. J PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. . ‘a, 5?q AFFORDABLE HOUSING All residential development within the Calavera Hills Master Plan is required to provide a minimum of 15% of the housing units to be affordable to persons and families of lower income. The applicant is proposing to provide the affordable housing units required for the remainder of the master plan (including Village “U”‘s requirement) within Village “K” located along Carlsbad Village Drive. Village “U” is conditioned such that the Site Development Plan and Affordable Housing Agreement for Village “K” shall be approved before the approval of the final map for Village “U”. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW On October 26,1993, the City Council certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 90-05 which provided environmental review for the development of the balance of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. This project complies with all applicable mitigation measures outlined by Final EIR 90-05 for the development of Village “U”. As proposed, the project will not create any significant adverse environmental impacts. FISCAL IMPACT As discussed in the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 7, all required improvements are to be funded by applicant initiated development, therefore no fiscal impacts to the City will result from this 138 unit multi-family Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit. GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS Facilities Zone ~ -r ~ ~ 7 Facility/Service Deficiency None Growth Control Point ~ I- 3.2 Net Density I 3.2 Special Facility Fee Yes* * The project is subject to the Community Facilities District No. 1 (Citywide Mello Roos) fee assessed on all undeveloped property. The proposed project is at the growth management control point of 3.2 du’s/acre. 1. Location Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution No’s. 3587, 3588 and 3589 3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 15, 1993 4. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 15, 1993 - .: 1 SITE vclMlTY MAP CALAVERA HEIGHTS VILLAGE “U” CT 90i,5/;~D3;O-25/ I- EXHIBIT 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 i2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3587 A RESOLUTtON OF THE PLANNtNG COMMtSStON OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDMDE AND DEVELOP 138 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE CITY, EAST OF THE FUTURE ALIGNMENT OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF APPROVED VILLAGE “T” AND NORTH OF APPROVED VILLAGE “W” WITHIN THE CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 7. CASE NAME: CALAVERA HEIGHTS VILLAGE “U” CASE NO: CT 90-25 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit: A portion of Lot D of The Ranch0 Agua Hedionda in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Map thereof No. 823 on file at the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. 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 II I itle 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of December, 1993 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; nd 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) B) That the above recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends APPROVAL of CT 90-25, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ia 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 hliIlEcs: 1. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and the Calavera Hills Master Plan since the overall proposed density of 3.2 d&au-e is within the RLM density range of 04 dus/acre specified for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan and within the Calavera Hills Master Plan, and is at or below the growth control point of 3.2 dus/acre. 2. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since: The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project, ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the City Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. 3. The project is in compliance with the adopted mitigation measures of Final Environmental tmpact Report 90-05 and would not create any additional significant adverse environmental impacts. 4. The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. 5. This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 7. 6. School fees will be paid or a school agreement will be finalized, to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad Unified School District. 7. To ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad Unified School District the applicant will submit evidence to the City that impacts to school facilities will be mitigated in conformance with the City’s Growth Management Plan to the extent permitted by applicable state law for legislative acts. 8. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval. 9. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the general plan. I ?C RESO NO. 3587 -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 10. 11. 12. I- of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the general plan. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land use since surrounding properties are designated for residential development on the general plan. The Tentative Tract Map satisfies all requirements of Title 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map Act. The Tentative Tract Map is consistent with Final EIR 90-05, and recixnmended mitigation measures, .as outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 3515, approving Final EIR 90-05, as Exhibit “A” dated June 16, 1993, designed to reduce signifkant environmental impacts have been included in the project’s design and/or conditions of approval. General Planning Conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommendation of approval is granted for CT 90-26, as shown on Exhibits “A” - I’LL”, dated December 15, 1993 incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which may be required as part of the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the City Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map. This project is also approved under the express conditions that the applicant pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 and as amended from time to time, and any development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or facilities and improvement plan and to fulfil1 the subdivider’s agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated June 16, 1990, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid, this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be ‘C RESO NO. 3587 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E S IC 11 12 1: 14 1: 1E 1s 1E 1E 2c 21 22 2: 24 2f 2c 27 2E r I 1 i t I . ! 1 5 Cl j j ? 3 3 ) > , 5 1 k 1 i i I I P 3. 2. 3. I- invalid, this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the conditions complies with all requirements of law. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance. Approval of CT 90-25 is granted subject to approval of PUD 90-25, and HDP 90- 32. The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Tentative Map as approved by the Planning Commission. The Tentative Map shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The map copy shall be submitted to the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first. A 500’ scale map of the subdivision shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior to the recordation of the final map. Said map shall show all lots and streets within and adjacent to the project. As part of the plans submitted for building permit plan check, the applicant shall include a reduced version of the approving resolution/resolutions on a 24” x 36” blueline drawing. The applicant shall provide the following note on the final map of the subdivision and final mylar of this development submitted to the City: “Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code establishes a Growth Management Control Point for each General Plan land use designation. Development cannot exceed the Growth Control Point except as provided by Chapter 21.90. The land use designation for this development is EUM. The Growth Control Point for this designation is 3.2 dwelling units per nonconstrained acre. All parcels that do not have an Open Space General Plan designation were used to calculate the intensity of development under the general plan and Chapter 21.90. Subsequent redevelopment or resubdivision of any one of these parcels must also include all parcels under the general plan and Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.” The applicant shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name policy subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval. The project shall provide bus stop facilities at locations subject to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District. Said facilities shall at a minimum include a bench, free from advertising, and a pole for the bus stop sign. The bench and pole shall be designed in a manner so as to not detract from the basic architectural theme of the project and said design shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director and North County Transit District. ‘C RESO NO. 3587 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E S 1C 11 If 12 14 1: 1E 17 1E 1E 2c 21 22 2: 24 26 26 23 2E .4. .5. .6. .7. .8. 19. The applicant shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&R’s shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. The CC&R’s shall include provisions specifying that there shall be Homeowner’s Association maintenance responsibility for all natural open space lots and easements, and slope maintenance easements, as shown on the approved tentative tract map and landscape plan (CT 90-25), which is on file in the Planning Department. Prior to (or concurrent with) approval of the final map, the applicant shall grant Lots 8,15,25,29,33,40,45,46 in fee, to the Homeowners’ Association as permanent open space. This stipulation shall be included in the CC&R’s The applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as part of building permit application. These fees shall be based on the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit application. All or a portion of said fees may be waived subject to the approval of the Carlsbad Unified School District. Prior to the approval of any Emil map or the issuance of any permits within the Calavera Hills Master Plan, the applicant for the final map or permit shall submit evidence to the City that impacts to school facilities have been mitigated in conformance with the City’s Growth Management Plan to the extent permitted by applicable state law for legislative acts. If the mitigation involves a financing scheme such as a Mello-Roes Community Facilities District which is inconsistent with the City’s Growth Management Plan including City Council Policy Statement No. 38, the developer shall submit disclosure documents for approval by the City Manager and City Attorney which shall disclose to future owners in the project, to the maximum extent possible, the existence of the tax and that the school district is the taxing agency responsible for the financing district. At a minimum, the project CC&R’s shall require maximum disclosure and signed statements for disclosures upon transfer of residential property. Prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy, there shall be a Notice of Restriction recorded against this property subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Tentative Map, Planned Development Permit, and Hillside Development Permit by Resolution No.‘s 3587,3588, and 3589 on the real property owned by the declarant. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. Said Notice of Restriction may be modified or terminated only with the approval of the Planning Director, Planning Commission or City Council of the City of Carlsbad whichever has final decision authority for this project. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view and sound buffered from adjacent properties ‘C RESO NO. 3587 -5 ; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10. !l. !2. - I and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6 and to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Building. The developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales office at all times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. The applicant shall submit a wall and fencing plan subject to Planning Director approval prior to issuance of building permits. All sound attenuation walls shall provide offsets to provide for landscape screening consistent with the Calavera Hills Master Plan. An irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of G&bad, Open Space District or other similar entity designated by the City of Carlsbad, for a perpetual easement for public trails over, upon and across lot(s) 7, 8, and 33, as shown on the tentative map, shall be made on the final map, for trails that are part of the Carlsbad Trail System, see Exhibits “B” and “E”, dated December 15, 1993. If prior to recordation of final map, the City of Carlsbad adopts the financing mechanisms necessary to implement the Carlsbad Trail System and accept the above required dedication, the trails shown on the tentative map shall be constructed prior to occupancy of the first unit within Village “U” by the developer pursuant to the guidelines of the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan. If the City of Carlsbad accepts dedication of the trail easement, the City shall assume responsibility, maintenance and liability for the trail(s). If prior to recordation of final map, the City of Carlsbad does not adopt the financing mechanism necessary to implement the Carlsbad Trail System, the applicant will not be required to construct the proposed trails. Said unimproved open space easements shall be annexed to and maintained by the Master Homeowner Association as stated in the CC&R’s, until such time that the n-revocable offer of dedication is accepted. The City may require a note specifying the possibility of a future trail on areas covered by a public trails easement to be placed on an additional map sheet on the final map. Improvements listed above shall be constructed per the terms of the subdivision improvement agreement. mordable Housing Conditions: !3. Prior to final map approval, an Affordable Housing Agreement shall be required to be submitted by the applicant to the City, approved by the Community Development Director, or his designee, and completed and recorded as a deed restriction on those units of the project which are designated for the location of low-income affordable units. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding to all future owners and successors in interest for the term of the Agreement. The Affordable Housing Agreement, for which the inclusionary housing requirement will be satisfied through new construction of inclusionary units, either onsite, ‘C RESO NO. 3587 . -6- 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 !4. - offsite, or through a combined inclusionary housing project, shall establish, but not be limited to, the following: (4 (b) (cl Cd) Cd 03 (d (9 Standards modifications granted by the City. The number of inclusionary dwelling units proposed; The unit size(s) (square footage) of the inclusionary units and the number of bedrooms per inclusionary dwelling units; The proposed location of the inclusionary units; Tenure of affordability for inclusionaty units (effective life of the units); Schedule for production of the dwelling units; Incentives and/or financial assistance provided by the City; Where applicable, terms and conditions establishing rules and procedures for qualifying tenants, setting rental rates, Wing vacancies, and operating and maintaining units for affordable inclusionary dwelling units; Where applicable, term and conditions goveming the initial sale of for-sale inclusionary units; and %zn Conditions: Prior to final map approval, a Site Development Permit that satisfies the affordable housing requirements for this project shall be approved. 25. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color. 26. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs. andscam Conditions: 27. 28. 29. 30. The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the approval of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first. The landscape plan shall provide planting in the project’s crib wall located in the northeastern portion of the development as shown on Exhibit “LL”, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. All landscaping shall comply with the Landscape Requirements of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash and debris. The developer shall install street trees at the equivalent of 40-foot intervals along all public street frontages in conformance with City of Carlsbad standards. The trees shall be of a variety selected from the approved Street Tree List. ?C RESO NO. 3587 -7- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 31. All landscape plans shall be prepared to conform with the City’s Landscape Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning Department. 32. Prior to final occupancy, a letter from a California licensed landscape architect shall be submitted to the Planning Director certifying that all landscaping has been installed as shown on the approved landscape plans. 33. 34. All herbicides shall be applied by applicators licensed by the State of California. The applicant shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 35. All landscape and irrigation plans shall show existing and proposed contours and shall match the grading plans in terms of scale and location of improvements. 36. The minimum shrub size shall be 5 gallons. One (1) gallon shrub sizes may be used if it is deemed to be more beneficial for the long term survivability of the plants as determined by the Planning Director. 37. 20% of the trees in the project shall be 24” box or greater. Environmental Mitination Conditions: 38. Prior to occupancy of individual units, the applicant shall construct noise attenuation walls consistent with the noise study prepared by Mestre Greve Associates dated August 25, 1993 and as shown on Exhibits “I” - “KY, dated December 15, 1993 on file in the Planning Department. The applicant shall provide these noise mitigation measures to comply with Planning Department Policy No. 17 and final EIR 90-05. 39. Prior to issuance of building permits: (1) interior noise levels shall be mitigated to 45 dBA CNEL when openings to,the exterior of the residence are closed; (2) if openings are provided, mechanical ventilation shall be provided, and; (3) all useable exterior space above the first floor shall be mitigated to a maximum of 60 dBA CNEL. 40. Prior to the issuance of building permits the owner of record of the property shall prepare and record a notice that this property is subject to noise impacts from the future College Boulevard transportation corridor and overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from Palomar Airport. The notice shall be prepared in a manner meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney. The applicant shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all rental offices associated with the new development. The number and location of said signs shall be approved by the Planning Director. 41. All building pad and street areas that are graded and remain vacant or undeveloped for a period of more than 6 months after the grading operation is PC RESO NO. 3587 -8- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 1c 11 12 13 14 15 1c 17 18 19 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 completed shall be seeded to reduce visual impacts. If grading is phased, the six month time period shaLl start at the completion of each individual grading phase. hwi.neerinfz Conditions: ,2. .3. 4. 15. 6. -7. 18. 19. Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is authorized by virtue of approval of this tentative map. The applicant shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project. The applicant shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.& E., Pacific Bell Telephone, and Cable TV authorities. This project is approved specifically as 10 (ten) Units for the purposes of recording. Prior to approval of each recording unit, all facilities needed to serve the Unit shall be guaranteed for construction with that Unit. These facilities shall include but not be limited to: a. b. All circulation to se&k the Unit and to meet the cul-de-sac standard. All drainage facilities to serve the Unit to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. C. All sewer and water facilities to the satisfaction of the District Engineer of CMWD, and tie mains and fire hydrants to the satisfaction of the Fire MaAlal. If the applicant chooses to construct out of phase, the new phasing must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director. Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of the City Council approval unless a final map is recorded in compliance with Section 66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act. An extension may be requested by the applicant. Said extension shall be approved or denied at the discretion of the City Council. In approving an extension, the City Council may impose new conditions and may revise existing conditions pursuant to Section 20.12.110(a)(2) Carlsbad Municipal Code. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the City, the Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the City within the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map Act. ‘C RESO NO. 3587 -9- -. &. 1 2 : 4 F . E s E 5 I( 11 1; II 1L If l( 1: 1E l< 2( 21 2: 2; 24 2: 2E 25 2E 5r . ! b5 b i 5: j 1 3 ) ) 5s L 2 3 I 5 5 5 7 j5 > 1 L 5 1 i i I 5 P 0. The applicant shall pay the current local drainage area fee prior to approval of the final map for this project or shall construct drainage systems in conformance with Master Drainage Plan and City of Carlsbad Standards as required by the City Engineer. 1. Prior to final map approval the applicant shall pay all current fees and deposits required. 2. Prior to approval of final map, the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City to pay any drainage area fees established as a result of the Master Drainage Plan Update. 3. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. Prior to final map approval, the applicant must submit and receive approval for grading plans in accordance with City Codes and standards. 4. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, the applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The applicant shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. 5. The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and easements required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map for this project. All land so offered shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated. 6. C RESO NO. 3587 -lO- The applicant shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the final map, issuance of grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. 7. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to approval of the first fmal map and in accordance with City Standards, the applicant shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements: a. Along the subdivision frontage College &rulevard shall have half street public improvements plus 14 feet of paving including full median and all necessary drainage and utilities, based on a major arterial street with a total right-of-way width of 102 feet. I- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 58. 59. 50. il. 52. 53. b. C. d. e. f. AU required sewer mains and tnmldines to the satisfaction of the District Engineer of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. Interim improvements to Carlsbad Viage Drive adjacent to Viage “H” as outlined in the Calavera Hills Master Plan and as shown on the tentative map for Village “H”, CT 90-19. Sedimentation and drainage channel improvements adjacent to the proposed Cannon Road in conformance with the requirements of the Zone 7 LFMP. A full traffic actuated signal at Carlsbad Village Drive and College Boulevard, as per Drawing 303-2, m 83-32, Village “Q”. Full improvements of Carlsbad Village Drive from Glasgow Drive to College Boulevard as per Drawing 303-2, CT 83-32, Village “Q”. A note to this effect shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final map per the provisions of Section 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed above shall be constructed witbin 18 months of the secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. The developer shall dedicate an easement for traffic signal poles, equipment and sensor loops within Street “A” (private) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer on the Final Map. The final map shall show that all private streets are maintained by the homeowners association including curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving, street lights and drainage facilities. The final map shall show that all water lines and sewer lines are public and maintained by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. The private streets shall be dedicated on the final map as a general utility and access easement. An all weather access road to the desiltation basin shown offsite on the Village “WXY’ site shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The median in College Boulevard at the southerly project access and the exit from this access shall be modified to prevent left turns from the project into College Boulevard going south, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Tire Conditions: 54. Additional onsite public water and fire hydrants are required. ‘C RESO NO. 3587 -ll- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 lE! 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2c 2'i 2E i. i. ‘ater District Conditions: 1. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands are met. ? d. The developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be collected at time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for meter installation. 3. Sequentially, the Developers Engineer shall do the following: Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydrants. The plan should include offsite fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project. An all-weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service shall be provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the Fire Chief, the access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety, require that construction operations cease until the condition is corrected. All required water mains, fke hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational before combustible building materials are located on the construction site. Native vegetation which presents a fire hazard to structures shall be modified or removed in accordance with the specifications contained in the City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual. Applicant shall submit a Fire Suppression plan to the Fire Department for approval, prior to approval of the final landscape plan. The applicant shall provide a street map which conforms to the following requirements: A 400 scale photo-reduction mylar, depicting proposed improvements and at least two existing intersections or streets. The map shall also clearly depict street centerlines, hydrant locations and street names. Buildings having an aggregate floor area exceeding 10,000 square feet shall be protected by an automatic sprinkler system if required by the Fire Marshal. a. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements. b. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning Department for processing and approval. C. Schedule a meeting with the District Engineer for review, comment and approval of the preliminary system layout usage (G.P.M. - E.D.U.) plan for CRESO NO.3587 -12- -. 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 ‘4. ‘5. potable, reclaimed and sewer systems prior to the preparation of improvement plans. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map. The developer shall meet all conditions of the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning :ommission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of December, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Welshons, Savary and Hall. NOES: Commissioner Erwin. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. I BAILEY N.QB@?, .,Chairp?&o~ CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ITTEST: 4ICHAEL J. HdtZMIIkkR ‘LANNING DIRECTOR ‘C RESO NO. 3587 -13- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3588 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEVELOP 138 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE CITY, EAST OF THE FUTURE ALIGNMENT OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF APPROVED VILLAGE “T” AND NORTH OF APPROVED VILLAGE ‘W” WITHIN THE CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 7. CASE NAME: CALAVERA HEIGHTS VILLAGE “U” CASE NO: PUD 90-25 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit: A portion of Lot D of the Ranch0 Agua Hedionda in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 823 on file at the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of 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 Planned Development Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends APPROVAL of PUD 90-25, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: ‘r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2.8 I-- Findinns: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and the Calavera Hills Master Plan since the proposed density of 3.2 du/acre is within the RLM density range of 0 - 4 du’s/acre specified for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is at or below the growth control point of 3.2 du/acre. The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition ‘to this project, ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the City Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad Union School District. To ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad Unified School District the applicant will submit evidence to the City that impacts to school facilities will be mitigated in conformance with the City’s Growth Management Plan to the extent permitted by applicable state law for legislative acts. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan. The project is consistent with Final EIR 90-&S, and the recommended mitigation measures designed to reduce significant environmental impacts have been included as part of the project’s design and/or conditions of approval. The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 7. The g-ranting of this permit will not adversely affect, and will be consistent with, Chapter 21.45 (Planned Development Ordinance), the Calavera Hills Master Plan, and all adopted plans of the City and other govemmental agencies, because the PC RESO NO. 3588 -2- -. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1e 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. 12. 13. The project will provide multi-family units with contemporary architectural design that will comply with all applicable development standards. b. C. PC RESO NO. 3588 Adequate recreational vehicle storage space would be provided in Village “I” to serve this project. Village “1” was developed with RV storage to serve the entire master plan area. -3- _-- I project complies with Chapter 21.45, the Calavera Hills Master Plan, and the General Plan and also because the Tentative Tract Map meets all the Planned Development Ordinance standards. The multi-family residential land use would be developed at an appropriate scale to achieve the allowed residential density. The proposed use 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 Village “U” is designated for multi-family units in the master plan. The development of this planning area with multi-family units will further build out the master plan as approved and will be separated from adjacent existing or approved single family villages by College Boulevard or open space areas. Such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity because the project is not proposing any development in the northern portion of the village adjacent to College Boulevard which has an Open Space General Plan designation. In addition the project has been designed and/or conditioned to implement the master plan’s EIR (EIR 90-05) ,as applicable. Approximately 39 acres of the planning area’s 62 total acres will be placed into open space lots and easements and those areas would remain in open space in perpetuity. The northern area of Village “U” can accommodate a link of the proposed Citywide public trail system along an existing water easement access road that would extend east from the terminus of Carlsbad Village Drive toward Lake Calavera. Drainage facilities would be provided concurrent with development of the project to reduce erosion and flooding. All manufactured slopes will be landscaped to prevent erosion and to visually screen the slopes. Traffic noise impacts would occur to the residential units adjacent to the east side of College Boulevard, therefore, a noise attenuation wall will be provided per the recommendations of the project’s noise study. The proposed planned development meets all of the minim= development standards set forth in Section 21.45.090, the design criteria set. forth in Section 21.45080, and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design Guidelines Manual for the following reasons: a. The project’s private street would have curb and gutter on both sides of the street and a pedestrian sidewalk system. The street will have 32 feet of paving which would exceed the 30 foot minimum private street width standard. One section of the private street will be 36 feet wide in order to provide more on-street guest parking spaces near the pool/recreation area. 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 14. 15. 16. I-- d. The multi-family units will meet all parking requirements for covered spaces, resident spaces and guest spaces. Forty-four parking spaces would be required with this project; 107 guest parking spaces will be provided both on-street as well as parking bays dispersed throughout the project. Conditions: 1. All conditions of approval of CT 90-25 as contained in Planning Commission Resolution .No. 3587, are applicable to this approval and incorporated through this reference. 2. Approval of PUD 90-25 is granted subject to approval of CT 90-25 and HDP 90-32. PC RESO NO. 3588 -4- The proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on the site because the project meets all the requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations and Guidelines. The use of narrower private street widths (32 and 36 feet) versus a wider, standard public street minim&s and reduces the amount of g-ding and disturbance of the natural topography. The integrity and quality of the open space areas adjacent to the developable portions of the Village “U” will be preserved by the establishment of open space easements to transition between development and natural open space. tn addition, manufactured slopes will be contour graded to follow existing the hillside topography and will be landscaped for erosion control and visual screening. The location and orientation of the proposed buildings will comply with hillside development guidelines by maintaining adequate building separation and setbacks from tops of slopes. The project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with the project and does not dominate the project because the private street in the project would have 32 or 36 feet of paving with curb, gutter and a pedestrian sidewalk system. The private street internally connects the northern half of Village U with the southern half of the village without requiring access onto College Boulevard. This allows Village “U” to ultimately develop out as a distinct neighborhood with all residents having access to all portions, amenities and recreational areas of the village. Use of the private street minimizes grading and development impacts to the natural topography and vegetation. The proposed street system is adequate to handle the projected vehicular traffic and accommodates emergency vehicle access. The Fire Department has reviewed and approved the project subject to standard Fire conditions. The project% design and density is compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or disruptive element to the neighborhood because the project meets all applicable City standards and the proposed residential density is consistent with the General Plan (3.2 d&acre). Public street improvements would be provided to accommodate traffic generated by the project and the project must comply with all the circulation and public facility requirements of Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 7. Village “U” is buffered from adjacent existing or proposed uses by either the College Boulevard roadway or open space areas. -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1e 19 20 21 22 2: 24 2f 2t 2’; 2< I- - PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of December, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Welshons, Savary & Hall. Commissioner Erwin. None. None. CARLSBAD PmNINti COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. H6cZMILkk PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3588 -5- . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - I- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3589 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEVELOP 138 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE CITY, EAST OF FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF APPROVED VILLAGE “T” AND NORTH OF APPROVED VILLAGE ‘W” WITHIN THE CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 7. CASE NAME: CALAVERA HEIGHTS VILLAGE “U” CASE NO: HDP 90-32 WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of December, 1993, consider said request on property described as: A portion of Lots D of the Ranch0 Agua Hedionda in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 823 on file at the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. 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 HDP 90-32. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends APPROVAL of HDP 90-32, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: _- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I-- Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. . . . That hillside conditions and undevelopable areas of the project have been properly identifiedconsistent~ththeCity'sHillsideDevelopmentOrdinance(Chapter21.9~ of the Municipal Code). The site’s hillside slope conditions and undevelopable areas have been identified on Constraints Exhibits “0” and “P”, dated, December 15,1993. In addition, Exhibits “Q” - “v’ provide a slope analysis and cross sections of the proposed hillside development. That the development proposal and all applicable development approvals and permits are consistent with the purpose, intent, and requirements of Chapter 21.95 and that the project design substantklly conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the hillside development guidelines manual for the following reasons: a. All manufactured cut and fill slopes are landform/contour graded and do not exceed a height of 30 feet. b. The project’s grading is consistent with the grading concept approved for the buildout of this master plan. The project’s cut/fill grading volumes of 7,032 cubic yards per graded acre falls within the acceptable range of 0 - 7,999 cubic yds./acre. C. Landscaping in conformance with the City’s Landscape Manual would be provided on all manufactured slopes to assist in visually screening the slopes and to reduce slope erosion. d. The project meets all the requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations and Guidelines with regards to hillside grading, architecture and building locations. That no development or grading will occur in those portions of the property which are undevelopable pursuant to the provisions of Section 21.53.230 of this code because all undevelopable areas have been identified and no development or grading would occur in the areas containing 4-O%+ slopes. The project’s manufactured slopes will be contour graded to maintain the integrity of the adjacent natural hillside open space areas. That the project’s overall site design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands because the use of narrower private streets ris allowed by the Planned Development Ordinance verses a wider public street minimizes and reduces the amount of grading and disturbance of the natural topography and helps to preserve the planning area’s nahd open space. The multi-family building pads and overall grading concept allow for hillside development consistent with applicable regulations that can accommodate the proposed density. The manufactured slopes would be contour graded to follow the existing topography of the area and the slopes will be landscaped for erosion control and visual screening. PC RESO No. 3589 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 project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since: The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project, ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the City Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. 6. The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. 7. This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 7. 8. School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad Unified District. 9. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the general plan. I- Conditions: 1. 2. 3. .*. . . . All conditions of approval for CT 90-25 as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3587 are applicable to this approval and incorporated through this reference. Approval for HDP 90-32, as shown on Exhibits “A” - “LL”, dated December 15, 1993 incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Approval of HDP 90-32 is granted subject to approval of CT 90-25, and PUD 90-25. PC RESO No. 3589 3 L .- 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 -. I PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of December, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Welshons, Savary & Hall. NOES: Commissioner Erwin. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. A . 4 -1: , _ “\ && BAILEY NOB&, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. H&kMILLti PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO No. 3589 EXHIBIT 3 .-. I APPLICA IIvN COMPLETE DATE: DECEMBER 17. 1990 STAFF PLANNER: ER-IC N. MUNOZ DATE: STAFF REPORT 0 1 DECEMBER 15, 1993 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CT 90-25/PUD 90-25/HDP 90-32 - CALAVERA HEIGHTS VILLAGE “U” - Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, and Hillside Development Permit to develop 138 multi-family residential units on property generally located east of future College Boulevard, south of approved Village “T” and north of approved Village “W” within the Calavera Hills Master Plan in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 7. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3587, 3588, and 3589, recommending APPROVAL of CT 90-2.5, PUD 90-25, and HDP 90-32 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract M.ap, Planned Development Permit, and Hillside Development Permit to subdivide land and develop 138 multi-family residential units within Village “U”, of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. The project is located east of future College Boulevard, a major arterial Circulation Element roadway, south of the future easterly terminus of Carlsbad Village Drive at College Boulevard and would take access from College Boulevard. This village has an “x” shape as shown on the attached locaticn map with the developable portion being adjacent to College Boulevard on the west and open space located in the eastern portion. The Village “U” planning area totals 61.45 gross acres and is currently undeveloped. Village “U” has a General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Low-Medium (RLM). In addition, the project is subject to the requirements of the Calavera Hills Master Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report 90-05. As shown on Exhibits “A” - “LL”, dated December 15, 1993, the prcposed prqject would consist of 138 multi-family units. There will be a subdivision of land into 16 residential lots, 17 open space lots and 13 lots for street and roadway improvements. Three building types are proposed: fourteen 4-plex buildings, eleven 6-plex buildings and two 8 plex buildings that feature units with floor plans that will range in area from 1,075 to 1,498 square feet. All development will be located along a 32 foot (minimum) wide private CT 90-25/PUD 90-25,1iDP 90-32 CALAVERA HEIGHTS VILLAGE “U” DECEMBER 151993 PAGE 2 street that loops through the project ,and will connect to future College Boulevard at two locations. The surrounding neighborhood is developed to the west with existing Villages “C” and “D”, with approved Village “T” to the north and approved Village “W” to the south and open space to the east. In the eastern portion of Village “U” within designated open space area is the location of a temporary sewer lift station. This lift station is required by the conditions of approval for CT 83-19 - Village “T” and is consistent with the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan. The station will be removed when the City’s Sewer Master Plan is ultimately executed and implemented and will serve Villages “Q”, “T”, “U”, “W”, “Xl’, ‘Y’, “R”, “L-2” and a portion of “K” within the Calavera Hills Master Plan. The station’s location is shown on this project’s tentative map, Exhibit “E” dated December 15, 1993. III. ANALYSIS The proposed project is subject to the following land use plans and ordinances: A. B. C. D. E. F. Carlsbad General Plan: Land Use Element (Residential Low (RLM) Land Use Designation), Open Space and Conservation Element, and Housing Element; Calavera Hills Master Plan; Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21: 1. Chapter 21.45, Planned Development; 2. Chapter 21.95, Hillside Development Regulations; Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20, Subdivision Ordinance; and the California Subdivision Map Act; Growth Management (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 7); Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 19, Environmental Protection Procedures; and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . -- CT 90-25/PUD 90-25/HDP 90-32 CALAVERA HEIGHTS VILLAGE “U” DECEMBER 15, 1993 PAGE 3 A. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT The property has a Residential Low-Medium (RLM) General Plan land use designation. The RLM designation allows a density of O-4 du/acre with a growth management control point of 3.2 du/acre. The development of Village “U” is proposed for 138 units on 42.6 net acres and yields a density of 3.2 du/acre. This is compatible with adjacent residential designations of RLM and RL and is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT Village “U” contains General Plan open space within the northern and eastern portions of its boundaries. All adopted General Plan open space within the planning area would be preserved in either open space lots or by an open space maintenance easement over the rear of the residential lots. The applicant would also dedicate a 20 foot wide trail easement to accommodate Citywide Trail System Segment No. 10. Trail Segment No. 10 connects from the eastern terminus of Carlsbad Village Drive and proceeds east toward Lake Calavera along an existing water easement access road. The project will preserve approximately 35 acres of natural area as open space. The proposed project would not preclude or negatively affect the attainment of any of the open space action priorities designated in the Open Space & Conservation Resource Management Plan for Zone 7, therefore, the project is consistent with the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. HOUSING ELEMENT All residential development within the Calavera Hills Master Plan is required to include a percentage of housing units affordable to persons and families of lower income. Consistent with the policies and programs of the Housing Element and subsequent to the affordable housing requirements of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, Village “U” would be required to provide 15% of the dwelling units available and affordable to lower income households. To ensure compliance with the recently adopted lnclusionary Housing Ordinance and the Affordable Housing Plan of the Calavera Hills Master Plan the project would be conditioned to comply with all the affordable housing mandates of the master plan and provide an Affordable Housing Agreement that would be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to Final Map approval. The Affordable Housing Agreement is a legally binding agreement between the applicant and the City which provides the specific details regarding the implementation of the affordable housing requirements of the Calavera Hills Master Plan and subsequent conformance with the City’s Housing Element. . . CT 90-25/PUD 90-25/r-IDP 90-32 CALAVERA HEIGHTS VILLAGE “U” DECEMBER 15, 1993 PAGE 4 The applicant is proposing to provide the affordable housing for the remaining master plan, including Village “U”‘s requirement, within Village “K” which is located along Carlsbad Village Drive. Under a Site Development Plan an affordable seniors project is proposed in a portion of Village “K”. Village “U” is conditioned such that the Site Development Plan and Affordable Housing Agreement for Village “K” shall be approved before the approval of the final map for Village “U”. B. CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN The Calavera Hills Master Plan designates Village “U” for multi-family residential development, therefore, the development of this land use would be consistent with the plan. The project meets the goals and objectives of the master plan for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The grading and roadway design minimizes impacts to the natural topography. A majority of the planning area is retained as open space. The multi-family land use helps to achieve the multi-family/single family mix approved with the Calavera Hills Master Plan at a density that is compatible with the adjacent existing and approved development. Open space and trail connections are maintained and link up with other open space areas within the master plan. The roadway and frontage improvements along College Boulevard would create a circulation system that provides for the safety and needs of automobiles, cyclists, and pedestrians. The integrity of natural, steep open space areas adjacent to developable areas is maintained by grading that is consistent with hillside regulations and clusters the units onto buildable pad areas with minimum disturbance to the area’s topography. In addition, the proposed landform grading of manufactured slopes will provide a smooth transition to the natural slopes within the project area. A noise study was prepared for the project as required by the master plan and Final EIR 90-05. Mitigation measures in the form of a five to six foot high noise attenuation wall along the College Boulevard frontage would be provided to reduce traffic noise from the roadway to an acceptable level consistent with City regulations. The locations of the sound wall are shown on Exhibits “I”-“K”, dated December 15, 1993. C. CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 21: 1. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 21.45: __ -- 1 CT 90-25/PUD 90-25/HDP 90-32 _I CALAVERA HEIGHTS VILLAGE “U” DECEMBER 15, 1993 PAGE 5 The Calavera Hills Master plan designates the Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21, Chapter 21.45, “Planned Development” as the implementation ordinance for Village “U”. The master plan designates RDM (multi-family residential) as the permitted land use in Village “U”. This allows typical clustered, stacked residential units. The master plan requires that a Planned Development Permit be processed with the Tentative Tract Map for Village “U”. Before the Planning Commission can approve the Planned Development Permit the following findings must be made: a. ‘The granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with Chapter 21.45, the Calavera Hills Master Plan and all adopted plans of the City and other governmental agencies.” The project is consistent with Chapter 21.45, the Calavera Hills Master Plan, and the General Plan because the Tentative Tract Map meets all the Planned Development standards, and the multi-family residential land use would be developed at the appropriate lot size and residential density. See Section A under “General Plan” for a more detailed discussion on compliance with the General Plan. b. ‘The proposed use 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.” Village “U” is designated for multi-family lots in the master plan. The development of this planning area will help provide the mix of product types approved for Calavera Hills. The development of this village will also provide public improvements to allow the buildout of the master plan. C. “Such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the ViCiTlity.” A majority of the planning area will be placed into open space lots and easements which will remain in open space in perpetuity. The northern and eastern portion of Village “U” has been designated to accommodate segment #lO of the proposed Citywide public trail system that would connect Carlsbad Village Drive with the open space area around Lake Calavera. Drainage facilities would be provided concurrent with development of the project to reduce erosion and flooding. All manufactured slopes would be landscaped to prevent erosion and to provide visual screening. Traffic noise impacts would occur to the units along College Boulevard, therefore, a sound attenuation wall would be provided. d. “The proposed planned development meets all of the minimum development standards set forth in Section 21.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section ^. .- __ CT 90-25/PUD 90-45,. .P 90-32 CALAVERA HEIGHTS VILLAGE "U" DECEMBER15,1993 PAGE 6 21.45.080, and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design Guidelines Manual.” i. The local private street in the project would have curb and gutter on both sides, and a pedestrian sidewalk on one side. There would be a minimum 32 feet of paving which would exceed the 30 foot minimum private street width standard. One section of the private street will be 36 feet wide to accommodate guest parking on both sides near the swimming pool recreation area. ii. The project would provide multi-family buildings and units with a grading concept, site design and architecture that provides adequate slope top setbacks, clustering of units and varied streetscapes consistent with Planned Development Ordinance regulations and guidelines. The project also complies with hillside regulations. ..a 111. Adequate recreational vehicle storage space would be provided in Village “I” of the master plan to serve this project. Village “I” was developed with RV storage to serve the entire master plan area. iv. The multi-family units would have, at a minimum, a 20 x 20 foot, two car garage or oversized single car garages which would meet the parking and storage requirements of the ordinance. Guest parking would be provided along one side of the street except where the street width increases to 36 feet where parking will be available on both sides. vi. The project complies with the Planned Development Ordinance as follows: II PRIVATE STREET I DRIVEWAY AND STREET SETBACK PARKING: RESIDENT: GUEST: RV STORAGE II STORAGE SPACE REQUIRED 30 feet 20 feet (street) 5 feet (driveway) 276 spaces 44 spaces 20 sq. ft. per home 480 cubic feet per home PROPOSED 32 and 36 feet 20 feet (street) 5 feet (driveway) 276 spaces(combo of 1 and 2 garages and carports) Parking along the private street and bays to yield 107 spaces Village “I” Satisfied by 2 car garage or oversized 1 car garage. CT 90-25/PUD 90-2&HDP 90-32 CALAVERA HEIGHTS VILLAGE “U” DECEMBER 15, 1993 PAGE 7 e. ‘The proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on the site.” The project meets all the requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations and Guidelines. The use of a narrower private street versus a wider public street minimizes and reduces the amount of grading and disturbance of the natural topography. The manufactured slopes would be “landform” graded to follow the topography of the existing area and the slopes would be landscaped for erosion control and visual screening. The lots also would terrace slightly down the slope from College Boulevard eastward. f. ‘The project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with the project and does not dominate the project.” The project’s circulation system meets all applicable standards and has been designed to be both efficient and well integrated so as to not dominate the project’s design. The private street will have two access points onto College Boulevard and will internally serve Village “U”. Gated access and required turnarounds will be provided at each entrance. Use of private streets minirnizes grading and development impacts to the natural topography and vegetation. The proposed street system is adequate to handle the vehicular traffic and accommodate emergency vehicles. The ,Fire Department has reviewed and approved the site plan. $5 ‘The proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site is compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or disruptive element to the neighborhood.” The proposed project meets all City standards and the proposed residential density is consistent with the General Plan (3.2 dus/acre); the Calavera Hills Master Plan, and the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management -Plan. The proposed product type will not exceed 30 feet in height and the village will be developed at a density compatible with adjacent existing or approved developments. Public street improvements would be provided to accommodate traffic generated by the project and the project must comply with all the circulation and public facility requirements of Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 7. 2. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 21.95: The project site contains slopes of 15% or greater and an elevation differential greater than 15 feet, therefore, a Hillside Development Permit is required. Before the Planning Commission approves the Hillside Development Permit for the project, Title 21, Chapter 21.95, Section 21.95030 requires that the Planning Commission make the following findings: I CT 90-25/PUD 90-25/HDP 90-32 CALAVERA HEIGHTS VILLAGE “U” DECEMBER 15, 1993 PAGE 8 a. ‘That hillside conditions and undevelopable areas of the project have been properly identified.” The site’s hillside slope conditions and undevelopable areas have been identified on Exhibits “Q” and “R”, dated December 15, 1993. b. ‘That the development proposal and all applicable development approvals and permits are consistent with the purpose, intent, and requirements of this chapter and that the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the hillside development guidelines manual.” i. All manufactured cut and fill slopes are landform/contour graded and do not exceed a height of 30 feet. ii. The project’s cut/fill grading volumes of 7,032 cubic yards per graded acre falls within the “acceptable range” of 0 - 7,999 cubic yds./acre. a.. 111. Landscaping in conformance with the City’s Landscape Manual would be provided on all manufactured slopes to assist in visually screening the slopes and to reduce slope erosion. iv. The project meets all the requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations and Guidelines. C. “That no development or grading will occur in those portions of the property which are undevelopable pursuant to the provisions of Section 21.53.230 of this code.” All undevelopable areas have been identified and no development or grading would occur in the areas containing 4O%+ slopes. These areas contain natural habitat which would be preserved, to the extent allowed by the City’s Brush Management Guidelines. d. “That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands.” The use of narrower private streets versus a wider public street minimizes and reduces the amount of grading and disturbance of the natural topography. In addition, clustered multi-family building pads will be created to minimize grading impacts to the hillside conditions. The manufactured slopes will be contour/landform graded to follow the existing canyon and hillside topography and they will be landscaped for erosion control and visual screening, _- I CT 90-25/PUD 90-25/tIDP 90-32 .- CALAVERA HEIGHTS VILLAGE “U” DECEMBER 15, 1993 PAGE 9 D. SUBDMSION ORDINANCE - TITLE 20: The proposed tentative map complies with the requirements of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20. The project is conditioned to provide adequate sewer service, erosion control, desiltation and drainage. The grading for this project is part of an approved phased comprehensive mass grading operation for the remaining undeveloped villages of Phase III in the Calavera Hills Master Plan. The grading permit for this project would not be approved until all required discretionary permits are approved in other village planning areas that are included as a part of the comprehensive grading plan. E. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 7 in the Northeast Quadrant. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows: FACILITY The project density is 3.2 dwelling units per acre which is at the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance of 3.2 du/acre for the property. _. I CT 90-25/PUD 90-25/14DP 90-32 _- CALAVERA HEIGHTS VILLAGE “U” DECEMBER 15, 1993 PAGE 10 F. ENVIRONMENTAL, REVIEW/TITLE 19 AND CEOA The project site is located within the boundaries of the Calavera Hills Master Plan and the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts from the future development of Phase III of the plan, including Village “U”, have been evaluated and discussed in Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-05). The recommended and applicable mitigation measures of EIR 90-05 are incorporated into the project’s site design and/or included as conditions of approval. Iv. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed project: (1) is consistent with the General Plan; (2) complies with the Calavera Hills Master Plan; (3) meets the requirements of Titles 20 and 21; (4) is in conformance with Growth Management; and (5) is in prior compliance with the mitigation requirements of Final EIR 90-05, and will not significantly impact the environment, therefore, staff recommends approval of CT 90-25/PUD 90-25/HDP 90-32. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3587 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3588 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3589 Location Map Background Data Sheet Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Disclosure Form Reduced Exhibits Exhibits “A” - I’LL”, dated December 15, 1993. November 4, 1993 ENM:lh . . I- BACKGROUND DATA SHEF” _* CASE NO: CT 90-25/PUD 90-25/HDP 90-32 CASE NAME: Village “U” APPLICANT: Lyon Communities REQUEST AND LOCATION: 138 Multi-Familv units consistent with the Calavera Hills Master Plan within Village “U” LEGAL DESCFUPTION: A portion of Lot D of The Ranch0 Aaua Hedionda in the Citv of Carlsbad, Countv of San Diego. State of California, according to the Map thereof No. 823 on file at the Office of the Countv Recorder of San Dieno Countv. APN: Portions of 138-040-l 8/25 (Assessor’s Parcel Number) Acres 61.45 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 138 Units GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RLM Density Allowed 3.2 Density Proposed 3.2 Existing Zone PC Proposed zone PC Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site PC Vacant, undeveloped North PC Approved Village “T” South PC Approved Village “W” East L-C Open Space West PC Existing residences Villages “C” & “D” PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 138 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated July 16, 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT - Negative Declaration, issued x Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated October 26, 1993 Other, ENM:lh I- - 1 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: Village “U” - CT 90-25/PUD 90-25/HDP 90-32 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: GENERAL PLAN: 7 RLM ZONING: PC DEVELOPER’S NAME: Lyon Communities ADDRESS: 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 130. San Dieno CA 92122 PHONE NO: (619) 546-1200 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO: Portions of 138-040-18/25 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 61.45 acres gross ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 511 Library: Demand in Square Footage = 272 Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) N/A Park: Demand in Acreage = N/A Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A Identify Drainage Basin = N/A (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 1104 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 3 Open Space: Acreage Provided - 39 Schools: CUSD (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Demand in EDUs - 138 Identify Sub Basin - N/A (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD - 30,360 The project is at the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. . OISCLOSUFE STATEMEw APPUCANTS STATEMENT OF OlSCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON AU APPUCATIONS WHICH WU REQUIRE OISCR~CW.RY ACflON ON THE PART OF THE Cm COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED goAR0. COMMISSION OR COMMillEE. 1 (Please Print) The following information must be disclosed: ,, 1. 2. 3. 4. List the namea and l ddrorser of all persons having a fk~rncial Intrrort In the application. CO-GENERAL PARTNER NPV Q&,& Mutual Life Insurance Co, c/o Coolev Real Estate Advisors, Inc. 399 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Attention: General Counsel * See additional sheets attached !a!!!m! Audubon Associates, Inc. 4490 Von Karman Newport Beach, California -v;TbbO Attention: Richard E. Frankel List the nrmw md rddnrsa8 of all par90119 having my ownwrhlp Interart In the property involved. LIMITED PARTNER CO-GENERAL PARTNER New England Mutual Life Insurance Co. Audubon Associates, Inc. c/o Copley Real Estate Advisors, Inc. 4490 Von Karman 399 Boylston Street Newport Beach, California 92660 Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Attention: Richard E. Frankel Attention: General Counsel * See additional sheets attached !f any person idontifled purwant to (1) or (2) rbovo ir 1 corporatiorr or prrtnorrhip, list tha names addresses of all indlvldurla owning more UWI 10% of iho thuor In the corporation 01 owning any partner interest in the partnership. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) rbovo is l ncm-proflt orgmirrtion or I trust, list thr names addrorsos of any parson rwvlng u offlcor or dlroctor of the non-profit organlzation or as trusts or benefit of the trust. N/A Oisclosur@ statd Page 2 5. Have you had mora than $250 worth of business bmsactod with any member of City staff, Bca Commissions, CO~~i~O~S and Council within the past twelve months? Yes - No 2 II Yes, PtOUe indicate person(s) Person is defined as: ‘A- indlvldual, tirm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organisation. &pofstbfl, @stltO, trus#. recfMv#, SyndkatO, thii snd 8riy other county. city and county, cny municipality, distrkt or UhW polltkd subdivision, or any other group or combination acting ae a unil: (NOTE: Attach additional pagoa as necessary.) LYON COMMUNITIES, INC., GEORGE HAVIAR Print of typo name ot ownor Signature of applicant/data Print or type name of applicant 1. Limited Partner New England Mutual Life Insureance Company c/o COpley Real Estate Advisors, Inc. 399 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Attention: General Counsel Co-General Partner Audubon Associates, Inc. 4490 Von Karman Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Richard E. Frankel Manauina General Partner Lyon Communities Inc. 4490 Von Karman Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Richard E. Frankel, 2. Same as above 3. Lyon/Copley Carlsbad Associates, L.P. is the Applicant and Owner and is a Limited Partnership. The names listed above are those partners in the Limited Partnership. William Lyon owns more than 10% of the shares of Lyon Communities Inc. and Audubon Associates, Inc.. Both of these entities are California Corporations. General William Lyon c/o Lyon Communities Inc. 4490 Von Karman Newport Beach, California 92660 4. Does not apply. 5. No .- i - Disclosure Statement Page 2 5. Have you had more that $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Commissions Committees and Council within the past twelve months: No. Lyon/Copley Carlsbad Associates, L.P. (Owner and Applicant) By: Managing General Partner I; Vice President .- _ . >” _-w 23 ,.A ;> .-em “1 ._a. LJ .- F -. % - 3’ 3 ;k :- -: i - 7,s : :+:.. : . _. 2. . L a., ;;; 1 ,d . - t r-s . 1 j : : 1, .I : : i I’ i / I * I! 1 i- / i / ,’ !, 1 i “~j, i . f t ~-4 / : : / i- I-.-, -- -“-.m * I-P-d .“‘x.a”“‘u.“- =,p..- j!g~~““” -,,~~ ..v...P....r--- . . ..I” . . . rz 2. ;’ --* _- *-._ r : ; ., ’ 1 c THE WILLIAM LYON CO. : HALES-LANGSTON f ~,NcD,ARS,S~@~~s, CALAVCRA “U” :Jj 4 II I’ 4 THE WILLIAM LYON CO. m I$ HALES-LANGSTON ;g ~jupoyspppp’lr5s, CALAVERA “U” THE WILLIAM LYON CO. \ r ?; HALES-LANGSTON ;,: p@ oAnS$QGIPT& C*LAVE=* “u” \ THE WILLIAM LYON CO. 1 :“i HALES-LANGSTON ,:.: @PoAmS$9~lPT~$ CALAYE~A v’ b - I--u I I I I i I I- t ‘=I ! 0 -t -L’.r* Al,.-- 4 THE WILLIAM LYON Co. \ : HALES-LANGSTON ‘f pylo~s~pyp~~~ CALAVeRA “U” /!j :ii x: 86 az Y4 8: am THE WILLIAM LYON CO. YHALES-LANGSTON :i g f pjMpo~s~qm~ CALAVERA “V’ $1 ‘4 / I-- .- - - I .,,, .&w - ” .Y .-.I Eik, THE WILLIAM LYON CO. F ;;!; HALES-LANGSTON CALAVERA ,,u,, ;‘i:; pI*NypypJ~$ I- _,, -“:,” ..” I Im” ..I.- =‘i. 7 a”- THE WILLIAM LYON CO. I I- _- - E ; E $ SP tr 5’ P =E srn Ii * ; 0 I I , 0 - L--x I YIY u e==- THE WILLlAM LYON 56. E 8 s E m 5 E m THE WILLIAM LYON CO. HALES-LANGSTON /imNPaA,S~$l&iT~S CALAVKRA IYI” 16 tl _. mm IFI P 9: Ei s a8 P c a 0 5 x E HALES-LANGSTON PjUpj#$~pqlPT~~ CALAVLRA “U” mm I r q rof gi 0 :f F E x HALES-LANGSTON q! @lp*lp~pqlpq CALAVCRA ‘U’ c.:, i;: Eii I- - Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M. Date of Meeting: December 15, 1993 Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS EXHIBIT 4 I& CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noble called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The pledge of allegiance was led by Chairman Noble. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Hall, Savary, Schlehuber, and Welshons Staff Present: Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner Eric Munoz, Associate Planner Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA: There were no comments from the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Welshons requested a change to the minutes of December 1,1993 on page 17, paragraph 2, to reflect that her motion was seconded and a vote had been taken. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 1, 1993, as amended. VOTE: 7-O AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Hall, Savary, Schlehuber, and Welshons NOES: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. CT 90-25/PUD 90-25/HDP 90-32 - CALAVERA HEIGHTS VILLAGE “U” - Request for recommendation of approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, and Hillside Development Permit to develop 138 multi-family residential units on property generally located east of future College Boulevard, south of approved Village “T” and north of approved Village “w” within the Calavera Hills Master Plan in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 7. Eric Munoz, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the project is located within the Calavera Hills Master Plan. The Planning Commission and City Council recently approved a master plan amendment and environmental impact report for the development of the balance of the master plan which is generally located in the northeast portion of the city, west of Lake Calavera and south of the Oceanside-Carlsbad city boundary. Village “U” is located east of the future College Boulevard alignment, north of approved Village “W” and south of approved Village “T”. Access will be taken from two MINUTES 1 - -’ I- . PLANNING COMMISSION December 15,1993 PAGE 2 points along College Boulevard. The applicant, Lyon Communities, has requested approval for a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, and Hillside Development Permit. Village ‘If” has a gross acreage of 59 acres, of which 37 acres will remain as natural open space. The general plan designation for this village is RLM (Residential Low-Medium density) which is typically associated with single family density. The general plan designation and master plan both allow up to 138 dwelling units in this planning area. Due to hillside, biological, and other constraints, however, a single family product type with standard two-car garages cannot be accommodated in this planning area. Therefore, the master plan’s multi-family designation allows the use of narrower private streets, clustering of units, and more sensitive hillside development, consistent with the master plan and PD ordinance to achieve those 138 dus. The project features five floor plan types, ranging from 1,075 sf. to just under 1,500 sf., which will be distributed within 4-plex, 6-plex, and 8-plex buildings. In total, the project will have two 8-plex buildings, 11 6-plex buildings, and 14 4-plex buildings. Maximum building height will be 30 ft., which is under the 35 ft. height limit allowed by the master plan’s multi-family designation. Mr. Munoz reviewed the exhibits on the west wall which described the project’s site design and architecture. He stated that the residential parking requirement for this project of 138 multi-family units is two covered spaces per unit. The code allows this to be satisfied through carports or garages. This yields a requirement of 276 covered spaces: 58 of these spaces will be in carports while the remaining 218 will be enclosed garages. The guest parking requirement is 44 parking spaces. The project will provide 39 guest spaces in open bays distributed throughout the project. In addition, the private street system, which varies between 32 and 36 ft. in width, provides another 68 potential guest parking spaces, for a project total of 107 guest spaces. As proposed, Village “U” complies with the Calavera Hills Master Plan. Specifically, the proposed grading complies with the hillside development ordinance ind is consistent with the overall grading concept approved with the Calavara Hills Master Plan Amendment and the EIR. The grading for Village “U” is one component of this overall grading concept. Also, the RV storage requirements are met by Village “I” within the Calavera Hills Master Plan, This project will generate a requirement of 2,760 s.f. of RV storage space. Overall, the master plan requirement is approximately 1.7 acres and Village “I” provides approximately 2.5 acres of RV storage area. The Calavera Hills Master Plan designated Villages L-l, L-2, and K as the master plan’s affordable housing villages. L-l has an approved project. Prior to final map approval for Village “U,” an affordable housing unit and site development plan must be approved for the master plan’s affordable housing requirements to be satisfied. The project is also consistent with the Calavera Hills EIR and all applicable mitigation requirements; specifically, (1) there is no development within the general plan designated open space, (2) a noise attenuation wall will be provided along the project’s frontage with College Boulevard, consistent with the noise study done for this development. The maximum wall height will be 6 ft. and then lowers to 5 ft. in the northern portion of the site, and (3) the project conforms to the planned development and hillside development ordinances. Mr. Munoz reviewed the wall maps and pointed out the significant aspects of the project for the benefit of the Commissioners. He stated that the developable area of Village “U” is located adjacent to College Boulevard. When the existing homes were approved and developed, the City Council required that the western half of College Boulevard be graded and the adjacent manufactured slope be landscaped so as to decrease the impact to existing residents when the remainder of College Boulevard is constructed. This project would provide the eastern half of this alignments right-of-way as well as the proposed residential development. One point of access to Village “U” is at the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and College Boulevard. The other point of access is further south. There is a primary street system which goes through the project, connecting the two access points. There are two active recreational areas: a volleyball court in the central area and a pool facility in the southern part of the project. The project will also feature contour grading of the manufactured slopes so that there will be more natural blending in with the existing natural slopes. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 15, 1993 PAGE 3 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this project, as presented, with the changes set forth in staff memo dated December 15, 1993 which includes a new school facilities condition and three other minor changes. Commissioner Welshons inquired if the new school condition in the staff memo replaces Finding #6 on page 2 of Resolution No. 3587. If not, she would like to know where this condition would be placed. Mr. Munoz replied that the new condition would be in addition to the existing findings and conditions and would probably be placed directly after them. The intent is to further clarify that school mitigation will be required per the growth management plan and any applicable state laws. Calavera Hills does have an agreement with the school district. Commissioner Welshons inquired if Finding #6 of Resolution No. 3587 needs to be deleted. Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, replied that Finding #6 refers to school fees and needs to remain. She explained that there are different laws which apply to discretionary approvals and legislative action, i.e. the passage of the growth management ordinance, applies to everyone. The basic rule is that when a project comes forward for discretionary approval, the only thing a city can do is charge the school fees and they can’t require mitigation beyond that in a single specific discretionary action. Howewar, if they take a legislative action, i.e. the growth management ordinance, which applies to everyone, they can deny a project based on the fact that they have not provided the public facilities required in the growth management ordinance which includes schools. In other words, the applicant will be required to pay the fees but, with the added condition, would be required to also provide school mitigation to comply with growth management. That mitigation could possibly include a credit for the fees paid. Commissioner Welshons was concerned because the following finding (Finding #7) states that all necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval. Ms Hirata stated that Finding #7 is merely a blanket statement while Finding #6 is the city’s way of implementing what they have the right to require by law, i.e. school facilities. Commissioner Welshons inquired what happens if the applicant doesn’t pay the fees. Ms. Hirata stated that the school fees must be paid at the time the building permit is pulled. The problem the city is facing is that the school district keeps coming forward with each discretionary approval saying that school fees are inadequate. That brings up the need for something else and we don’t necessarily know what that something else is. Therefore, we are now saying that the applicant must pay the school fees plus they have to provide adequate school facilities. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that this Tentative Map under consideration is part of a master plan. The master plan was the legislative action which took place. As part of the approval of that master plan, the issue of school facilities was debated and it was determined that additional requirements could be added beyond the school fees which are set forth in the Subdivision Map Act. Therefore, there is a condition on the master plan which requires more than just the payment of school fees. That is why both the finding and the condition are required because they refer back to the master plan. Commissioner Schlehuber commented that if Village “K” doesn’t get built, no affordable housing would be built. He inquired if there is something other than a promise which will ensure that the affordable housing will be built. Mr. Munoz replied that this project requires an affordable housing agreement and site development plan to be approved or Village “K” before Village “U” can even get a final map. He imagines that the agreement will require construction of the affordable units before any other development takes place in the master plan. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if parking credit would be given in the event that the streets were public rather than private. Mr. Munoz replied that no parking credit is given for public streets. The PD ordinance MINUTES I- PLANNING COMMISSION December 15, 1993 PAGE 4 allows it for private streets. In other words, they would be short on parking if the streets were public rather than private. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired what is the purpose of the private streets, other than to get around the parking requirement. Mr. Munoz replied that Calavera Hills, in general, and Village ‘If” in particular, are highly constrarned topographically. It is a hillside project area. The intent of the master plan is to allow the allowable density to be achieved with a multi-family designation and the use of private streets which would be 32 to 36 ft. as opposed to 56 ft. In addition to minimizing the street width, it also minimizes the grading to allow sensitive hillside development, consistent with the master plan and city regulations. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the applicant is required to maintain the streets at their own expense. Mr. Munoz replied that this is correct. The homeowner’s association will maintain the private streets as with all private streets in any planned development. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired what happens if the homeowner’s association runs out of money and they don’t take care of this problem. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, replied that there have been several petitions in the past requesting that the city take over private streets. The City Council has consistently denied the requests, stating that the project was approved as a private development with private streets and must be privately maintained. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that since we provide fire and police, if the streets were in significant disrepair, we wouldn’t have much choice in the matter. Mr. Wojcik replied that this would become a legal issue which would have to be resolved. Commissioner Savary requested staff to discuss Condition #16 which also refers to school fees. Mr. Munoz replied that this condition follows up to Finding #6. The condition being added by the memo requires additional mitigation if the fees are inadequate. Commissioner Savary requested staff to discuss the meaning of a “temporary sewer lift station” referred to in the resolutions. Mr. Wojcik replied that with the approval of Village “Q” and “T”, and consistent with the Zone 7 LFMP, there was a temporary lift station approve to allow the drainage area to flow into the North Agua Hedionda sewer line. The sewer basins would flow normally into. the South Agua Hedionda sewer line. There is presently capacity in the north line but because of the great distance and related expense of installing the South Agua Hedionda line, the city has agreed with other property owners in the area that, on a first-come, first-serve basis, they can use that capacity in the north line on a temporary basis until the South Agua Hedionda line is constructed. Commissioner Savary inquired if staff can estimate a time frame. Mr. Wojcik replied that the time frame is being worked out by the water district because they take care of the sewer facilities. They are presently working on a plan to come up with financing for the South Agua Hedionda line. They don’t have a time- table yet because the planning is still in the early stages. As far as buildings being covered with a sewer condition, there is a condition included in the resolution which states that building permits will not be issued unless the district engineer determines that there is adequate sewer service available. When the developer has the subdivision graded out and is ready to pull building permits, he is taking the chance that part of the sewer capacity in the north line is still there for him to pull sewer permits. Commissioner Savary inquired if the applicant is aware of this. Mr. Wojcik replied that he is. Commissioner Erwin inquired what other planned development projects had the Commission approved which didn’t have two garages per unit. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that he could not think of any which have been approved in the recent past. The prior regulation didn’t address covered parking. The amendment in 1986 added the covered parking but did not specify garages. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 15, 1993 PAGE 5 Commissioner Erwin feels if there is room for carports, there is room for detached garages. Mr. Munoz replied that this is not necessarily true. The 4, 6, and 8-plexes have one or two car garages built into the structure. The carports and guest parking bays have been disbursed throughout the project. It may not be aesthetically pleasing to close in the carports. He believes there were some projects built in Calavera Hills previously within this master plan which had one car garages. Perhaps the applicant may want to speak to this. Chairman Noble stated that the carports are a little smaller than a garage. He used to live in a project which had carports. If that carport had been closed in to create a garage, he would have had an extremely difficult time maneuvering his car into it and then there wouldn’t have been room left over to get out of the car. Chairman Noble opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Lex Williman, Hunsaker & Associates, 10179 Hunnekins, San Diego, addressed the Commission and stated that he concurs with the staff report and requested the Commission recommend approval of the project. He has no specific problems with the conditions but he does have some concern about the seeding or hydroseeding of building pads. With regard to the questions posed by the Commission, he stated that: * This project would be a gated community and there are provisions in the CC&R’s and state law which would allow special assessments to the association if the city has to come in to repair streets to enable access for emergency vehicles. . An agreement has been signed with the school district which completely mitigates Lyon’s school requirement for all of the master plan. . They understand about the temporary lift station and are aware of what would be required if sewer capacity is not available at the time of construction. . They proposed carports because they wanted to retain an open street scene as much as possible. Garage requirements are 12 ft. wide, wall-to-wall, whereas a carport can be 10 ft. for a space. Not only would a closed garage block the street scene, it is an additional cost and would take up more space. The majority of the units do have two-car garages. He asked the Commission not to require two-car garages throughout the project. They feel that at least one enclosed garage is adequate and they have met the City’s requirements for covered parking. He requested time for rebuttal after the public testimony. Commissioner Savary commented that she has seen nothing in the staff package which describes the project, i.e. exterior elevations, materials, roof design. Mr. Williman replied that the concept of the project is to create the flavor of a European village. The exterior material would be stucco, with tile roofs. The architecture design is French Provincial. There will be rock entrances and recessed windows. The roof articulation brings the ends of the roofs downward. Commissioner Schlehuber advised Mr. Williman that Condition #39 states seeding and not hydroseeding, and that hydroseeding is significantly different than just seeding. Mr. Williman replied that he is sorry he used the word hydroseeding. He would prefer not have seeding at all because it causes additional expense. Joan Warner, 2960 Lexington Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she lives in the Cape development of Calavera Hills. There are approximately 230 townhomes in that development and I- PLANNING COMMISSION December 15, 1993 PAGE 6 she has lived there for ten years. She feels that this proposed project and subsequent development of College Boulevard will result in lowered property values. The residents of the Cape are concerned about the noise. If this project is approved, she believes that the developer should be required to pay for a wall and foliage to cover a wall to help mitigate the noise problem. She has been led to believe that a noise abatement study did not take place, even when her development was constructed ten years ago. She feels that noise will be a major problem. She lives about one-half block from where College Boulevard will be built. Commissioner Savary inquired if she belongs to a homeowner’s association. Ms. Warner replied that she does. Commissioner Savary stated that in most cases, the homeowner’s association takes care of the noise attenuation, walls, etc. Ms. Warner replied that since a noise abatement study was never done, they did not realize how close College Boulevard would be to their project. As a result, the homeowner’s association feels that this developer should be partially responsible for the cost of the wall. Mr. Williman responded to Ms. Warner’s comments regarding a sound wall. He stated that the City Council has conditioned Villages “w”, “X”, and “Y” previously to provide a noise study for the Cape side. That was the extent of Lyon’s responsibility as far as the City Council was concerned. 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 Savary inquired if the lots in the Cape development were deed noticed that College Boulevard would be constructed at a later date. Mr. Munoz replied that at the time the Cape project was constructed, there was no standard condition to deed notice future property owners regarding noise impacts from a transportation corridor. However, two things did take place. When the final map was recorded, the alignment and dedication of the western half of College Boulevard was shown as a major arterial. In addition, a noise study was done with the original project back in the early 80s. The study was done to the old noise standard and what appears to be a wooden wall along the top of the slope adjacent to these homes is actually a concrete wall which resembles a wooden wall. That wall was the noise mitigation for the assessed noise impacts at that time. It is anticipated that a revised noise study to be done in the near future will probably require additional heights to be placed on that wall in certain locations. Commissioner Erwin commented that he was under the impression that when a road is built, the costs normally include sound walls to mitigate the noise impacts. He doesn’t understand why it is shown as a separate expense on this project. Mr. Wayne replied that sound walls are not always incorporated into road construction; they are only done by policy. The City has no policy regarding sound walls. Of all of the streets being built today, there is not one which has a sound wall incorporated into it. It is the policy of the City not to retrofit these existing roads either. Commissioner Hall inquired if Condition #39 will require grass on all the pads and roadways. Mr. Munoz replied that some kind of ground cover would be required, consistent with similar conditions in other projects. The idea is to not have the area sit vacant for an indefinite amount of time. Grass would be the minimum required. Commissioner Hall inquired if, on a compacted roadway, something would have to be added to the surface. Mr. Munoz replied that either topsoil would have to be brought in or the surface would have to be disked in order for grass or other ground cover to grow. Commissioner Hall inquired if hydroseeding would be cheaper in that case. Mr. Munoz replied that the applicant would not be limited to hydroseeding. MINUTES . PLANNING COMMISSION December 15,1993 PAGE 7 Commissioner Hall inquired if the material would then have to be removed in order to complete the road. Mr. Munoz replied that approximately 3-4 inches off the top would have to be removed. Commissioner Hall inquired what happens to the material being removed--would it have to be taken to a landfill. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, replied that the material would have to be hauled away to a dump because it is not suitable for fill. Commissioner Hall commented that it looks like we are trading off aesthetics for possible environmental problems. Adding top soil to a compacted roadway and then having to remove six inches of soil and vegetation and haul it away is a very costly process. There is also the visual impact of seeing the trucks hauling the material away, diesel fumes, etc. Mr. Munoz replied that this condition was added in response to an ongoing concern about developments being stopped mid-phase and having empty pads just sit there. This may not be an ideal solution; perhaps the condition could be refined. Commissioner Hall stated that he wouldn’t want to calculate what it would cost to remove six inches of soil over a 40 ft. wide road, for the length of the road. This would also require a significant amount of trucking. Mr. Munoz replied that the developer has to make a big commitment to complete a project once it is started. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that this has to be considered a mitigation, not simply a tradeoff, for going in and grading the entire site but not building on the entire site. There are several impacts involved. One would be visual. The second one could be to mitigate erosion, especially on anything that is sloping like roads which are graded but not built. Many areas in the City have graded pads which have remained vacant for years. It became Council policy, when they adopted the Landscape Manual, to require this seeding, which is why it is added as a standard condition. Commissioner Savary inquired which costs more, to remove grass or to correct erosion which might occur. Mr. Wojcik replied that most of the erosion would be on steep 2:l slopes. The erosion control plan usually takes care of that. Steep roadways are also included in the erosion control plan and that is above and beyond the seeding requirement. The seeding requirement as stated is to reduce visual impacts. That is its main purpose. It is intended for graded building pads and roadways which have a slight sloping grade which would not normally have severe erosion. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the City Council policy for seeding is in writing. Mr. Wayne replied that the City Council approved the Landscape Manual which included seeding. Commissioner Schlehuber would like to see a copy of the landscape plan referred to by Mr. Wayne prior to the next meeting in January. Mr. Wayne replied that he will see that he receives it. Commissioner Betz commented that she understands the median at the exit of the project will stop people from turning left onto College Boulevard going south. She would like to know if people traveling south on College will be able to turn left into the project. Mr. Wojcik replied yes. Commissioner Schlehuber commented that Commissioner Hall had made some very good points with regard to the seeding issue. However, he will accept the staff recommendation until he looks into it further. MINUTES .* i- . PLANNING COMMISSION December 15,1993 PAGE 8 ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3587,3588, and 3589, recommending approval of CT 90-25, PUD 90-25, and HDP 90-32 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including the changes set forth in staff memo dated December 15, 1993. VOTE: 6-l AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Hall, Savary, Schlehuber and Welshons NOES: Commissioner Erwin ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Erwin stated for the record that he voted no because he thinks we are going in the wrong direction by allowing a planned development without two-car garages for each unit. He believes the ideology of using on-street parking as partial fulfillment in meeting the parking standard is regressive. Commission recessed at 6:58 and reconvened at 7:03 p.m. Request for recommendation of approval e Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, and Hillside Developm Permit to subdivide 129 single-family lots, ture community facility sites, all on property generally located east of Paseo del las Ondas, and south of Palomar Airport Road, in the RD-M-Q Zone and cal Facilities Management Plan Zone 20. Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner, r the background of the request and stated that the applicant is requesting approval to subdivide le family lots, construct 76 townhomes, 72 condominium units, 72 apartment units, and designate two community facility sites, all on property located east of Paseo del Norte and north of Camino de las ccl is located in the coastal zone and totals 68.5 gross acres and is undeveloped. The project would be provided by the northern exte Lane. In addition, access would be provided en Valley Road, which would extend from Camino de las Ondas north along the project to the north. The applicant is processing a Vesting Te stipulates that the approval of a Vesting Tentative Ma ted right to proceed with the , and standards in effect at the time the tate that the amount of any fees which any law, shall be determined at the time the fee is paid. Therefore, the amount of fees are not Tentative Map. R approval of the Vesting The project is subject to the requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan an by the City Council on December 7, 1993. In addition, the City Council, as approved a new school facilities mitigation condition set forth in staff memo Mr. Gibson moved to the west wall and reviewed the maps which show the exact lo the various roadways in and around the site. of the project and Commissioner Erwin requested the Deputy City Attorney to educate the Commission regar Tentative Map, including the positive and negative aspects. Ms. Hirata stated that the Commi not vote yes or no based on the fact that it is a Vesting Tentative Map because the applicant h MINUTES December 22,1993 The North County Blade-Citizen Letters to the Editor c/o Rusty Harris 1722 South Hill Street Oceanside, CA 92054 Dear Mr. Harris: This letter is in response to the letter you printed from Mr. Lamb, a Carlsbad resident, who posed several questions to the Carlsbad City Council regarding the proposed alignment of College Boulevard. I will restate the questions asked by Mr. Lamb and attempt to answer those questions. . 1. ’ Why have residents been unable to obt,ain the exact alignment of College Blvd. until just recentIy (many residents may not have purchased homes where they did if this information were known)? The classification and approximate alignment of College Boulevard through the eastern part of Carlsbad were established in the mid 60’s with the adoption of Carlsbad’s first General Plan. The alignment was further refined with the approval of the Calavera Hills Master Plan in 1978. The specific alignment adjacent to The Cape at Calavera Hills was fixed at the time the final map for this project was approved in 1983 before any homes were built on the site. The recorded map for The Cape at Calavera included half street b dedication of College Boulevard along the eastern edge of the project, At this time, the City also required the developer to grade the area within the half street dedication in an effort to minimize the disturbance for future residents of the subdivision. The residents who originally purchased houses within The Cape had available to them the final map showing the exact alignment and location of future College Boulevard adjacent to their homes. In addition, the residents could have reviewed the City General Plan and the Calavera Hills Master Plan maps which showed the alignment of College Boulevard and its classification as a four lane major arteria! road. __-_._ . . -.. . . _. ._ _. _ _ -- -...--.--. -. -. . 1200 Carlsbacl Vlli,.tqe Drive - Carlsbncl. CA 92008-1989 l (619) 434-2830 - FAX (519) 720-9461 North County Blade-Citizen December 22,1993 Page 2 2. Was College Boulevard always proposed as a four lane facility? ; Yes, the classification of College Boulevard as a four lane major arterial with raised median island was originally contemplated in the City’s first General Plan in the mid 1960’s. There has been no alteration in the classification since then. 3. Who is paying for the proposed sound wall along the east side of College Boulevard? The devefoper is funding the full cost of this wall. City policy and State environmental regulations require developers to mitigate any adverse impacts to their development from adjacent noise sources. Since the property immediately east of the proposed College Boulevard. extension is currently undeveloped, the developer of this property will be required to build any required sound wall . concurrent with the development of the property. 4. Who pays for noise studies and do they only protect future residents? The developer pays for any noise studies required by the City. The City noise policy is primarily designed to protect future residents from any potential noise sources. With particular reference to the residents of The Cape, the Master Plan developer was cpnditioned to perform a noise study and make recommendations for noise mitigation. The developer was not conditioned to install any mitigation measures adjacent to The Cape development. The reason for this exclusion is because’ mitigation measures recommended by a previous noise study were installed by the developer of The Cape when the project was originally constructed. The noise standards in 1983 were. less restrictive than they are today. City policy does not require new development to bring older developments up to existing standards. North County Blade Citizen December 22, 1993 Page 3 5. Why not relocate College Blvd. a hundred feet to the east, where open space is planned and create an open space noise buffer. for the existing residents? Most of the land immediately east of the proposed College Blvd. alignment is planned for residential development (Village “U”) and not open space. A realignment in this direction would push the development into sensitive canyon areas or reduce the area allowed for development. Considering the previous density reductions within the Calavera Hills Master Plan mandated by the Growth Management Program and, considering the need to maintain a certain level of development to pay for College Boulevard and other public infrastructure, the Council decided to retain the alignment in its present and long established position. Council decisions are not always easy or popular. We are elected to represent the needs and values of the community as a whole. It is our job to sort out the facts, listen to the needs of the public, and make decisions that bring the most good to the most people. As with most of our decisions not everyone will be pleased with the outcome. We can only hope, that on the whole, people understand our decisions are made with the hope of maintaining and enhancing the overall quality of life in our City. City of Carkbad ma Cl City Council City Manager City Engineer - .- _ . . . ,- f - i . &x the * . . ered 50 t ‘-. 6, trees. We t newspa- i the tree. ‘. exception te! Why? aterial is . and the f were still p friendly . Ifake this &on a safe an will be rek’s, and on actions d consider iit5 OfOUr es as have .theru cati- d rushferrc. INart and 1 h x the pup are thou. ‘r chiIdren .ac.h year many chil lil of us tc :C at adop orential tc I:..,- ;..&.- approached. the vnn from the Humane Society was leaving. We went in and asked if Quigley and her owner were there. They told me her owner had not F arrived yet. but unfortunately by the time the dog arrived, she had passed away. BECKY CIfAVERS N . vista PC Questions for council hc Editor: I would like to pose some pertinent questions to each member of the Carlsbad City Council. Some of the answers might take some research: hence, I don’t espect immediate response. But I dobelieve it to be imperative that in fuuliilling the responsible duties of your elected positions, accurate answers should be obtained: 1) Why have residents of Carlsbod been unable to obtain the esact alignment of CollTge Boulevard until just recentis? Just perhaps if this bad been previously known. mnny residences at the Cape of Calavera Hills would not have been purchased. or this problem could have been nlutuall,v solved some time ago. 21 Was College originally designed as D txvo-lane road. or its present design as a four-lane road? I’m certain that noise stud& would vnr? 3) Is there anv funding for the east-side wall along College being provided by other than the developer? Are existing: residents paying? 4) Who paid for the noise studies’: Apparently Noise Policy So. 17 is designed to project new developments. not existing residents of Carlsbad. 5) Why cannot considelxtion be given to relocst- ing Cotlege a few hundred feet to the t?:\st. where . open space is planned. and move the open space to the present alignment of College. thud creating the ideal. non-Los Angeles wall noise buffer:’ 61 Last, but not least. is this a pro-developer or a * ac P! ?I m ’ :a m Ch Ill hi fo hi si. Sl in PI 01 ht In a w bi re in H ZIG Carlsbad residents’ City Council’l L;\RKY L&U1B z CWMXld . . --- - L 1 I- - February 1, 1994 In reference to Mayor Lewis' January 2, 1994 Community Forum Letter in the Oceanside "Blade Citizen" newspaper and the proposed Village U, I would like to clarify a few points pertaining to the College Boulevard alignment as it is currently planned to run immediately adjacent to the 230 homes of The Cape at Calavera Hills. On November 2, 1993, I did appear before this Council in protest of the College Boulevard alignment within the proposed Lyon-Copley development. The thrust of my protest was the negligence of the Council in its favoritism of a proposed development versus an obvious deference to the existing residents of The Cape who had lived here for over ten years. With the College Boulevard alignment only a few feet from some of The Cape homes, the noise and air pollution will far exceed levels considered @'healthy'@! At that meeting, the request to relocate the road further to the east was denied, but the Council did order Lyon-Copley to conduct a noise study prior to development. Prior to this meeting, the only noise study and subsequent abatement wall would protect the m development to the east, but nothing to benefit existing residents to the west. I seriously do not believe that noise and traffic studies conducted in 1983 could have possible anticipated and projected the noise decibels that will be prevailing in 1994, or thereafter. In order to maintain the health and well-being of The Cape residents, the only prudent mitigation would be to move College Boulevard to the eastern segment of Village U and subsequently move Village U to the west, adjacent to The Cape. The City Council and staff have made numerous references to the city's General Plan and the Calavera Hills Master Plan. i have read these, and would like to quote some important statements from these. The General Plan - "Goal- Provide a roadway system that does not subject surrounding land uses to inappropriate noise levels," This is an element that state law says must be addressed! "The General Plan is not a static document. The goals and implementation should continue to be reviewed and updated on a timely basis as deemed necessary by state law or by request from the public." nUntil a permanent noise mitigation ordinance is adopted, noise studies are to be submitted with applications for residential projects with 50 or more dwelling --- within 500 feet from the - 1 right of way of an existing or future circulation element roadway." "The city shall protect the hearing and well-being of Carlsbad residents by controlling and abating harmful or undesirable sounds ---. 81 Nowhere in the plans did I read where new developments were to be favored, nor existing residents to be discriminated against. In fact, it appears that the state mandates &I& citizens to be treated equally! Therefore, I would seriously urge the City Council to hold in abeyance all approvals pertaining to the Lyon-Copley development until an acceptable solution to the potential noise and irritant pollutants can be remedied to the satisfaction of the impacted Carlsbad residents. LAWRENCE D. LAMB Carlsbad . I- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - -- CT 90-25/PUD 90025/HDP 90-32 CALAVERA HEIGHTS VILLAGE W" 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 application for a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, and Hillside Development Permit to develop 138 multi-family residential units on property generally located east of future College Boulevard, south of approved Village "T" and north of approved Village "W" within the Calavera Hills Master Plan in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 7, and more particularly described as: A portion of Lot D of The Ranch0 Agua Hedionda in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 823 on file at the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4441. If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, and/or the Hillside Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at or prior to, the public hearing. APPLICANT: Lyon Communities PUBLISH: January 20, 1994 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL CALAVERA kEK3HTS VUAM “V’ c-r 9o--&m25/ I - _,- - 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 15, 1993, to consider a request for recommendation of approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, and Hillside Development Permit to develop 138 multi-family residential units on property generally located east of future College Boulevard, south of approved Village “T” and north of approved Village “W” within the C&Vera Hills Master Plan in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 7 and more particularly described as: A portion of Lot D of The Ranch0 Agua Hedionda in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Map thereof No. 823 on file at the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. 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 December 9, 1993. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (619) 438-l 161, ext. 4441. If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, and Hillside Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CT 90-25/PUD 90-25/HDP 90-32 CASE NAME: CALAVERA HEIGHTS VILLAGE “U” PUBLISH: DECEMBER 2, 1993 -. . i F. (Form A) TO: FROM: RE: CITY CLERKS OFFICE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice CAIAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN - VILLAGE ‘I)” - CT 90-25/PUD 90-25/HDP 90-31 for a public hearing before the City Council. Please notice the item for the Council meeting of 2 I 1 Thank you. MARTY ORENYAK DECEMBER 30, 1993 Assistant City Manager Date Attachments CALAVERA HGTS VILL "U" CT 90-25/PUD 90-25/HDP 90-32 FACILITIES LBLS CERTIFIED CITYOFVISTA CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOLDIST 600EUCALYPTUSAVE 801 PINEAVE PO BOX1988 CARLSBAD CA 92008 VISTA CA 92084 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 5201RUFFIN RD #B SAN DIEGO CA 92123 i - - . .._ 1 7 ‘i 33 ;I, 2 ._. - ._ ‘, -- .L := ‘7 ‘4 P ; 43 - .: c3J . .- =3 0 _* - :z- ‘E - 1% 3 :1 3 x - 13 7 v-a li 022 - .d= naxl :v n L ‘7 2% -0 7 2. 72 L -1 ;u :u n ‘D 5 ‘U 3 -5 A3 - 2 TI 2 ‘.J ..a. jl .- ” .n n a.2 i :u -0 T -203 -3)s .) ;u 7 wz --nIL .> 3 3Z-i :u 3 -0 I - z ” H .>. ‘a ‘7 7 La r < - -1 - L- XJ 7 ;-. 2. ‘L ; >3 ?I% $1 3 :il :” ?U -2 1- - -1 .1 7 7 -h 3 7 -37 *< cb .- 3 ;v 2 Y -- D -2 I .: .3 z T .Y m ‘3 z”: 513 !3 - 22 33 ;- T --- uj > ,i d. .-Y ti 3 2. -* J 3 7; :i - *1Z :, ‘D ‘7 ;,a -fl -- - ? ._. L‘ 2 1 - \,> - ,L :3 7: 3 :3 2 P .: ,I’ 3 1) I.< 4..: !sj ti .i. :3 33> I .: 3 TJ- 23 2. P -13 ‘3 D .22 -t 52 23 7 2.j zu -q;u 5 dJ3 - ‘3 7) 3 3 n ;ti -7 -, - -.G :i, -2 - 1 :, .i L :. .- :I - :-I ‘4 J) ;u a :v - & - “(37 3 -g ; :v -. -u XI WP 7 ‘433 :.I CD - P? -- 2% z 3 33 1 :. -2. D :L 2 IO 7 3 :ii --* :?z 2. 2. n ‘.; :7 :u .D 27 - v ;v :, - az ?u --! 2 J3-- 7AL CL4 -q ‘3 - Asn - .i s -? A :_r 5 L7 3 : LJ:r --ns .S? JZ< ;u 3 ?a 81L :7 -.TJ 3 ‘4 :7 ;v .37J - 22 5 - Lli : .i 3, - .o - Jrn?o :u -. .1 :1 :1 :‘l :o II :u ;u :3 ‘1 7 -3: $ :r 1) :, cu 3 2. ‘7 -0 r-7 --. :, 2 c3 - -I, _? &. 5 z rn I” 2 ^- 3 E n -. 3 :L’ - = ;- _ -~ :., ‘L’ n-2-z - t, ::c - IL - ‘. ?I ‘? c .- < .7 .- :3 - T :3 t-2 UT7 :7 P :u --o Li -. + 7 -Y -’ LL 3 :r ns 3 -, ‘3 2. + -7 . . .c 1 + Y + 9 -3 ? (3 ..d &. :zJ y 6 x 42 :L z 2 ‘0 Y 5) -- - P h il .- u>-D - Q-3 Z-A!=- :3 - =,>5 2 ‘D - ..< -2 .- ‘3 I ‘3 :3 P R -- I R -. za 1 * , .: -_ 3 -cl 4. .: 3 D .z -3 .a n ‘2 .d 2. 7-c :u c3 -a 7 ,d .-a - - .o ?za< a -1 _... - d-T .- .hu3 :1 ..‘J 4 :u :?\ = - .,7 I? - i :u .” - J :z 1 CL’ 3 I1 .- :7 z P :7 4. ;Li CL% 7 ; LI n 7 ‘> de. 3 .,7 . . 23 :I .a. :, -7 13 .7 LO ; ~3 2 :a ._. :y ‘3 .2 :. yL Y ..:- :; 0 :: ‘J ‘7 .- -‘ ‘4 .J > c .n ‘D Ji .4 .- :7 .Y ‘- ;a 33 -7 a ; .i :3 -. .1 .- J :c :u :3 ‘1 :1 3 Y :1 L :;r 3 3 ;I :z- :3 x3 L -7 ‘ii 3 u3 xc 7 2.7 1- -7 ,‘; 7 :4 -5 -3 ‘3 .a :- i 7 1 -l-3+ .- + 7 b - 5 .srr - .u3 -33 :: :o ;: I- 2 J 3 -a)31 .jj -u .: c)z.c.d 23 33 7 _rl n .- . 3 .n -0 JZ? :u 3 II- IIT E ‘3 -* .7 lrnO 3 2 3 :* Y .D 31 7 .A7 -23 .o J J73 :v .2.x 11 ulz2 :, D -. 3 -7 1 &. TJ 9 3 7 ‘3 - 42 2. :3 1 _I a :3 + -7 .o x- 3 .o 3 JJ2 :v zu 3. >I 7l ;v -. 1 :I L.2 72 z :u 73 :u -. .,> .o 0 3 ‘.J A ? .3 :T1 *..I 3 ?, 5115 :3 n 22 32 t .n 2 A P :ti 5 ‘li 2: -7 .o ‘J :7 $ R 3. 53 zn ‘3 -0 7 St-1 iiz I :3 I !3 CD> .I 3 ‘1 z, I .: :13 5 .u 7iD J! mo Jl 2 zn Jl 2a ‘3 2.x J: A- . -7 ‘J 3 :c* .a - 7 ‘2-Z 7 ‘J XJ :” .a 3 3 a; - 43 ? P .1 - =) -h - Ll 3 .- F - 2 ; L ~~ _ Z-8 - --TA ‘:. -i’ .- 7 :z-> : T ?; 1 ‘_ .- L ‘: ‘-7 Ii 5 z- ..z L.: c :J j :: :3 ‘x, 73 - ‘3 .-. 1 :3 -, -3 ‘2 - - rs .: .3 :c 3 -x 1 4.‘: 0 “.a-. IL 227 2 .” --, 2 -. :,, .il : z I ii z r ‘i -7 :: -77 2 ::- :. :v -.-I - : 3- z J .z .? 3 2. - ..I .ll LT..- y .- 3 ‘J 51 :3 ‘< ?d 2’ :3 *z .o ‘d :+ ,3 ‘7 .4 f - T Y 7. 3 n X :’ i ,, J: T- .n :-, _: .h .i .* -.G CL -- -zz --. .:\ I .n ,_- - OD :1 i z,? :u .n 3 ._ > .d -2. .- - .-. 7 a z -7 (.> . -_ q ‘-3 ‘-7 ;u d -. -. -4x < - -- -. .I :i - ‘L> “) 1” .i > -; - - :” ‘3 :e 2 -3 ‘1 :c .” ._. - :s CL 3 x .h I3 2. 7J .- -‘! - ‘3 I* i. a T 7 ,z 7 - .s .h .+ D CT 2 -- :” .- s: 7; 2 ..--1 3 L; -- ;,c .o i 7 -.- c .iD -- .L ;i .A. -.L n :: :3 5 ‘C - D -. 7 ;i, ? 31 - :=- & :>..: .:, I :r ro 3 7 -l :u :I z - :. -1 -i - a :_ _e ‘7 3 ‘3 : 52 - :- Ed’ ::; -7 ; -t :, :3.,x - ;u :.-I -- o- :1 _2 ‘3 .,- :‘a 83 3 i -- ‘j 1 I u _. - -0 ._ i :;- 3 -= ,” .o .? 1 k 4 :u ; .<z / ‘” ;P y-3 .- :z ‘2 :- ‘i .3-u :, ‘3 - :i .3 -a 7 ‘.J3 -- !3 .,. 2 z :7) :u -I Ls: 1 & .A. coZ’3C P 3 .a. E mz 73 3 ,; 733 f 7 .+ 3 ..2 3 :7 ..J ‘1 *, .aIr :u 53 - 5 3; . .F4 &. ---.l- ---ii? $3x. .1 7 :I) < 5 5 jl--j, 1 j, t9 rL 3, 2 2 I z 7 1 > 71z ;a 3 7 :v 3 :L’ 3-o 5 3 .o D .o -n ‘3 7 ‘..I ‘, -5 s 2. 3 4. 0 3 7 L3: < 3 33 a L - 7 -3 .T :_ -032 - .3Y - ‘.J -J .d 3 :v - 3-t ‘- ‘.J ‘1 :., r? - ‘- i :7 .., .2 ,,.: - ..: :I ^> .-. - 03 ‘/ D ., 2 _I .) ._ .q .- v 7 ,i -. J 1 7 :u ‘- -* ;, -2 .; .-, :z 3. -LI -1 ya ._i :. :1 .- I’ :., 5 5 .E- D d. 72 .,l z .-* .3 ‘0 .- L.< :a .- 13 -+ 3J -n :* 0 3 273 7 13 ZLru 2 :: ? :1 7 :v :3 :i 3 .T :I r .- J ;i i :‘v - .- 2 Y :: ; ,n I :7 9 -+ ‘.1 ‘7 ; :LJ 3 P .D 23 >, ‘, x ‘u :3 z 23 -L .o -- :i’ 1x3 s3 ‘D ‘3 D - !a *. - rjls 2- 3) A n z J :3 ‘V 3 .: ; .L. D a . 13 :a .A :3 P -. c? - 3 :i .A 2 “J -3 x 13 7 . n ‘..I E *:i’ .D -. -- i 2 .i - ._ 1 _d. ; - .,, ;.* ?d 3 2; -- 7 :u z&4 .,I :n -.+ I-- . L, A 3 33 a-- 2 .3 13 :7 1 :v 2. I .- D -_ :u 7 2xz.L :Li 3 ii -- :1) 0 .’ y- ,> :. . . I I. -3 ? ‘4 ZE :u ..I-. 71 ‘.j -- :u 2 3 -- 3‘ ;I .- ..; _, 7 ‘i z :: ., Ti :u .D :o 5 3:u 7 .P .: - 3 -. , : A- .- -- i .>. - -a .: .- _ .* .n :, :T :7 . . :Y :z :. -- -. .i. : ‘- 1: w 1” 113 E- ..i -7 :7 ‘; - n .: :i, ‘- a.: 2 1 _? :i :3- :+ 2 L :- ‘> - “3 .-. .r 2 :: 3 .i - 7 <.: 7 :1 ;. ” :z “3 :1 -. ‘7 2 .- .- -0 .-. I+ - .1 5 -.. 7% .? :3 -. :7 - 1. -; :> z 13 2 1 :7 ..: :; 3 “> I 2 - -. % .- z D 3 :; sl- D .a ?) 5 1: 7 0 z :3 23 -3 muI1. :v b 3 3 ‘.; .z :; :.. ,j ‘1 5 -- ;; ? Ii. :3 ..,I i 2 : .- .- :72 L- 1 ‘b 3 :3 D - s -, 337 ‘3 -- ;i :z -r Ir, .& - :3 .- z .- -.: .._ > :u :1; ..: 2 => I-. -2 ._ I d .& ., :3 :Z I, 2 :3 -2 _ .j de - :L. 3 -1 .m 0 :-. ..T 2. i ‘? ..- 2, 2 .i .- :3 ‘V 9 ;., d 7 .- Lu .1 -- 3 7 IT xl - :v L z I z ;I, 7 ‘3 3 I 0 2 - -2. -7 .- J L‘ .n -4 ‘7 .i :G :i* .r :u :7 i ;3 1‘6 .,: ‘> - -1 - - ‘>: !J ‘7 d -0 :v -.< -. 23 d-7 2 .kJ- ‘- !3 3 .?-I ‘i 3 :. .; :a ..- *< - ‘3 3 .n 3 z7 .- :I :v ;u 1 -73 T ‘? ‘7 2 ‘7 :i: -D x& .4 ‘3 .- ‘3 :7 D :3 .d. .i 3 - L- 3 :; 3 +31 .- i I .5 2 3 : - .i y- :7 , :. c .: L , : s - --\z .- J :-- _i __. .-. .I- z - :7 Ii h y - :> 3 -- 4 7 .i. - .z- 72 J -_ .- -- ._” .,i -y is- =I .: :r ,,I = -. ..- .T r - 0 ii’ CL, .i _ _- -_ ._ :i* z.4 D 2 1. :ti ,. :Y 31 - -I 7 -7 7 ;I* :,1 :,, - 77 a 0 .-- -. _ . __” ;c :u 1 ,? _- -_ I. ‘C 32 n 3 :u 2 : 7 3 -3 7 - -. :i, - ,-, - _ - . , ,A :i 1 3 3 : 3 2 .7 -., :1 :v 23 3 rz 7 __. 33 f .- .:. :i* - ‘: -., : .._ ,? i .- . . : :. 1 L.: 3 ‘.) - -1, !3 .- ::3 .X 2 :j; : 2 :u 2. z 3 *.: L‘3 u; .il :?I 23 7 ..: 3 ‘u :5 :v .I, 3 .- , _. _i 3 :u - 3 3 n ;u 7 -7 0 -- 3 ‘L ^ !Z n ; .? -. 2 72 - -+ :7 TLS .- :‘J .n ._ _-T ,c D .- ‘.j -. 1, :i ‘7 7 c Icr 5 2 ‘3 ‘4 ... ‘3 ._ 3 :3 -. : 2, .A 2: 3>- .., ‘: 2 ST .; = u3 p +. A 53 .o Tl ,-> 7 :3 :3 73 :2 :A :3 - .s 7J :r ,a ; D A=2 .J 1 33 :7\ cz -5 ‘V .x L; .z% T. ;; 3 3 3 ;7 ; ‘, a .3-. _ I. -7 x :l!- -.: _a. .” .A - 17 --_ :I ._ :3 3 :‘3 z :3 3. 3 :, 2 :> 2 :3 .z -7 \, -?J :. pi: ‘2 -- -4 :T -- .I, ‘2 ._ Al ‘C 3. :i :- ‘7 .A ‘33 ” .?.._ :;. -. .- :c -7 i --- :, 1 -$ cu ..: :1 -n I? - ‘7 1 -!l :., .x 5 .r :n a - ‘2 1 $ :~ ‘D :7 2, i ;v a7 ;v 5 JZ -2.3 .n -? .rD :ii :” ;7 2.73 3 D .n 7 .o :v 7 ‘D 3 -- %3 ‘1 a. ‘3 I? 3 7 :3 -* 37 D..hIE :u nal - 2x-r -337 :7 2. :1 :i ‘3 - 7 a?) - ‘J -7 -+ & - :” LJ :J 2 3-3 :3- 7 7 7 0 :v -.x ? .uuI, ‘4 D :7 ‘4 -+ 3 ‘4 z > .o IT :i a 3 - -n 3 - c.1 - .- :3 s -- _i 3 :, :v .o :‘ z- ‘7 .3 7 :7 ‘2 1” :v 3J :, :zL-o xl ?“J 3 li D 2 3 n -0 ;u ‘7 ? :v 7 :v 3 3 .a :: -2 .o 1 TJ ‘V .I *.J d !3 :7 3 a D - :z A. -2 n .a. ., ‘3 7 L* a^ .- =35 .- .i 2 .A .T 3 ‘1 ‘ii -. 11 h :.. :3 2 _>. -7 x .& :u r ..: 5 .a 0 ‘.j - ;ia -3 *.:. 3 D J33 ;u a 13 T D D :-2 :a :3 7J 33 3 2 :c + :3 - -.. .- ;J IL, _*. ‘l-3 1 T 7- ;4 ? 1 3 a :1 :I! ‘Y 3 s47FlJ z3 -. 1 .m 7 :J :; :. .: :5 :. 3 d ~- ..J .> :, ._. ‘7 :: ‘73 D .a 2 _, 2 5 :) :3 :7 ‘7 :u ., 3 .3 -. -3 1 1 2 :7 z :3 a..< ;3 ... ‘-i .9 F?z D !3 -. :a ? A n 2. 0 ‘>j :, --, :3 i. : :3 7 .1 3 -- :3 ._. 3 -7 ?- :a .?i --I .A 7, ‘z) -. :a 7 - 2 7 : a 2 5 7\ n 2. .m 2 ! - :n .n .n .,-I :?? .n .A :>. :1 .- :- > za37 ..- _/ - - .i . & .- 3 1” 3 :3 - ._. .3 :> 113 u3 .n ‘3 :_ 2 -4 :, L L? :7 -., ,7 7 .a x &I -” - ;o .a :* 5 -7 il - 7s c: - J c - ho* 1 2-Z - - .D -. -- 2, :r _. .T ? CL x T- 2 * 3 d z.3 ‘3 3 ~ : > T .i .r 5 :, < ,> .- z ~ ;‘ ” .~. j - .: 5 ‘-2 ,p. A- :> .a .-, %” -z :ri a :u - J .& -- -3 - :7 ‘.j :7 Cd ~0 :i* 7 ._ -- i ‘4 ::- 0 ‘3 3 7 J 5 7 .x, 3 :i 3 3 .) - i’ 3 ‘a:-, 2 03 -. 3 :r -.Jii .:. .._ :, - ,~ D <- -. z 0 :” 10 I, -- :3 9 3 :1 :< -’ 3. ‘7 ; :I( n> ‘7 -T ;L? c. 0 - ._II TU L :3- P .3 1 -, .x 7 3 :i 3 - .c! - ;3 - -. 23 - ., 7 3 z :+ s-3 _‘, ..‘. ;; -- !3 P ‘j ‘2 .; .j-, ,a ., -. EJ “: .3 :< -2 ‘3 :il s -.> .” -- 22 :1 LJ L :: ./ ..n L - 7 .“~ ., 3 L? .T- .n .x -. 2-l J s-l 3‘ .>. 3 ‘3 +J 2 a 3 _--- _------~ ,- ‘3 :_I :. ,3x :7 ; i- :u 3 2 -. T7 .-l \J .a r-T.< 7 ‘J 70 ::x -3 II c \ ..J. :it d 3 - T’ .- -0 -3? - Ts7,J -4 -VT..: - .? T=- .- 33 3 D ‘ii 73 :* .D D 3 ‘2 f - ‘J a 7 J- CUD> zl :< ” .>.;a 15 ‘7u3 73 :u -+ 3 3 ?r Ll-2 1 1,” 7 m :a -. + 3 :7 .5 :3 Y .JT 1” - a< - ‘.J _. .n n J L? :v :u - -A .a :7 ? -7 :i’ 3 :u 7 .u-o D 3 :z- .-? x- ;t, .- .? :> i.- ,. :a -- 5 A,- .- ..” -- n :; :3- .- .- :u ? ‘I s Y -a -- .:- -. Li’ 1. :; : f ‘: :., -* ,T - :v ‘7 z ., -. -. :. :I- - z. z 4 .= .- I+ :, ^i 7 L .a D :; .’ :a .-.I ;‘ .I :.’ :7 ” _A. ,o :< .: 3 -. T-3 ?: ‘- 13 .z 7 (0 .: .j .j> - L cl 2 :u - 3 a .n - -7 :.‘. .- ‘,, :.* ‘3 ‘1 :< -1 1 - .3 :7 :,I :, :v 3 -- .- ;. _I :a Q> :: .+ .A 3 3 L.. D :p .- !3 7-l ‘3 -2. 0 7 :j - :u u3 ‘U -r .,, D :, 73 3 :v 2. 3+ .3 .- 2- .3 3 1” ‘3 15 !3 P 9 :-) 3 :.! < :v .L? ; -3 ; .J -. :; ‘,L1 3 v D :: :3 ir .7 z 13 :7 z 4. ‘3 -. z ..J .a z ‘., .- 5 -* :3 L.: .3 :j .: ‘3 3 ‘3 :3 :3 73 5 ._1 .-, 3 -_ :: 1; .- -3 7 :c :z A - 2. .A .i L-. .- -.r 3 3 L .n .h ,.-. -i .-‘ -- ;-a i .k -- .‘I !3 .- -4 :c cj _- I . I-- - y XJ ‘7 Y !3- ..- .~.: - .- a I: li yJ ,A .d .t -I 7 ‘4 P :v ,3 z -7 .ii :3 .- :3 .t - :2 :. > :: .IL :: :c, .7 :. .. ;., : ._. ‘CT :3 7 ‘J CD :v D .- .- .c - - ‘4 ..,. .._ .- .’ < -. - 3 -- -? n ‘ii -3 Ir 41) n ..J -d li D:” : .<a .- 3 D .n ., .7 - ‘a 3 ID c ” 2. r, -G 1 2; 3- .* 7 _h a. :- z 7 ‘4 .d :i, .3 :li - 2; .. :z SE !L 1:: -- rp - ‘3 .; 3 - ^ :_ II ? _, ._ 3 - . 1,: _ .- .., _ L < -- .~. .- ._ _ . -., 1.: .-- - 3 :: -. ‘> r !7 - y-* - .- D - :13 -7 L 3 L ,a:” -5 DA - x- .1 J -z -, 23- 71 ‘4 7 ;&, (3 0 - ‘43 :. ,Jz- 3 LO 23 - 5 c3- .- .A i) ? ._ :. ‘3 L < ” --. 7J - 1. ‘- l> -- d :3 * :. :, ._. 2. r ‘7 :i _. - :> -- ;u 5 7 - ,z :. .: ._. ; ‘7 1: :3. ;* ” :I ._. I> z- :- :” LO - -. -_ LJ - - ._. 3 .” - ._ -- :.* :. --i - :L, .i; : ‘4 “3 - d .j 5 ,. :I -t m - m -2 - .-. 3 1 x, _.- i73 0 ,.; 7 y -yc pi :; - v :: .I ‘3 :I z;- 2 D .I 2 - ;.- :” ‘Ti zq :d ) ,- ‘3 D ‘j .-. .- .: - ; 3 T - :.: r, .- ‘3 .- :., - _. 1 :I: ‘J -, --, :3 -. .i .I) - 3 ‘: :. :” .i. 7 .- :3 _- i: -e ‘: I ; 3 7, - .? .- ..1 :3 :3 ‘4 - :J‘ .,- -^ .^ .- i :, ‘V x3 I’ -3 ‘9 - Ir ;r - n - .? J = -3 7 ., T :. : ‘3 .4x _i .u :I ‘? 3 9,c: :r 3 - : ._. a ? Y-3 :r d ,” J .l -a z- 7 ‘7 ?) .- D .n :v 3 -. 3 m D A* _d .Y 7 :, ‘i .L 2 D :v - -2 7, .i -+ -- :: 7 :I &. ‘7 7 11 ::* :L, u; -- _ ,-, -3 2 :)r .i :g 7 _i s -. - ‘7, ; .n ‘-J : -43 i .s ; 7 ..i :- -- :n Y h -- :Y -0 :1 .< L ‘3 r; 70 y “1 ._I. .+ D .-7 :; .? ‘3 :I ICI Z-J 3 3 i. 7 3 -7 3 -I ., ‘a j 3.. -- 3 ,n .- ..J D .‘) v :- 73 : ^_ :I :7 ‘I ..j- z .- :- .- .il ‘2 - .* m ,- 2 ” ‘v .i .- YL ;u 3, -. :1 7 7 :1- D .-. -d a’ :- -n Cl- D - -4 >? -. ‘7 IL 3 :i 3 Z” z Y -2 7 - 3 .3 ,; - ._, 7 ‘D % -I :3 ? :X3 !3 - 3 :3 3,: - :3 .7 :3 2. :3 - d-- 23 :3 z - ? 3) P. :r: :2 7 G :,, :u .a5 -I ? 3 .- , 1 T -- :u 3 ‘3 :7 ;u 3- - .i> ;v - .A 7 :n 7-r’ :u ‘cl 1 z-i :< D 3 ‘2 n -r ai- -. 3 -I :u a -. 7 .1 Ti:: -. .i 7 >? .I ‘c7 1, 3 :u : .= .f :.J < ?. :L - :7 --. - .- :, >.’ D .* Y 3 :> :. E .; :7 Y 2 :a y a -5 52 .n :,I 7 3 2 .2 .- .J - :1 .: . . :, . :u ,.3 D -- ::. :. -- 0 :/ . .- .- -d :c :i :: ‘_? ,. -- 2, = LT -7 :v :Y .; :: :n ‘1 -0 :, ‘U ‘D :c .? 7 -u :< :1 :: T . . 7 -- ., :3 .- .- .- -: ‘? , %: .. ;I z :. ‘. -_ ._ :l :v D DVT CL. D 3 7 :u 2 -X2 -2. 7 ‘3 - :u u3 -E 7 :Y 21 :u .,I - .- :c, .LJ 3 3 ‘-, ‘7 n :3 D :3 XJ 7 -2 . -2 23 ‘Y 7 :3 ,a 3 3 ‘3 3 a !3 :3 3 ,” 23 2. .o L =z 3 !J - 7) .,” !a 7 :3 XJ :u 1 ‘i .. :.a .G !3 :> -4 7 JI .P ‘2 -3 :3 ;: .3 c z23 -4 .A-- L 2s: - or333 :7 -i 7 :v 3 j, - Ti: .- .D j ^ d _ .z -1 :,. 3 1 z- :3 ” :1 jo .ys 2 :: -< -7 2 -2 ~~ - :” :i; :v ;L 3 b - _’ 7, I - 3 D :- ;v .d - - 3 :v 72 :L’ :i ‘- ; 1.. .5 ‘- ‘.j ;r s !S Lo .f. P ? T! y> z* ,Y ‘j .-2 .*- 3-c .o 2 .> .:‘ .n 3 -- :7, .n ..-a 0 3 :A ‘r 3 I .- -h ‘V ..; z .i D i- 5 0.e 7 52 3 2 II -< -3 :~ -- D x :v :b 7 7 T ” :. 3 15 ;v D ‘3 3 3 :3 ‘7 .i -7 :i -_ .‘I :3 T :z 9 ;rG .- :v “ ? ._ n :I - :i’ I - ? :.I 3 1 43 ‘3 ‘1 li; :3 :3 7 3 -- -_ -1 ‘7 > :a 2, ‘Z :3 :-J x, E .T i - - - T -- T :n TJ -- 4.l r - ,Ji:u .: ._. :Y v z _. 3 a -I .d- 7 -. _. 5 -: a ‘Z .? 7 . . . . .T .- 5 .3 .? 7 T ;E -+ ..2 .- .- .? ._. :j- ;1 -im ‘2 :v .C’ 7 7 li: :u -y .? -- 4 7 ‘7 ; 7 .? 37 :r ?o‘;iD 315 - - .: -3 :i 3 a -? ; ‘73 z 7 ‘,; 7 &. 32J> ..> .zl : -.L :1 ~2 ‘2 - .,T ‘7 0 :u Lc) 1 3 ^ 3 :,3 ZL n .‘I 3 :ii - ‘. ‘7 _r 13 :i - : D D 0 .. .‘I ‘.j T 7 Ti :s - -2 :3 - .r -73 3 c :u :J ‘3 3 .,7 ‘.j -. T 3 4 3 ..- ? J . -.: 2 3 -2 - :3 ,d - .o - ,- Y .” .I g f .” .s -2 .*: - -- ‘7 v 4 ;u (3 :u :u 43 =\ - 7 .A- ‘I ‘.> I: -87 -u 0 d. T -‘7 -5 & 1p .- - :i .a ; - A z -7 XJ :1. :* L-- :7 ;a 3 ;” d 2. 5 2 TX -A :u z> 5: .D ,,, P .d -- .: 3 < -i 5 ? ..J)D - !3 - xl :X3 ..j ‘3 .+ ‘4 2 - P 3 2 DA.-- ;. m D - 3\E - ‘4 -. .n :o :r ZE 2. 0 n 13 ZL- 3 .” :u ;v -r 7 21 .u - 0 ‘3 r*: :3 3 :, 23-r zn n -4 -7 - m 7 _i ‘7 :u n :., ‘0 J :s :< :3 -.. .a. :3 ::- .-, - .: ‘y. -m .>.1 , .- 1 1. -7 ‘.i .6 .d - ._. .~ c .- 3 .I -’ :. zu -- w 2x3 - :3 2 ?, Lo-- - A- -2 -7 .- SC T.7 :v :3 z 2 -‘3 :1 _>. 7 .? ? ;u -- :r D ‘0 .c 1 - ‘3 :I- .- !3 ‘3 c,? i3 .+ .- ,j ? :: :3: :7 -. -.- CL. ? :I ‘~ -0 ‘Z- . . J 9 * dJ ? : :3 L! :_ k .- __, .- z- -2 3 Jl :” I ,- :z a z2. Zl 0 2.- D z. .- D -- :I ;*: E .3-c r 2.: -3 :3 7 7 s&3= 73 :3 ? :3 :. : z .- < <- -- .) -2 :I ._ T 3- .: 2. ;i -4 :i :. . _ ..- -/ ‘: 1Z ‘- z ‘7 II :.. ;v :i ; c z ‘, .J ..; -‘ :7‘. n ;> II -^ 3 :3 . :E .i *;i 2, - .< 2 ‘I: . .-: a:> 3 -.. - = .-- _ = - 3 ,. z _ .- < .- . :L :- in -. ._ 3z..- .*i^S l 23- >I 3 ..> .323* - - 3 ss 9 . . . 0 * = -- 53 Ir 3 1 - 3:“. -< . .-<-x. 2-j-c -r 1 - c . :< :3 5 3 :3 s; 7; _? . 7 ‘7. ‘3 ;.. I : -7 3 - :b s .- ..: -. . . . ,. 1 5 ‘r . . . . i 1 := ;r . . .- > 1 .‘r; i) .-. . . .d D _d ,- ‘3 Z-1 :n 13 .,- 4 4 .> 7, s :z i z2a ,? i - ‘II 2, -- 73 s 2 7 ‘3 .3 ‘2 i 3 -- - - <I _ -rI - :, 5 4 z= ‘C % D :r: L., :i: s1 :i ‘7 7 ? -- - - za z-3 2 ;i ;v :U 3 3 ‘., .? 7 3 3 !3 3 rz2, ‘3 2. - rI .3*< -2 si3 zlr ‘7 i < OZ.-- 5 :I” -. :I ^ ..z ‘3 s :: -- :j\ to ‘7 .l -2 2. - F i*.: 77 ‘3 ‘3 z 25 ‘V A .- :c j..: -2 :3 3 3 1: -< ? 3 .- z z 2. a 2.. -- L i .< -2 :a 2 c z -z .A z >-- E .13.: 13 :3 0 2 ; - c; - 2 .= -- 01; :Y :L ,-, - .-3 IL .T = L ..-. -.JJ . .5 ; :, 1; :: “; -: _ .‘3 7 -- .T ‘P _. =.z: _<. -*L .c .- 7 0 u: 2 3 -< -3 3 cx 1” :v ,- ‘T .-, 5 _i :. -0 ‘.J 2 22 2 3 .’ -< :r .-i 13’ .- 3 ;” - -. Z ZL :. ;j --, 77: ‘,z’ii -/_ > :L, 3 -_ -. -a 132 c 5 ‘22 J :7 : ’ :3 ;v !3 :i, E 33-c .+ T .- -_. ,- 2- --o :. .._ 0 0 -c I CL .-, 7 z- 3 -$ 3 -3 ‘,; : 3- !3 ‘I ._, ,< .- .~. ‘.> .._ ::_ ‘r’ --. -0 \.d 7. 3. 9 .3 i _> ,: -- ; ‘n !3 : .i - :z 1 ‘D 2 _- $5 2.: ‘2 !3 .: .: 1. -- .rz .* ‘3 2 ‘3 x li :u 7 -7 :i 3 ‘” -3 3 :J z .z. 5 .> - E .D ..: 3 :3 3 3 ; -5 .c - : 5 z.h ‘D .2x - e 0-E 73 sa5 3 -3 -< -3 ._ J ‘3 x L ;u 7 7 r 3 :u :, -? :t’ ZA DA-- E .3*c -?3 s3 3 5 -< -3 ._ -2 ZA ?i .5. -- z .; *.z 3 !3 3 ; = -j < -3 5, 2 j, - : :r’ -33 :u :z a 3 -5 -- z 17 -.: 73 !3 3 3 z 7 c- -3 3 e PX :i, :Y ,, ._ 2-3 L D 3 :” :7 -cl P :i 3 .i .- f :: “. -. ‘:I ._ . . ._ 13 :.: . :c .- 3 :L’ .3 3 3 7 :< CL, 0 :T 3 ‘U 7 5 h - { .- I I-- - =i : 2. - :z i ‘D i - E .5Y -3 ‘3 3 L‘ z ‘- < -3‘ 1: 2 2. -x :u :. - :I 1. r7T :r* 2 ‘G 3 3 !3 z.h z i D .> .- 0 A-- E 2.c z .3 *.: 73 .3 : ? :3 2 .; :I :3 .z -- .:y 7 1 z> ‘D >- :: 3 ..: f? 32 .I -- < -- D ._ 5 ‘r; Ir 2. :.. :7 x Lu a 14 :I? 3 ‘3 2. 2X- 22. ZA T 2. - D .> ‘- x .J Y E 3s: -7 s s 7 :3 3 c: z :I‘ :I ;: -- .T ~= -, .L 2. 3 A- .: 3 b: 3: D >-; E ia.: T :33 2 < 3 :I 2 ..: ?I. :3 -‘ ; :5 .‘< ‘, 7; 1. I . 7 ::- 3 :b 7 :; ;., 2 v F?;, ;. :3 -- .: - : ^’ _- 2 ” -v : :. :i - :: . .j -0 .- ;I :i it, ,- -- ;v t .x, .F 7‘ ‘j _. -- z=% 3 A’- % a.: 73 330 3 z := - 0 2 .- :E 5 *.: 13 !3 2 1 2. 3 .L - f a-: ‘I: :3 3 - :I :7 i :1 -5 ‘” 2. .- IA ‘2 .i -- ,I. _ .a - ‘3 .-- - :i 2 ..r -J :p 2 z .;..:. T? :a: .L .: -- :x .3 “: :: 3% -;: !D : -- .-* y .L .- z ~ -- a_ D 7 -< -co .- 2 .- 3 % CL, :i’ -_ - - -- -=I -s -I ..I < --1 ;7 ‘C :: :.. ;u ,- - --- :z -7 3 -_ .~ - 33 % :n :; - - T3 5 :7 z :v -- :) - 12 7; :-; -i I ^ - :v - -- :: 3 ‘., :? _- A, :: .i ::.3 Y D x -. 5 1,. ,. _. :r j ._ - Y :> s :_ - -- 3- 2 -x i 2 - ? :v ‘7 ; -3 4 ..; z- T :3 :b .- - :. :3 - - .7 7 :u :v ‘2 3 ‘.> ‘I 3 3 .I\ 7, ‘9 s 4 ‘.j ‘-‘ 2 13 .3 .4 7, .> :3 .z’; 3 _A- :< 3..: 73 !3 .3 3 z - ,= z -1 D .A .- E ) ..: -z ‘“2 .- < .+ 3 :3 3 ‘2 x :u :u ;; ZA D i- L 3-C 72 3 3 72x 3 2x’- z a.: 73 33 z 7 -< -* :3 2 z .z D .i - 2 .,-; -; :=7 3 2 -< .z -+ .; 3 :z .i ‘D .i - e .3*.: 7, :2 3 :: z ‘5 A- Z .:c; 73 !3 2 :: :3 --. < -- .> :. z-3 ‘7 - ;c -3 ;u :I as: 7; .sl^ ” .- .~ < .- -- 3 :,: ‘3 77 :; A ~1 ? :v 7 ? :u .- e; .- z ‘B -u 7 :_ :i, 2 >: :u :i ‘3 : 3 :r a :., :u :, 3 ‘V 3 ‘G 3 ii 7 :3 :” .o ‘3 2-3 3 -3 17 !3 i - A- T 3 dJ D ‘3 .D .-? ‘., ‘3 4 .a =: ‘3 a -3 :A :> 2-> ‘.j -2 .2 ..; .a -\ -3 ‘i ‘..a 3 2% 3 .T. ‘3 -3 LT 3 2. ‘7, :3 !3 1; 23 ‘,. sl 53 I‘ 9 G ‘2, T :3 2. !3 ‘3 53 :E i ‘0 -II - E .D *.: -2 !3 3 3 :5 -- < -t :) I3 TrJ ‘3 :‘c :v :v -7 .- ._ :I’ :7 3 ;v :; 7, 3 :3 D A- L 93*: 73 220 3 -_ ‘7 <I- .& 3 33 -cx 5 :v . . ? 73 :U .z 3 :d z .A 3 .z.- E 3.: 73 z333 3 3 -- c . . ,; z 5 :x: :u :u ‘3 7 ---__----__ z2, 10 2. - r .i3Y -0 93 3 3 7< -+a 3 3) ^3 x ;u :” .T 5 r -3 n? ;u ZL 7 .r, -- E .3 *.: 7? :3 3 3 :: 7.c -2 z- 3 ‘X r&l 3J :I 1 II L ‘- :.: ,>-.: -: 3-z .: x -_ < - 2 3 .3 17: :u :_I ., ._ ‘D 3 :1 I 4 1e 3 ‘3 !3 r - /-- . , :z 2. zi 7: a- ?I .5 - .* 2. D .1- z;r a a- .T 0-c 3 sa3 -< ;j s % ;ii :u ‘_ : ._ 3 > ‘7 ; ;rc 02 ‘3 3 3 :3 :z 2. ‘2 2 .- = ,j *.x 73 :3 :3 :z 2. -21 .- .r_ ..< -;I ,. ‘0 27, .- c a.: 3 3. : <- a -; -! ‘3 3 z .5 *.: -: .s 7, -- < : < - + a-.: -< ‘33 5 = - 3 - L‘ ._ :, :., L .z -x; :7. 3 s . L1 .- 3 T -.Z -_ :;- - z ,; < :: 1,.~ :. ,L .- _ ,_ ? _- :I :b :< :. :. :i, ; . - _ 5 :L F-I2 ::’ 13 ,:I ,.^ ., :3 -” ;v .z- = :., - -- :, - .* .- 2 2 3 ‘4 -‘ _I‘ .F ? :3 .3 2 ‘. ,-m ‘.. 1; ‘-,‘I :I-. !3 :z i .?. _ .i ? -1. - ‘i 2. .- >z = ..: -1 G’: 3 s .? 7: :5 ‘L 1. : :_ ‘C a .- 5 .3-: -z 522 ‘2 = .- -z ._ .i 23 3x 2, ;c ? - :” ‘, 2 3 .D ‘V :> 3 ‘2 =A a .i .- :r .3 6.: :j .z :‘ ‘3 z rb p 2. - E 3s: -77 a33 3 :5 72. T i .- :-I .; ‘.Z t .5 3 ‘3 3 z .za 3 .i - :i .2w 7 !3Z ‘2 -I CL L- :I :3 !3 :7 :2 ;u -. I- -- < -+ 2 :: xc D :‘; :i :LI ,-. - T ;u ;u u3 - .: :: 3 -c D? :Y :n z i .+.... ._ .- _.A - _A .a-, ‘3 I ‘.d 1 -.> 3 ..; z 2. TLA z.lr 2 .;- - ‘2 .A ‘- ? i- - 7 *.: :z .a..: r ~3%: 2 :3 3 7. :3 .3 -cl z3 3 3 ? 5 :I -21 ‘0 .L - :E .,‘C 7, :3 : :3 .- .- - c- .- :: :n ‘1 _- :, ;i . . ^( -r 7 :: 1.’ -3 ‘.i :-. .-‘ c3