HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-12; City Council; 13436; Saint Francis Court CUP AmendmentCl - ! OF CARLSBAD - AGE’-)A BILL m-
AB # 4 +?/o TITLE:
MTG. 12/12/95 SAINT FRANCIS COURT - CUP AMENDMENT
DEPT. PLN CUP 90-15(A)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: I
2 I That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 95-~4’5a/ APPROVING CUP 90-l 5(A).
ITEM EXPLANATION
On October 18, 1995, the Planning Commission considered and recommended approval
of an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approved by Council on August
3, 1993, for the St. Francis Court project. The project is located on the north side of
Laguna Drive at the northern terminus of Madison Street near the village/downtown area
of the City. The CUP amendment proposes to modify one condition of approval of the
project (Condition No. 7 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3267). This condition
required the issuance of building permits within two years from the date of the original
City Council approval (August 3, 1993). The applicant is requesting an additional two
years (until August 1997) to obtain building permits. All elements and conditions of the
original CUP approval would still be in full force and effect.
At the Planning Commission hearing, three adjacent residents spoke in opposition of the
project and cited concerns with the project’s density, site design, building placement’
and mass, parking provisions, the current state of the property, adherence to original
CUP conditions of approval, and the overall viability of the project given the lack of
financing opportunities. As explained in the attached staff report, the project, as
conditioned, does meet primary development standards even though the senior citizen
housing ordinance and entitlement process has changed since the 1993 approval of St.
Francis Court. Since the Commission was satisfied that the project as conditioned met
the design standards of the new Senior Housing ordinance, it turned its attention to
inquiries to the applicant regarding what actions the applicant had taken during the past
two years to develop the project. The applicant’s primary response was that the
economic situation of the last two years has prevented any favorable market conditions
or realistic financing/funding opportunities.
The Commission was concerned that applicant had not actively pursued developing the
project. Therefore, the Commission voted 6-O-l (Monroy abstained) to recommend only
one year extension to the time allotted for building permit issuance. The Commission
felt that the shortened extension would give the applicant the incentive to diligently carry
out the terms of CUP 90-15. 1 e uo.4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The environmental review of this project involved the preparation of an environmental
impact assessment and the issuance of a Notice of Prior Compliance published on
September 6, 1995. The original environmental review associated with the 1993 project
approval was referenced as well as the City’s General Plan Master EIR, which addresses
air quality and circulation impacts Citywide for designated subsequent projects. No
significant environmental impacts will occur from the approval of this CUP amendment.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. /?, L;I?h /
FISCAL IMPACT
Aside from typical administrative costs associated with processing the CUP amendment
application, no direct fiscal impacts will result from the approval of CUP 90-15(A).
1. City Council Resolution No. 9 s-35&
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3798
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 18, 1995
4. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 18, 1995.
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
B
RESOLUTION NO. 95-353
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APP
AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL
FOR THE ST. FRANCIS COURT 76
CITIZEN HOUSING PROJECT TO
ADDITIONAL YEAR UNTIL AUGUST 3,19
BUILDING PERMITS FOR THIS PROJECT
THE NORTH SIDE OF LAGUNA D
NORTHERN TERMINUS OF MADISO
CASE NAME: ST. FRANCIS COURT
WHEREAS, the Planning Comm id on October 18, 1995, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by consider Conditional Use Permit
Amendment CUP 90-15(A) and adopted ning Commission Resolution No. 3798,
recommending to the City Council that
WHEREAS, the City ncil did on the 12 th dayof December ,
1995, hold a duly noticed public ng as prescribed by law to consider the proposed
rt project allowing one additional year, until August 3,
at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
ts, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council
r-s relating to the Conditional Use Permit Amendment.
W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
/
2. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Resolution
No. 3798 constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council in this matter.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. That the Conditional Use Permit Amendme
as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 379
incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTE
Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 12
by the following vote, to wit:
AyEs: hy;czilMembe .
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
NKRANZ, City Clerk
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
EXHIBIT 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3798
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO (1) MODIFY AN
EXISTING CONDITION TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL
ONE YEAR FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING
PERMITS AND (2) ADD TWO NEW CONDITIONS FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING
PROJECT CONSISTING OF 75 UNITS PLUS ONE
MANAGER’S UNIT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAGUNA DRIVE
AT THE TERMINUS OF MADISON STREET, IN THE
COASTAL ZONE WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: SAINT FRANCIS COURT
CASE NO: CUP 90-15(A)
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
Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on the 20th day of September, 1995, and the 18th day of October, 1995
hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on property described as:
Parcel A and B of that portion of Lot 1, Township 12 South,
Range 5 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
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 CUP 90-15(A).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CUP 90-15(A), based on the following findings and
subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ail of the findings previously made for the original approval of this project as
contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3267 are hereby made for this
amendment request and incorporated by reference.
The City Council finds that:
4 the project is a residential project per CEQA Guideline section 15183 whereby
the project is consistent with the City’s General;
b) the project is consistent with the General Plan with regards to the provision
of residential/senior citizen development;
C) there was an EIR certified in connection with the prior General Plan Update
which involved a Master EIR (MEIR) and a Negative Declaration approved
in connection with the prior approval of CUP 90-15 in August 1993;
the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as
significant in the prior General Plan MEIR or Negative Declaration;
e) none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163 exist.
The City’s MEIR found that air quality and circulation impacts are significant and
adverse; therefore, the Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations.
The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those effects, no additional
environmental document is required.
The proposed amendment will allow the applicant additional time to secure a
building permit for the project and will not create any conflicts with the
implementation of the City’s General Plan.
Planning Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the CUP
amendment request for the development of a 76 unit affordable senior citizen project
entitled “CUP 90-15(A) - St Francis Court”. (Exhibits “A”-“I” on file in the Planning
Department and incorporated by this reference, dated April 21,1993), subject to the
conditions therein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make or require the
Developer to make all corrections and modifications to the exhibits and Documents,
as necessary to make them internally consistent and conform to City Council’s final
PC RESO NO. 3798 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
..*.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the
approved exhibits. Any proposed. development substantially different from this
approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project by August 3, 1996. This represents an additional one year beyond the
original two years granted (until August 3,1995) with the original approval to obtain
building permits. This condition modifies and replaces Condition No. 7 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3267 which approved CUP 90-15.
Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project shall submit revised
exhibits which demonstrate compliance with the following code sections regarding
senior citizen housing units to the satisfaction of the Planning Director:
21.18.045(~)(5)(C), 21.18.045(~)(5)(D), 21.18.045(c)(6)(A-F) and 21.18.045(d)(3)(C).
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right
to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance
of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and
prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages
for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in
interest by the City’s approval of this Resolution.
All other provisions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3267, except
as modified herein, remain in full force and effect.
PC RESO NO. 3798 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of October,
1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, Nielsen,
Noble, and Savary
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Monroy
KIM %%LSHONS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD P LANNlNG COMMISSION
ATTEST:
. .
MICHAELS7’kOL%4ILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3798 -4-
EXHIBIT 3
MEMORANDUM 0 1
October 18, 1995
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: CUP 90-15(A) - SAINT FRANCIS COURT: - Request for an amendment of a
Conditional Use Permit to modify one condition to extend the time by which
building permits must be issued and add one condition to ensure that the
project complies with the requirements of the revised senior housing ordinance.
This would allow the development of senior citizen housing consisting of 76
total units of which 61 units would be restricted as affordable housing units, 14
units will be market rate units and one unit for an on-site manager. The project
would be developed on two existing, R-3 zones lots located on the north side
of Laguna Drive at the terminus of Madison Street in the Northwest Quadrant
of the City, in the Coastal Zone within Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3798,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit CUP 90-15
(CUP 90-15(A)), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. EXPLANATION
On September 20, 1995, the Planning Commission continued the project to October 18,
1995, due to the lateness of the hour.
A’ITACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3798
2. Staff Report dated September 20, 1995, with attachments.
9
A REPORT TO TlIE PJdIhiNG COMMISSION,,, 4 Item No: 3 V’ 0
P.C. AGENDA OF: September 20, 1995
Application complete date: May 2, 1995
Project Planner: Eric Munoz
Project Engineer: Jim Davis
SUBJECT: CUP 90-15(A) - SAINT FRANCIS COURT: - Request for an amendment of
a Conditional Use Permit to modify one condition to extend the time by
which building permits must be issued and add one condition to ensure that
the project complies with the requirements of the revised senior housing
ordinance. This would allow the development of senior citizen housing
consisting of 76 total units of which 61 units would be restricted as affordable
housing units, 14 units will be market rate units and one unit for an on-site
manager. The project would be developed on two existing, R-3 zones lots
located on the north side of Laguna Drive at the terminus of Madison Street
in the Northwest Quadrant of the City, in the Coastal Zone within Local
Facilities Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOIT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3798,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit CUP 90-15
(CUP 90-15(A)), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The project applicants of St Francis Court, CUP 90-15, a 76 unit senior citizen housing
project approved on August 3, 1993, are requesting an amendment to the original CUP
approval. Since the time of the project’s original approval in August 1993, financing for the
project’s construction and development could not be secured. Condition #7 in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3267 which approved CUP 90-15, states that the approval shall
become null and void if building permits are not issued within two years from the date of
project approval. This provision voids the project on August 3, 1995. Since the applicant
made a request for this CUP amendment within required timeframes, the CUP can be
considered as valid during the Planning Commission/City Council consideration of this
amendment request.
Since the time of the August 1993 approval of CUP 90-15, the zoning ordinance section
which regulates senior citizen housing projects (21.18.045) has been amended and does differ
from the regulations under which St Francis Court was originally approved. An analysis of
this situation is a component of the project analysis covered in this report.
The Planning Commission’s action is advisory. The City Council, per the old senior housing
-
CUP 90-15(A) - ST FRANCIS COURT
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
PAGE 2
ordinance, was the final decision maker and as a procedural policy will make the final
decision on this proposed amendment.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Part of the history of St Francis Court goes back to July 1991 when the Planning
Commission considered an original 84 unit senior citizen/affordable housing project but sent
it back to staff because there was no guaranteed minimum percentage of units which were
going to be restricted as affordable units. The Commission appeared to be looking for a
guarantee of about 25.30%. After working primarily with City Housing staff, the applicant
was able to return to Planning Commission in April 1993 with an 81% affordable restriction
guarantee on a reduced proposal of 76 total units (producing 61 affordable units). The staff
report of April 23, 1993 is attached and reflects the history summarized above.
The project consists of three story buildings that drops to two stories adjacent to existing
single family homes on a 1.18 acre site. The 76 proposed units on the 1.18 acre site yields
a project density of 64 du/ac (which is less than the 75 du/ac maximum allowed at the time
of project approval). Parking, perimeter and interior landscaping, and senior citizen
amenities are included with the project. A full project description and analysis is contained
in the attached April 21, 1993 staff report. The CUP itself has a term of ten years before
it must be renewed/extended.
The project is subject to the following analysis and/or regulations:
A. Is the proposed modified condition and proposed new condition consistent and
compatible with the original approval of CUP 90-15?
B. Carlsbad Municipal Code - Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance) including:
1. Section 21.18.045 (Senior Citizen Housing)
2. Chapter 21.90 Growth Management (Local Facilities Management
Zone 1) fi
Iv. ANALYSIS
A. Project Conditions
The proposed modified condition is Condition No. 2 of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 3798. It provides an additional two years for the applicant to obtain a building permit
otherwise the CUP is null and void. This amendment would extend that deadline for
building permit issuance from August 3, 1995 to August 3, 1997. This additional time will
not create any new impacts to area or project site; and no new project modifications,
revisions or intensifications are proposed.
CUP 90-15(A) - ST FRAKIS COURT
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
PAGE 3
The proposed new condition is Condition No. 3 of Resolution 3798. It requires minor,
interior modifications with regards to the design and amenities of senior citizen projects as
now required by the new senior citizen housing regulations which have been amended since
the time of the original CUP approval (a more detailed discussion of which is provided
below).
B.l. Section 21.18.045 - Senior Citizen Housing
Since the August 1993 approval of St. Francis Court, Section 21.18.045 which regulates
senior citizen housing, was amended. An overview of the previous and current senior citizen
code requirements is provided in the table below. The project as proposed was overparked
by three spaces given the previous code. These three spaces can now allow the project to
meet the new code parking requirements. The proposed site design, setbacks, building
height and coverage would be allowed under the new code provisions. The previous code
allowance for density of up to 75 du’s/acre for senior units is now replaced by the density
bonus mechanism based on the granting of incentives. Given this project’s high commitment
(81% of the 76 units proposed) of affordable housing units, it is possible that a density
similar to what is proposed (64 du’s/acre) would be approved. In fact, under the new code
and related density bonus provisions for the development of senior units, no maximum
ceiling is established as to a given project’s allowable density. The primary difference
between the previous and current code is the entitlement process. A CUP was required,
approved by the City Council; now a Site Development Plan is required, approved by
Planning Commission unless appealed. A secondary difference relates to minor design and
senior amenity aspects that is discussed below and covered by Condition #3 of Resolution
No. 3798. Therefore, with the exception of the CUP vs. SDP entitlement difference and
senior amenity requirements, this project would meet today’s requirements. This fact allows
staff to recommend approval of this amendment request.
There are certain design and amenity aspects required by the new code provisions that can
be incorporated into the St Francis Court project during the building permit/final design and
construction phase. These items are listed below with the corresponding code section that
requires them. Compliance with these specific code sections are incorporated into this
amendment request’s approving resolution.
. 1 washer/dryer required for every 25 du - 21.18.045(c)(5)(C)
l 20 sq ft common ret area per unit - 21.18.045(c)(5)(D) . Details on tubs/grab bars/showers, etc - 21.18.045(~)(6)(A-F) . Details req’d on bldg permit plans re: the above - 21.18.045(d)(3)(C)
Aside from the minor changes/items noted above, the requested amendment is proposing
essentially the same project (and CUP and related provisions) as the original August 1993
approval of St Francis Court. A summary of the overall changes/differences between the previous and current senior citizen code requirements is provided in the table below.
-
CUP 90-15(A) - ST FRANCIS COURT
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
PAGE 4
PREVIOUS CODE CURRENT CODE
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) required Site Development Plan (SDP) required
Density - up to 75 du/ac allowed Density - as allowed per underlying zone plus any granted density bonus with
incentives per Chapter 21.86
Parking - 1 space/2 units Parking - 1 space/2 units plus one for on-
site manager and one for guests
No required affordable component 15% minimum required to be affordable
to lower income households
Conversion plan required/City equity No conversion plan or City equity
position involved position involved
No preliminary process required Preliminary process outlined and
required
Locational criteria given Locational criteria plus 20 sq. ft. per unit
for common recreation area and 1
washer/dryer per 25 units
B.2< . Growth Management
The proposed CUP amendment request does not create any additional impacts to facilities
and services beyond those already analyzed with the original project approval. Therefore
the previous growth management assessment of this project as contained in the April 23,
1993 staff report (and corresponding attachments) is still valid. No adverse impacts to the
adequacy or availability of public facilities and/or services will be created by the approval of
this amendment request and the development of the proposed project.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The requested CUP amendment will not create any additional environmental impacts
beyond those assessed with the original project approval. No new situations exist in the area
which would be adversely impacted by the development of the project beyond those impacts
associated with project as originally approved by the City Council in August 1993.
Therefore, the existing and approved environmental review associated with this project is
still valid for the purpose of considering this amendment request. A Negative Declaration
with supporting analysis and documentation was prepared for the original CUP approval and
was issued on May 9,199l. For this amendment request a Notice of Prior Compliance was
prepared and issued on September 6, 1995. The environmental impact analysis prepared
for CUP 90-15(A) incorporates the earlier review for CUP 90-15 and supplements it with
/3
_-
CUP 90-15(A) - ST FRANCIS COURT
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
PAGE 5
a discussion of the City’s General Plan Update Master EIR (MEIR). The MEIR was
certified after the original approval of CUP 90-15 and involved a Statement of Overriding
Considerations with regards to subsequent projects Citywide and air quality and circulation
impacts.
A’ITACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No, 3798
2. Location Map
3. Notice of Prior Compliance published on September 6, 1995
4. Environmental Impact Assessment Part II
5. Written request for CUP amendment from applicant dated May 2, 1995
6. Staff Report dated April 21, 1993 (with attachments)
7. Reduced Exhibits (“A’‘-“G”) original approval of August 3, per 1995.
ENM:kr
AusuJt 8,1!WS
LAGUNA
ST. FRANCIS COURT
CUP 90=15(A)
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Please Take Notice:
The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project
described below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified
environmental documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be
required and a notice of determination will be filed.
Project Title: CUP 90-15(A) - ST. FRANCIS COURT
Project Location: North side of Laguna at the northern terminus of Madison Street.
Assessors Parcel Number 155-223~OWO9.
Project Description: Conditional Use Permit Amendment modifying one existing condition
to allow an additional two years to obtain a building permit and add
one new condition to allow the development of a 76 unit senior citizen
project.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community
Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
thirty (30) days of date of publication.
l
.
DATED:
CASE NO:
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
CUP 9045(A)
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
APPLICANT: MARY STEIGER
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
EM:kr
4
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-l 576 - (619) 436- 1161 @
-_ -
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CUP 90-15(A)
DATE: August 31, 1995
1. CASE NAME: St. Francis Court - CUP 90-15(A)
2. APPLICANT: Marv Steiner
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3138 Skvline Drive Oceanside CA
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Mav 2.1995
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment to existing CUP to modify one condition and add one new
condition to allow for the develonment of a senior citizen housinp nroiect on the north side of Laguna
Drive at the northern terminus of Madison Street. The nroiect was originallv annroved by the City
Council on August 3. 1993 and consists of 76 senior units which includes one manaper’s unit. 81% of
the nroiect’s units (61 units) will be affordable housing units for seniors.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Land Use and Planning
- Population and Housing
- Geological Problems
- Water
X Air Quality
X Transportation/Circulation - Public Services
- Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems
- Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics
- Hazards - Cultural Resources
- Noise - Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 3/28/95 / 7
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been
added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described
on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
q
cl
cl
q
I fmd that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant
to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE
DECLARATION. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
C -4 M ck;;- q- /. P5
Planner Signature J Date
.
Date . ,
EM:vd
2 Rev. 3/28/95
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration,
or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately
supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact”
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when
there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact
is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant
Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant.
Based on an “EL4-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but @ potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuan t to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances
requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare
an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been
made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative. Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project
or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 3/28/95 /9
-
. If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate
“Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration may be prepared.
. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited
to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or
mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to
mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed
mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part
II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to
below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
4
Issues (ad supporting hlfonnatiotl sources):
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
c)
d)
4
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #l)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (Source #l)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Source #l)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? (Source #1)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (Source #l)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source #l)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Source #l)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source #l) l
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS, Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source #l)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #l)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source #l)
POklltidly Significant
Impact
Potfxltially Significant UllkSS Mitigation
korpcrated
LesTbaIl Significant
Impact No
Impact
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
dl Rev. 3/28/!Z
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #l)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source #I)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(Source #l)
g) Subsiden ce of the land? (Source #l)
h) Expansive soils? (Source #l)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #l)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)
b)
c>
4
e>
fl
h)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source #l)
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Source #l)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #l)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (Source #l)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (Source #l)
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (Source #l)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(Source #l)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #l)
6
PotentialIy Significaut
wfact
Potentially Significant UDkSS Mitigation hmxporated
LesThan Significant No Impact Impact
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
k3a Rev. 3/28/95
-
Issues (and suppming Infotmatim sources):
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
(Source #l)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
w
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source
#I)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (Source #l)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source #l)
VI, TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal
result in:
a> Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Source #2)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source #l)
cl Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (Source #l)
4 Insuffkient parking capacity on-sile or off-site?
(Source #l)
e)
0
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians -or bicyclists?
(Source #l)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Source #l)
ta Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source #l)
7
Pate&ally
Significant Impact
x
x
Potentially
Significant
ULllesS Mitigation Inccqxated
LessThan Significant No Impact Impact
x
-
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rev. 3/28/95 23
ISSUE (and Supporting Information Sources):
VII.
a)
b)
cl
d)
4
VIII.
a>
b)
cl
Potentially Significant Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (Source #l)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Source #l)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #l)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (Source #l)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source
#l)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(Source #1)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source #l)
-
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? (Source
#I)
Potfbally
Significant
UIlkSS Mitigation
Inccqorated
LessThan Significant No
IlIlpClCi Impact
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi;ttion? (Source
#l) x
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source #l) - x
a Rev. 3/28/95 dLl
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant UlllesS Mitigation hmrporated
LessTllan Significant No Impact Impact
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? (Source #l) x
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (Source #l)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (Source #l)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #l)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source
#l)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (Source #l)
b) Police protection? (Source #l)
c) Schools? (Source #l) x
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(Source #l) -.
e) Other governmental services? (Source #l)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Source #l)
b) Communications systems? (Source #l)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (Source #l)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
9 Rev. 3/’ !8/95 25’
‘Issues (and Supparting Information Sources):
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #l) x
e) Storm water drainage? (Source #l)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #l)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #l)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant
Ulllt?SS Mitigation Imxporated
LessThan Significant No Impact Impact
x
x
x
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Source
#1)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
(Source #l)
c) Create light or glare? (Source #l)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source #l)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #l)
c) Affect historical resources? (Source #l)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (Source #l)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? (Source #l)
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(Source #l)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(Source #l)
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
10 Rev. 3128195
Issues (and Supporting Infmnation Sauces):
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant UllkSS Mitigation Inmporated
LessTllan Significant No Impact Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
x
x
x
11 Rev. 3/28/95 a7
X&I. EARLIER ANALYSES.
a)
b)
cl
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets:
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review. All pertinent earlier analyses have been identified at the beginning of the Discussion o
Environmental Evaluation. The Source Documents identified have been cited as appropriate in th
checklist and environmental discussion.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis.
Air Quality and Circulation Impacts: Statements of Overriding Considerations made with th
City’s General Plan Master EIR (Source Document #2).
Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier dmument and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project. No mitigation measures involved with this project.
12 Rev. 3128195 2 CJ
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
SOURCE DOCUMENTS CITED (All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075
Las Palmas Drive, Carl&ad, CA 92009; (619) 438-1161).
1. St. Francis Court, CUP 90-15, Negative Declaration published May 9,199l and corresponding Environmental
Impact Assessment Form Part II dated April 25, 1991.
2. City of Carl&ad General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01 as approved and certified by City Council Resolution
No. 94-246.
PROJECT BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The original approval of CUP 90-15 involved the approval of a Negative Declaration which found no significant
environmental impacts from the development of the proposed project. The proposed CUP amendment will (1)
allow an additional two years for the applicant to obtain building permits (until August 3, 1997) via the
modification of an existing condition of approval (Condition #7 of Resolution No. 3267), and (2) require minor
interior senior amenities to reflect new code requirements via the addition of a new condition. This proposed CUP
amendment will not create additional impacts not already assessed in the earlier review.
Therefore, this environmental assessment and corresponding notice of prior compliance hereby incorporates by
reference the Negative Declaration and related environmental assessment approved with CUP 90- 15 for the purpose
of this CUP amendment. All discussion and justification for checking “no impact” on the attached checklist for
each item is contained in the above referenced environmental review for CUP 90-15.
Since the August 1993 approval of CUP 90-15, the City updated its General Plan which involved statements of
overriding considerations with the certification of a Master EIR (MEIR) for subsequent projects in the City for air
quality and circulation impacts which are significant and non-mitigable. This environmental assessment reflects
the City’s General Plan MEIR with regards to air quality and circulation impacts as discussed below.
AIR OUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan
will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result
in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and
suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San
Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are
considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated
General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation
measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection
improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the
implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative
modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site
design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project
or are included as conditions of project approval.
13 Rev. 3/28/95 a9
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-
-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project
is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification
of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding
Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental
review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan
will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic;
however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the
City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections
along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation
measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of
circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as
trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in
regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections
at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an
EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No.
94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including
this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
14 Rev. 3128195 3
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IIF APPLICABLE)
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
15 Rev. 3/28/95 3 /
.
May 2, 1995
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
Attention: Eric Munoz
Re: St Francis Court C.U.P. 90-15
We would like to request an extension for the above
numbered conditional use permit. We enclose our
check in the amount of $400.00 as instructed.
If there is anything additional that we need to do,
you know how to reach us.
3138 Skyline Drive Oceanside, Ca 92056 619 757 1405
Hand delivered
RECEIVED
MAY 0 2 I995
CITY OF CARLSBAD iyANNIMG DEPT.
32
DATE: APRIL 21,1993
APPLKATION COMPLETE DATE:
J2
ERIC N. MUNOZ - STAFF PLANNER
sTAFFREP RT 6
0 4
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CUP 90-15 - ST. FRANCIS COURT - Request for Planning Commission’s
recommendation of approval for a Negative Declaration and Conditional Use
Permit to allow the development of a senior citizen housing project
consisting of 76 dwelling units on a two lot in-fill site on the north side of
Laguna Drive at the northern terminus of Madison Street in the R-3 Zone
within Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
I.
That the Planning Commission ADOpT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3266
recommending APPROVM, of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and
ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3267 recommending NPROVN, of CUP 90-
15 based on the fklings and subject to the conditions contained therein
II. PRQJECI- D-ON AND BACKGROUNQ
On July 17, 1991, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the
request for a conditional use permit to allow for 84 senior citizen dwelling units. Part of
the project’s proposal was to provide afiordable housing units. However, since the specific
percentage of low cost housing was not initially guaranteed as part of this project, the
Planning Commission voted to return CUP 90-15 to staff to rework the issue of providing
a guaranteed minimum percentage of affordable housing units.
Aside from the afkdable housing issue, the original project complied with all applicable
development lid &sign standards. The staB report from the July 17, 1991 Planning Commission B (attached) provides a detailed project description and background.
In addition it cllglMinm the planning analysis of the project to determine that all the required Conditional use pamit fIndings can be made and that the project complies with the senior citizen housing ordinance (Section 21.18.045 of the Zoning Ordinance).
Since the last Planning Commission hearing, the applicant has been working with Planning
and Housing and Redevelopment staff to defme and resolve all affordable housing details
and related issues. At this time, all of those issues have been resolved allowing this project
CUP 90-15 - ST. FRANCIS COURT APRIL 21,1993 PAGE 2
to return to the Planning Commission for re-consideration. The attached memo from the
Housing and E&development Director dated February 24, 1993 outlines staffs support for
the project based on the resolution of the low cost housing issue. In summary, the project will provide 81% of the project’s total units as affordable to the low income range and 19%’
of the project’s total units will be market rate units. An on-site manager’s unit will also
be provided.
The project has reduced the total proposed units from 84 to 76 units. This reduction in
total units proposed is designed to incrementally address project specific issues that were
raised in the July 17, 1991 meeting. These issues centered on the fact that while
development standards were complied with, several minor concerns regarding the details
of the project were voiced. These comments noted a perceived shortfall of parking spaces
provided, the number of handicapped spaces, the high density proposed, and the smallness
of some of the rooms proposed. Again, all development standards were complied with by
the original 84 unit project of July 17, 1991, however, the applicant has revised the
proposal by modifying interior floor plans to address the details and concerns described
above. Specifically, the rooms with the smallest amount of square footage (264 sq. ft.)
have been eliminated from the current proposal. The changes made to achieve 76 units
did not change the physical layout, parking design, building elevations or general
appearance of the originally proposed project. Other changes in the project’s design
between the original proposal and this current proposal are summan ‘zed in the table below.
Three handicap parking spaces are provided to serve the project’s three handicapped units.
The current proposal complies with all applicable standards and regulations and is sensitive
to the concerns raised at the July 17, 1991 Planning Commission hearing.
ST. FRANCIS COURT - CUP 9&X5 COMFARISON OF ORIGINAL vs. CURRENT PROPOSAL
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL CURRENT PROPOSAL
JULY 17,199l APRIL 21,1993
TOTAL UNITS 84 76
OVERALL 71 du/acre DENSrrY (75 du/acre maz allowed) 64 du/acre
PARKING y?qY: fi’ Required: 38
SPACES : Provided: 41
PARKING lspaceper2units run0 (1:2 squired) 1:1.8
NO. OF HANDICAP 3 3 SPACES
AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS 336 ADT 304 ADT
CUP 90-15 - ST. FRANCIS COURT
APRIL 21, 1993
PACE 3
m.
Plannina Issue
1. Can all the necessky findings required for a Conditional Use Permit be made?
Specifically:
a. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and
objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to
uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be
located;
b. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the use;
C. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features
necessary to adjust the requested uses to existing or permitted future uses in
the neighborhood will be provided and maintained;
d. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly
handle all traffic generated by the proposed use.
2. Does the project comply with all of the requirements of Section 21.18.045 of the
Zoning Ordinance which allows senior citizen housing by Conditional Use Permit?
3. Is the proposal consistent with the
4. Is the proposal consistent with the
Mello I1 Local coastal Plan?
Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan.
DISCUSSION
1. . . . CondppprlYsc Pm
Refer to t& attached staff report for CUP 90-15 dated July 17, 1991.
2. . zoning Or&pe sccbon 045 21.18 .
Refer to the attached staff report for WP 90-S dated July 17, 1991 for a discussion of compliance with the senior citizen requirements of Section 21.18.045 with the exception of age rquirements which were recently amended by the City Council through ZCA 92-10. These changes brought the Civs senior citizen
requirements into compliance with State and Federal laws. As allowed by the
recently approved revisions, this project is proposed for occupancy by at least one
L
CUP 90-15 - ST. FRANCIS COURT
APRIL 21,1993
PAGE 4
person 55 years of age or older per unit with the provision of facilities and services
specifically designed for senior citizens. State and Federal laws require the provision and maintenance of these amenities with senior projects that have a minimum age requirement of 55 years. The facilities and services designed to meet
the physical and social needs of seniors provided by this project which satisfy the
State and Federal laws include: a physical environment that is accessible to the
residents (including handicapped accessibility), a roofdeck area with views, a
common garden area and a 1600 square foot common recreation area with office
space, a laundry and utility room. In addition programs will be offered in the areas
of counseling, health care, recreational and social xtivities. The applicant will be
required to demonstrate the provision and maintenance of these amenities as an on-
going condition of approval of this project.
3. Mello II Local Coastal Plan
The project is located within the Mello II Local Coastal Program (LCP). The project
complies with this LCP. The LCP addresses eight coastal resource policy issues for
project review, including allowable land uses, agriculture, environmentally sensitive
habitat areas, geological, floodplain and shoreline hazard areas, public works and
public resources. None of these issues are pertinent to this project. This project
does, however, comply with the implementation and development standards of the
Mello II LCP. In addition, this project addresses a major component of the Coastal
Act to provide Affordable Housing units in the coastal area.
4. Zone 1 Local Facilities Management PIan
The subject site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The
proposed project, with 76 dwelling units, is 62 dwelling units above the amount of
units allowed (14 units) using the growth management control point per the site’s
RMH (Residential Medium High) ‘General Plan designation. As outlined in City Council Policy No. 43, an affordable senior citizen project would represent the top
two priority uses eligible for utilizing the existing surplus of units of a quadrant.
As such, there will be no adverse impacts on public facilities or public services created by the proposed use and all performance standards will be complied wi&.
In addition, the three fIndings necessary to approve excess dwelling units with a project as required by the Civs Growth Management Ordinance, can be made.
Making these hdhgs assures that (1) there will be public facility availability and
adequate sehce levels given the project’s density; (2) the northwest quadrant limit
will not be exceeded; and (3) the need for public facilities improvements created by
this project will be provided concurrent with their need. The project’s compliance
with Zone 1 adopted perfoxmance standards are summa&x! below:
-
CUP 90-15 - ST. FRANCIS COURT
APRIL 21, 1993
PAGE S
The project’s initial study showed that there will be no adverse environmental impacts from
the proposal since the site is an in-fill location surrounded by existing development
currently being adequately served by existing public facilities and services. As described
in the attached staff report dated July 17, 1991, a noise study was completed by the
applicant and found that the proposed development complies with the City’s Noise Policy.
No comments were received during the rquired public review period. Since no significant
environmental impacts will be created by the proposed use, the Planning Director has
issued a Negative Declaration on May 9, 1991.
ATTACHME-
1.
2.
3.
4.
ii:
7.
8.
9.
Planning coannrission Resolution No. 3266
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3267
Location Map
CUP 90-15 Staff Repofi dated July 17, 1991 (without attachments)
Housing & Redevelopment Memo, dated February 24,1993 Background Data Sheet Local Facilities Impact Assessment Foxm
Disclosure Form
Exhibits “A” - “G”, dated April 21, 1993.
ENM%d
March22,1993 3s
11 I ! 2!
3 ii
4/l iI 5 .:
Ii 6 ‘I /I 7 !’ I
8 i!
9 I;
10 1, I
111
12 /
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMlSSION RESOLUTION NO. 3266
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SENIOR CITIZEN USE CONSISTING OF A THREE STORY BUILDING WITH 76 UNITS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAGUNA DRIVE AT THE TERMINUS OF
MADISON STREET.
CASE NAME: ST. FRANCIS COURT
CASE NO: CUP 90-15
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of July, 1991, and
on the 21st day of April, 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, examinin g the initial study, analyzing the information
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are tme and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according
to Exhibit “F&, dated May 9, 1991, and “PiI”,’ dated April 25, 1991, attached
haeto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
1. TbcillitialshrdySbOW5tbatthariS~~cvidarctbatthprojcct~y haveasi@kantintpadonthcm~sincetheprojectslteisanin-~ locatianSUXTOU&edbycxistingsinglc~~~ti-~rrsideatialLlSt?S.
2. Tbcsitehsbealpm!iouslygradcd8ndcoacainsnosensi~8nimalorplant
w-i-
,/ I
il
11
1 :I
// 2 i
3
4 1;
5
6
7 1;
a :/
/i g ,; $1
10’!
1111
121;
II 13 II
14 :I ;:
15ij
16 iI
II 17 /I
18 /I
19 ii
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. Th streets am adequate in size to handle the anticipated 304 AM2 generated by I
kproposcdproj=t-
/
I I
4. The am no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be signikantly ! impacted by this project. The project has been designed and conditioned to / eliminate any ruxwff drainage impacts to Buena Vista Lagoon.
5. A noise study was conducted pursuant to the City’s Noise Policy which concluded that there will be no noise impacts from Lnterstate S to the project requiring noise
KilitigatiOXL
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of C&bad, California, held on the 21st day of April, 1993, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BAILEY NOBLE, Chaiqxmn CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMLLER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 3266 -20
40
I
NEGATTVE DECLARAnON
?!IOJEC? ADDRESS/LOCATION: A 1.23 acre site on the north side of Laqr.a 3-:-?
gpposite the rerminus of Madison Street at 670 Laguna Drive. APN: 155-223-08,~ 09
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is for affordable senior citizen housing
consisting of a 3 story stmcrure with 84 total units (30 studio units, 48 one bedroom UN:S and 6 two bedroom units) located in the R-3 Zone wjthif! Local Facilities Management
Zone 1.
The Ciry of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant co the Guidelines for [mplementarion of the California Environmenrai Quality Act
and the Entironmencai Protection Ordinance of the City of Cartsbad. As a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration chat the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justificarion for d5s
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supponive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Plann&g Department at 438-1161, extension 4441.
DATED: MAY 9.1991
CASE No= QIP 90-13
4’
MICHAEL, J. *LZ
Planning Director
PUBLISH DAi’E: MAY 9,199l
ENM:ih
207s Lu #hImu Orho l Carted. CddfOrnia -@ 0 (619) 438-l 161
-
HOTrCt 01 Co~rrQM
.J ::: s:Jt* :. l ar.*a*. ‘-SC CR strur, In. ‘2’. SJc’mrJ. :A nr’b . .x
r------ j s.u OnI Relr: WI.
prOl=c rf?lo: ?y 90-11 - ST r8A*;S :=#I I
.?%I A;a-cv- ::'v op :2-:x: Je*¶oF: 41:: ‘LK?2 :‘-**f 'joress: 2cn LAS CUMS JI)ldC :-ye: ()'O) -38 ."j' I -.*'
- _ _ I. I&a. j8AJ 2:: _ >a*-q . . 3amtv: SAM -:a-r‘
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..__..............._.._______..._._. '~~~~~~..........._....._,..,._._, Jeo,EiT :x~r ta:
::,r:*: rrr ::f;O :“v~‘Iel~QSt :W!:v: 3PL$SAO
.‘Ijj j:-ee:S: .A;LleA :3:.C,UAO: jJ;U S'aEE' --. ..JL AC'*): . 23
Ai:CSi" i JJr*Jl CO. w - '55~22s-:a/o9 SlC’. *: lg. a reqe : 341s
. :- - 2 a' es: s:rtr *WV l : : .I m~ta*vJvS: %:r:: XEAU Ati 8UEUA r:S’A .A$zU
blrDOOrtS: PI1 LdYs: rtw fcnoots:
. .._..._............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-..............-....................---.-..~...~....._.___..._......____.....
xllc~bt rrpt
CEQ1: roe Jc+plamnr/sasrt aD8: - irr:y cons = EiR (Prlaf SCH YO.) = 2’ 0111): - .o'-t :%M*:
z yq 3ec
c 'JL :xsu-f - Other Draft CIS = Other - d'J+t E:q 1 'OUSI . .._..__.............._........._........~...~~.........-.....-................~~..~.....~~......_..._......._~..__~~~_.,~_,_
Lau 4cTlQ TT'CC
:mrrt PlJn ato -_ - SmcIf~C PlJn - eexw Anvrat1QI - :eCIoCaL p1m *nrrbrrrrc - waxor PlJn PWXW - haovel~r dWWJ1 Plan (1-t 1 :snuIlcy Plan plamd unlr Dovolrrt = tit0 Plm = us0 Pemct - Corrtat Prrrlr - Lad Oivisian (Sdivision, r0muwt-m 1 -3e a*-
pareat w, Tract moo, ate.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-..........................*..............*.....-..........................................
MnLmIT nm
i Pesleontlrl:
= ‘i”‘CC
units I 4cros 1.23 UatOc Cuilitio8: Tm
su. Ft. Acres EmtOVm
- Emoto*m -
- lrmamrtatign: “52
TYUO - ~7mrrcral: b. ct. 4cr.s - .-aAstr'aL: W, Ft. Acres - EmtoYm -
- Wlnitq:
- p-r: *ir*rrt
TyR l Jt:S - Educat 1 wt
= ?rcrrrtlonrl
- YLIII Iraatunt:
- narrrdou Yalta:
rm
= ornor:
vu
. . . . . . . ..I.~...~.....~.......~..........~......~..........~~.~...........~....~..~~............-.................~...........~-.
PtQLICT 1-s 01- II arrrllR
I Msthotic/Viswl
- A9r1cuitur~l Lvrd Ild Pldfvlloolfn)
- A!r Qwtitr ~Paruc LnUtlro tied
- scRmlrM~vors~tir - Uaxor Ruatity
- sutlc fnta - YICI 9M@LY/
~GrhoW8olmic --crolc+n GrW uatrr
- Arcn~~qicrl/~istori~~ -Ibwf1L9
- :oJsrrl ta
Sail Ira~~~tfwGrodlng -YItLmd/cliprrir
- 3ralno@oaworptim molao - 9olfd uuto
i ~atiavwauing saiwo = ro~1fu8uwdmm
-uild~ifr
Grouth tnbcing
1 EconaiclraD, -HIIg 9omices/lrcllitroa - Trrtt~c/Ctrculrtior, i Calam
- Flscrl - GurutiaVMres - vmtrttan - cmflativo E"rcr
- otnw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..r.rr.- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..--.-.----~.....-.------
PrnmbtLmd~WIIU
Tnt P8OJECT SIT8 mm 0 110 m. m 18 vACAI$T, TUG OTtI@ US A StlUL8 ?UlLT MSfMrcl. TW: EXISTIW tafuG (a-1) ":
CEUERAL PCII DGslOYTtQ (m) Me mm Ta Rem11 I@ RAU.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~....*..................................*..........----...--~.~~---~~~-~~---~--- . . . . ..m--.
rroirt Wlrtlr,
?MC P~aKntD ~~80 IS Pa 8CM8 llla ClTIro) ~f~~tStfrw rS ST- SIcIcN# UtTWU TQtALWTS (fO ST*[ouM[:f, 48 QG MDIOOl UlTS Uo 6 M YwQol UIITS) cQUTlD 11 11 I-3 WI UITWII LOUL IYILI~US -T = '0
On: Ctaorimauo rltl aad* imtlftertlar m for ati m pnjrtr. 11 . m m alrw uI8t8 fw a proict (e.3. frm a motico of l rwrtiarr or pfu draft -t) etuu fill It im. Rwis& octoorr '2%
AL IMPACT ASSESSWM FCJ,& - PART u
-A 7 ’ :‘iC?.GCND
C.\SE \.A.klE
7 w. .VPL:C.‘rNT:
(TO BE COMPLETED 3Y THE PLkVNtNG DEP.wTME>T;
CASE NO. CL’P 90-15
DATE: .WUL 23. 199!
.
ST ‘FL+xIS co’,‘37
MARY STEICEX
3. .%DDRESS AiVD PHONE NL’YBER OF APPLICILL’T: (619) 'j':.!&)j ,
3138 S’KYLI~E 3?iT?
OCEANSIDF.. C.4 920%
3. DATE EIA FORM PART [ SUBMI-I-YED: NOWMBER 5. 1990
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THF PROPOSED PROJECT IS FOR AFFORDABLF SENIOR C:T:Z!* . HOUSING CONSISTING OF A 3 STORY STRLCTURE WITH 04 TOTN. UNKS. (30 S-X2- L’NITS 48 ONE BDROOM UNtTS AND 6 IWO BEDROOM UNITS) I OCAW ON A 1 23 StTE ON THF NORTH SIDF. OF LAGUNA DFUVE OPPOSITF. THE TERMINUS OF &D+;::’ \
R 3 ZONE ST-T IN THE . [N LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGFMENT ZONE 1 AT 6-d t!C;: :
Pm . . APFJ. 1=X0 08.09 . .
E.?WRONMENTAL IMPAC’Q
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 rquires chat the Ciry conduct 2::
En(;iromnental Impact &sessment to determine if a project may have a sign&ant effect on the cnvironmer,:. The Environmental tmpact &sessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This chccklis:
3 identifies any physical, biologic4 arul human factors that might be impacted by the proposed projecr ark provides the Ciry with infotm&oa co use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmerita.
Impact Report or NegP;tive De&&on.
* A Negative m may be prepad if the City peseim no substandal evidence that the project =r any of its YPCCE),M I sign&ant effect on the environment. On the checklist, “NO” will be checke: to indicate &is ‘-‘h
l AI EIR must be prrprrrd if ti City determines that thcrr is substurtirl evidence that any lrpect of the project may cause a m cl&t on the awbment. The project may quaii& for a Negative
Declaration however, if advase impacts a rniti~tcd JO that avironmentd effects can be deem4 i ’ ’ m These firrdine are skmm in the &&list U&X the hadings ‘CUES-&” and ‘YES-tiig’ respectively.’
A discussion of potauial impacts and the proposed mitigations appcur at the end of the form undo: PrSCUSSJON OF mON=AL El!- Pat&& artdon should be given to discusSG
mitigation for impacts which would om be dekm,ined si@hant.
PHYSKAL ENwRoNMENT
.,... . . . .__ THE ?ROpOSAL DtREcTtY OR !NDIRECTLY:
3.
3.
6.
t
a.
9.
10.
Il.
?.es~~t in unsrable each conditions or .:<:ezse :?.e 5x;lcsu:o sf Feopie or ?roper?i :3 3er-x GC ?.dZdflS
.J;T:ec:abiv change rhe topography cr ar.y ,r.iqce physical features?
i?esuir in or be affected by erosion of solis
e:ker on or off the site?
Xesult in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quaiity?
Result in subsrantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
Substantially change the come or flow of
water (marine, fresh, or flood waten)?
Meet the quantity or qua&y of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
Substantially increase uflge or cause
depletion of any natural ~~SO~ZC~S?
Use substmtirl w of btl or energy?
Alter a sim 4 paleontol0gH Q HUU&l Sit& ~f~~ture or ol#ut?
YES
r:31
YES
.?.s.3:
y
-L
. \
x
X
X - -
X -
BmLoGrcAL ENvrRONMEN 1
‘AILL THE PROPOSAL DtRECI=LY OR MNIECTLY: ES s’g,
. 7
. -.
13.
14.
IS.
16.
.tiiect :he dive&y of species, habitat ST numbers of any species of plants (including !XOS. shr-lbs. gass . -crxlora and aquatic
;!antS J?
introduce new species of plants into an area, cc a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local imponance?
Mfecc the dive&y of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HUMAN ENvTRolQmNT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DtRECILY OR tNDtRECl=LY:
17. Altcrthep~aphdlaaduse ofan-?
18. Substan~ rlrer pub& utilities, schools,. @ice, &e, v or other
public services?
YES xig., ‘<G
YES NO
HUMAN ENvRoNMENT
‘.L’:LL THE PROPOSAL DtRECTLY OR INDRECTLY:
’ : WV
_I .
-.
7,
-w.
23.
23.
25.
26.
37 -3.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
xesuir in the need for new or modified sewer
j;Tterr. s. solid WII~C or hazardous was:e : Zr.!rol sysrefns?
:n:rease ex3;:r.g 7.;:se :el.eis?
3rm-1.. . .4L,ce new light or glare?
:.tvoive a significant risk of an explosion
sr [he release of hazardous substances
,Ilxiuding, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicais or radiation)?
Substantially alter the density of the
human popuiarion of an area?
Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
Generate substantial additional traffic?
Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking?
[mpact existing mnsponacion systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
Alter waterborne, rA or aiz u&c?
Increase rraffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicy&sts or p&s&ns?
Interfere with v response plans or emergatcy -plmr’)
Obsmxtauy&ybtloc~wan aesthetically oillardvr pubUc tiew?
Affect the qua&y or quurtity of existing recreatiord oppomuritiu?
-
-
-
t;
t;
‘r
x
x
Y L
Y A
X
X
X
X
X
4
MANDATORY FKNDrNGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
‘l’.‘[L; THE PROPQSU D(RE;cIzY OR INDRECTLY: YES s,g,
j3 Ices :he project ,JUVC the potential
:a substantially degrade the quaky
zi :;?e enrvormenr. substantially
re:‘,xe [he habitat zi 3 :‘sh or wild-
::‘e species, cause a tkh or tildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
;e\.eis, threaten to eliminate a plant or
arumal communirv, reduce rhe number or
:xtrict the range of a rare or en-
dar.gered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
sf California history or prehistory.
34. Does the project have the potential
:o achieve shon-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, def!nitive period of
time while long-term impacts kll
endure well into the future.)
35. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulariveiy con-
siderable” means that the incremental effects of an individwl project are considerable when viewed in connmion
with the effects of put projects, the effects of other cuzmtt pmjestq and
the effects of m future pmjects.)
36. Does the mm emkoaumtal effects which _ QI)) dN8atid
advent efk~ o kuma b&gs, either directly or indkdy?
‘;O
Y
X
X
47
-
DISCUSSION OF ENVRONMWT’N, waUAm()N
3.
j., 6.
9 I I
a.
9’10.
T:te SFecifiC Site is a ieVe1 in611 !OC and a mirimum amounf of g&ir,g is propose,<. j;ec:r’caily there ~111 be 500 cubic yards of c-~t with 600 c*lbic yards of fill [mpon:zg
t30 :25:: ;:a&
@z’s ar.: ?e yoject $%-ii1 be czr,dirioneci to process a gradir.3 pe=Ar 53 3:: JF.F:‘P~EY.~ srandarts ~:ii be czm?iied ,AI:~ :a :nsure That Ihere ;\-:i be ?.: 2upcs’;:e zr’ peopie or properr; :3 3e3lc3x 5arards zr :b.e xeairion of ilnsrabie ear’:. zcr,c’i:ions by the we ?reTararxn required for r,ks project.
The sire is levei and the proposed project will nor appreciably char.ge :& s::e’:
:zpography. There are no unique physical features on the sire.
Since the project wiil be conditioned to comply with the conditions of a grading ?emJr
there will be no erosion of soils either onto or off the site.
The project till nor result in any changes in the deposition of beach sands or any
impacrs ro the bed of rhe ocean or any bay, inlet or lake. lince the project is subject :o a grading permit all drainage will meet Ciry srandards so there will be no impacts to
Buena Vista Lagoon in the form of offsite drainage.
The proposed s l ni or citizens use will not have any impact to the ambient air qualirv, nor
till there be any subsrantial changes in the local air movement, odor, moisture or
remperature. All the buildings on the sire are connected by covered walkways Sur
building separation ranges from 8 to 12 feet ro allow adquate air movements.
No watercourses will be impacted by the proposed project. Bucna Vista Lagoon will not
be impacted by the project as far as any alteration in its orientation or its ability ro maintain its basin.
The proposed project will not affect the quantity or quality of surface water,
groundwater, or public water supply. The project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone I and is under the jurisdiction of the Carl&ad Municipal Water
District, s on ctywide water availability, there ti be water supply facilities and tcy~\po~ m m this project in compliance with the Local FacUitiu Management
Plan for u 1. Gtiter resources will not be l dveAy imprcted by this project.
The proporl gllo)ret Wm not create the need for substandrl increase in the use of any
mumi ~~IQI;II~#). T&rr will be a short term impact on fbd and energy during the
construction phase of the project, however the use itself (senior citizens housing) will
not crew the need for subst8ntial amounts of fkei and energy to be used.
P~SKAL FNVTRONMENT (Can’t.]
* , . & The site co& of IWO lots, one with a single ‘amly residence, and one vacant :r::;l ;o:
surrounded by eking development. There are no archeological, l-&torical or c~lr~ra! zscurces loc~d anywhere on the ?ro;ecr site, SO there wlil be no hpact to caitur3i
rescurces. There is a possibiliry of fosstl bearing soils on the site so :he project may be
:szi5r:cr.e4 to investigate the e.xscence of any paleontologicai resocrces.
B[OLOGICAL ENVlRONMEfl:
q 1
. d. T!-,e project till not affect the diversiry of plant species on the site. The przje:: are3 .5 zunently vacant and rhc smgie family house that is exlsring has s0rr.e assoc:a:e,i
landscaping. There are no sensitive or endangered plant species on the si:e ark ;kere
*A,ill be no impact to any plant species or diversiry within the area.
:3. The project will not represent a barrier CO the normal replenishment of exisring plant
species, however, there are several existmg mature palm trees located on the sire, several
of which are being proposed for relocation throughout the site as shown on the project’s
landscape plan. The project will also introduce new species of plants to the project area
in the form of landscaping as weil as tit frees for active garden involvement for the
senion.
14. The project site does not contain any acreage currently in use for agriculture and the sire
does not have any land designated as significantly imporrant for agriculture purposes by
state or local standards.
L3 I 16. The diversity of animal species or rhe quality of animal habitats in the area is not an
issue because this is an infill lot within an area that is currently developed. There are
no significant animal species on the site. The project will not introduce any new species
of animals into the area. Since this is an infill lck, the project will not represent a barrier
to the migration of animals.
HUMAN B :
17. TheptojcctmTIlaatrl~thptootplYrncdlrnd~ofthc~ Thecurrent
zoning w is R-k md the cumnt Gtnaal Plan Designation is Residential Medium ce+rOaaer, so raidenaizl use is allowed on the drojecr sire. Through the Conditioarl m m process, a senior citizen project with the proposed density is
allowed w dw ZUJ& orclinance. The project will be consistent with the land use
desigxmiom dtbr d#.
IW19. Theprojcctiswi~~F~tiesM~ t zone 1 and can comply with all of the
performance stadar& of that zone, so dme will be no impms to the quality or availability of public utilities or public services. Existing sewer systems will be able to service this project. This project will not create a need for new solid waste or hazudous waste control syswms.
HUMAN mom , (ant \ .
7 . M..
23.
24.
25.
26.
T5.e proposed senior citizen use Ml not
:P:elj. create a sigGicanr increase in existing ns;se The project is however, subject ro the Ciry’s noise policy, since 11 is just .rsit$d’in 2,000 teer of the t-5 freeway, and therefore subjecr to the noise policy. The appiicanr
?.as suzrsr7 .,L.e4 a nose study, per the requirements of the noise policy and concluded :‘r.a:
:ne ;rojec: ?ses nlsc xee4 any rxrlgaticn measures to bnng :he ?roject
.A::+. zo;se standards. ;n:o cs:;;iar.ce
T’ne proposed project will not produce new any new light or glare other than sore
l/ghr;ng on the outside perimeter of the stNcture on the west side, adjacenr :J :be
;ar’king area to light up that area. The project will be conditioned to er.sure that :igh::r.;
‘from this use is not reflected to adjacent propenies.
The proposed use does nor represent any significant risk of explosion or the release or’
hazardous materials or substances. The proposed seniors’ use is a residential
Zeve!opment and is consistent and compatible with adjacent, existing development in the
area.
The project does alter the density of this area because it is being processed as a senior
citizen uses, under the zoning ordinance which does allow an increase in density of up
to 75 dwelling units per acre, per the processing of a Conditional Use Permit. The
increased density, however, is not considered to be a significant impact, since rhe
proposed use meets all development standards,’ is for a site that is allowed to suppo~ it and ail the findings required to grant a Conditional Use Permit for this use can be made.
The projecr’s density is 71 dwelling units per acre:
The proposed project wiil not adversely impact existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing. The ptoject will, instead, be supplying housing units to the City,
specif%ly, the project will add 84 senior citizen units, most of which will contribute to
the City’s stock of affodble housing units.
The project will not genmtt substantiaI additional tmfIic. Ok of the allowances for a senior citi2en project pa t& zoning code ir a reduction of required parking to one space
for evuy fwo rariti This me actuaily allows a reduced puking requirement because of
the nantn dti M who do not aU drive or generate vehicle mffic. Based on the trip
generotioa W d thb \w, with 84 units, the project ti generate 336 NIT and require
42 p-w If thb project were convawd to its underlying allowable density, it would W 14 w units generating B4 ADT and require 32 parking space.
Either use is not a sign&ant impact on uafiic generation or required parking.
The proposed project does not affect any existing puking facilities. The use will require the need for a parking lot in order to provide tk quired puking, however, there wul
benolargedemandfornewparking.
\-
‘3.
-- 30.
31.
32.
Since :his project is located on an exisring infill lot, there will be no impacts to existing
:ransportation s~tems, and there 4.l be no alteration of the present patrem ot
:irc:iatrm 3r the movemen! of goods or people. The project’s location is desirab[e for
:!A use because it IS centrally locared to various services and businesses uttkn
:,L\‘T&:: WRI Carisbad and is ciose :o mass :ransir systems.
3ue :o the nature of the project and the project’s location, rhere till be no impac:s :2
waterborne, rail or air traffic.
The yoposed project will not increase traffic hazards CO motor vehicles, bicyclists or Tedestrians. The project, being located on an infill lot, will not impact any oi these
modes of transponation. The project will be conditioned to assist in providing public
;mprovements along Laguna Drive including curb, gutter and sidewalk. a .
The senior citizen’s use will not impact in any way emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans since the project it is proposed for existing lots within an
existing neighborhood.
NO scenic vistas will be obstructed by the proposed project since it is an till lot. There
till Ix views from the project site, specifically from the third floor lcvei of the stnxtures, to the north and to the west up from the site, how-, the project itself will not create an aesthetically offensive public view. The proposed ar&itm of the structure is a
contemporary Spanish moti with red tile roof and SPanish Lace stucco walls.
The proposed project will not affect the quality or quantity of any existing recreational opportunities since the project site is an infill lot within a cumntly developed area.
Recreational opportunities will be available to the users of this project, how-, in the
form of Max-ton Brown Pul< which is located down the sueet to the west along hw
Drive, and the ocean and Beau Vita Lagoon are immediately beyond; as well as the projects on site recre8tion umnities.
‘-k.%‘r’SIS OF WLE ALTERNATWFS TO THE PROPOSES PROEC SUCH ,qs:
A;
D)
Cl
D)
E & G)
F)
a> Phowd development of the proJecr.
b) altaarte site designs, c) altmce scale of development, A) alremate uses for the site,
e! development at some future tine rather than now,
t‘, a’*@- ..-..,are sires for the proposed, and
8) no projec: dirernative.
Phasing the propose”, leveiopmenc is not necessary or desirable given [he scale
of the proposed use. There is no benefit 10 phasing the ConstAqC:iCn ci 1k.e
buildings or allowing rhe phased occupancy into rhe units.
Atemate site designs were assessed during the project review, however, rhe
proposed site design maximizes the site’s area for the proposed use. The proposed
site design also allows for the greatest degree of compatibiliry with the existing
single family and multi-family residential developments adjacent to the project site
whale complying with all development standards.
The proposed scale of development allows compliance of all applicable
development standards and is within the maximum allowable density for this rypc
of use while providing for a site design that allows for function as well as land
use compatibility with adjacent propenies.
Ntemate uses for the site would be residential uses in conformance with rhe
General Plan Designation of EWH, Residential Medium High, however, the
proposed use and the proposed density is acceptable given the Endings and conditions of the CUP required for this use which can be made and will be
imposed.
Development at a future time would leave the site vacant which is not desirable
from the Citfs aspect of attempting to create more affordable housing units as weil
as providing senior citizen units. A no project rltcnucive would leave the site
vacant and it is ti property owner3 desire to develop the site at this time. The no project MW w&d also leave the City with less affordable units which it
--4-
N/A
ENM:lh
-lO-
‘2ETEXWNATlON (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
. On the barrti of tbir tidal evaluation:
Y : ?nd :he PrOporrd project COULD ?;OT have a significant effect On the environment, and 3 t, 5 z 1 - - ~ECLUATION will be prepared.
: <xi rhar :he proposed project COULD NOT have a signikant effect on the environmen:. +:2,it
~r.~.-mnmentai etiec:s oi rhe proposed projecr have already been considered in cor.jc7.:::: :. ;ro~~ously cemfied environmenral documents and no additional emironmenral re\lew :S :FI:-.:
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
: 5r.d char although the proposed project could have a signifkanc effect on the entirorz.er.:. ::.ert .,
~,:ot be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an 3::3;::t:
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
i find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONJ1E!;:.:-
hIPACT REPORT is required.
5 /. 7/ C -/Ly M u;i*\
Date Signature 4
5jl z/4 I
Date
LIST .MITIGATING w (IF As-
ATTACH MITIGASG PRW (IF APPW
-110
L'?I_IC.WT CONCURRENCE WITH MtTlGATINC MFASLRFS
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT t HAVE REVIEWED THE MOt’E MITlGATING M&iSt’XES
.CVD CONCUR WI’IW THE ADDITION OF THESE .M&4SURES TO THE PROJEC;.
3are Signature
.
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3267
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP
A SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROJECT CONSISTING OF 76
UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF LAGUNA DRIVE AT THE TERMINUS OF MADISON STREET. CASE NAME: ST. FRANCIS COURT CASE NO: CUP 90-15 I
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 17th day of July, 1991 and on the 21st day of April, 1993, hold
a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on property described as:
Parcel A and B of that portion of Lot 1, Township 12 South,
Range 5 West, San Bemardino Meridian, in the City of
Carisbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons de&&g to be heard, said Commission
considered all factors relating to CUP 90-X.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are me and correct. .
8) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of CUP 90-15, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: . . . .
-
*’ I
II
2 (1
1: 3;
// 4; I1
5 j;
6” /I I
71/ 8 j!
9/l
10 /I
11
12 I
/ 13 I
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pin-:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
‘That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the COtnnWr’dty, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located because there is a need for rental housing for senior citizens in close proximity to dowtom
Carl&ad and the project has been designed and conditioned to enhance compatibility with adjacent land uses.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use because all applicable development standards can be satisfied while providing various project amenities.
That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features
necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the
neighborhood will be provided and maintained.
That ~aguna Drive and the adjacent street systems serving the proposed use A
adequate to properly handle all the anticipated &a& generated (304 ADTs) by
the proposed use.
The project’s location will afiord the senior citizen n&dents easy accerj to the
community, commercial and service ffities of downtown CarWad.
The project cor&om with alI applicable State and Fedexal laws and with all of the
findings=dreq uimnents of Section 21.18.045 of the Zoning Ordinance which
allows senior citizen housing by Conditional Use Permit including the pmvision
and maintenance of amenities designed specifically for the physical and social n&sofseniorswhileallowingaminimumageof55years.
-r&e project complies with all of the applicable deveJopme!at standards of the
lmda R-3 uwc.
ThePlWIillgcOmmissi on has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this
pmject, ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the City Engkeer detetmines that sewer sewice is available, and building cannot occur witbin 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.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as
conditions of approval.
PC RESO NO. 3267 -2-
5-b
4
5/i
6 ii
II
71j
8 /!
1' 91
lOi I'
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I/
!I
I/ I’
II
10. This project can be approved with the proposed density of 64 dwelling hb per ach which t%~eeds the growth management control point when applied to the site kcaux:
1) it is less than the 75 dwelling units per acre maximum density allowed by the Senior Citizen Housing criteria (section 21.18.045 of the Zoning Ordinance),
2) it complies with City Council Policy NO. 43 which prioritizs Affordability Housing and Senior Citizen Housing as the top two uses eligible to utilize
a quadrant surplus of dwelling units; and
3) the following findings per the Growth Management Ordinance Section
21.90.@+5 can be made:
a) The project will provide suf%icient additional public facilities for the density in excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s public facilities plans will not be adversely impacted; and
b) There have been suilkient developments approved in the quadrant at densities below the control point to cover the units in the project
above the control point so that approval will not result in B the quadrant limit; and
4 All necessary public facilities required by this chapter will be constnlctedoraregwlant~tobl?constructdco -tly with
the need for them createi by this development and in compiiance
with the adopted city staldds.
11. 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.
12. This project will not cause any sign&ant environmental impacts and a Negative
Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on May 9, 199i, and rrcommcndcd for approval by the Planning Commission on April 21, 1993. In recommending approval of this Negative Declaration the Planning Commission has
considered the initial study, the staRanalysis, and anywritten comments received
regarding the significant effects this project could have on the environment.
13. The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public fa&ty fee, or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan
PC PESO NO. 3267 -3-
57
prepared pursuant co Chapter il.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. this will , ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative , impacts created by the project. I I
3 I’
Ii 4, II 5 :I
1, 6 1;
il
7
II a ii
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
j
Ii
1s.
16.
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 1
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1. 1 , I
That the project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for the density in excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s public
facilities plans will not be adversely impacted.
That there have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities
below the control point to cover the units in the project above the control point
so the approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit.
Planning Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
. . . .
Approval is granted for CUP 90-15, as shown on Exhibits “A’‘-“G”, dated April 21,
1993 and July 17, 1991, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of
the site plan as approved by the Planning Commission. The site plan shall reflect
the conditions of approval by the City. The plan copy shall be submitted to the
City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits or improvement plan submittal,
whichever occurs first.
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.
Water shall be provided to this project pursuant to the Water Setice agreement
between the City of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, dated May
25.1983.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation required by the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan approved by the City Council on September 1, 1987, incorporated herein and on file in the Planning Department and any future
amendments to the Plan made prior to the issuance of building permits.
PC PESO NO. 3267 4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the
Payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law On this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 65913.5. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within two years from the date of project approval.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the
Zoning Ordinance including the recently revised senior citizen requirements of Section 21.18.045, and all other applicable City ordinances in e&t at time of
building permit issuance.
This conditional use permit is granted for a period of ten years. This conditional
use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis to
determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not
have a significant detrimental impact on surrounding properties or the public
health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that the use has such significant adverse impacts, the Planning Director shall recommend that the %nning Commission, after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard,
add additional conditions to mitigate the significant adverse impacts. This permit
may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has
a significant detrimental affect on surrounding land uses and the public’s health
and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met. This permit
may be extended for a reasonable period of time not to exceed ten Yeats upon
written application of the permittee made no less than 90 days prior to the
expiration date. In granting such extension, the Planning Commission shall find that no substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the public’s health
and welfare will result because of the continuation of the permitted use. If a substantial adverse afkt on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and welfare is found, the extension shall be considered as an original application for
a conditionakuse pemit. There is no limit to the number of extensions the
Planning Comqission may grant.
If the property owner/owners’ address changes from that which is shown on the conditional use Permit application, a notice of a change of address shall be reported, in writing, to the Planning Department within 30 days.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally
integrated and concealed fkom view and the sound buffered fkom adjacent properties and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No.
80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Building.
PC PESO NO. 3267 -5
54
-
31
4! j1
5 Ii I! 6 11
7’
81
g ;/
10;
11
121
131 II
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/I
Ji
II
12.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
. . . .
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning Director approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or
PTerty* ,
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. I In such instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and the Planning Director.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of
grading or building permits, whichever occurs first.
All parking lot trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in size.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
AU landscape plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Manual and
submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning
Department.
Landscape plans shall be designed to mini&e water use. Lawn and other zone
1 plants (see Landscape Manual) shall be limited to areas of special visual importance or high use. Mulches shall be used and irrigation equipment and design shall promote watex conservation.
Prior to final occupancy, a letter from a Califomia licensed landscape architect
shall be submitted to the Planning Director certifying that all landscaping has been
installed as shown on the approved landscape plans.
All herbicides shall be applied by applicaton 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.
Tk first set of landscape and irrigation plans submitted shall include building
Pl=% hPro vement plans and grading plans.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in
conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval
of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs.
PC RESO NO. 3267 -6-
9i
10 i!
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
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.
AS part of the plans submitted for building permit plan check, the applicant shall include a reduced version of the approving resolution/resolutions on a 24” x 36 blueline drawing. Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal Development Permit and signed approved site plan.
Prior to issuance of a grading or building pen-nit, whichever comes first, a soils report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad. If the soils report indicates the presence of potential fossil bearing material then a standard three phased program, on file in the Planning Department, shall be undertaken to avoid possible signScant impacts on paleontological resources under the direction of the
Planning Department.
Prior to the issuance of any buildhg permits, the applicant and the City shall en&
into an agreement and record an appropriate note on the properry’s deed, to the
satisfaction of the City Attorney and Community Development Director, giving the
City an equity position in the project in accordance with Section 21.18.045 of the
Carl&ad Municipal Code.
The following nquhments &all be made part of the lease! agreement executed for
all rentals of this senior citizen housing project:
al Theminimlrm~ofatleastoncomrpantofeachMit,excludingthe
mana~s~~shallbeatleast55yearsofagewi~thepro~~and maintenance of senior citizen amenities as requked by section 21.18.045
(i)(3)&D). In addition, the applicant shall publish and adhenz to policies
and~ureswhichdemonstm te the applicant’s intent to provide housing
andspccial~ti~forpersonsSSyearsofagc,orolder. Priorto
ocqmcy,andfar~withtheproject’sallnualrwiew,conlpliaxlce with tke rcqtrircmmts must be demonstrated by the applicant to the Sa~oftheP~Director.
b) An on-site parking spaces shall be available to the tenants of the project at
nofbeara%L
Cl TkrmtahHhallklWi~bythtP~DireaotandCity
Atmzleypriortothe- ofanycertifwesof~.
ThisamditioMlusepami~includingthe comrasionplan,ShallkdUiiIltht
Of6ceoftheCountyRecordffpriortothe issuaweofanygradingofbuilding
permit.
PC RESO NO. 3267 -7-
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
33.
34.
3s.
36.
30. u, at any time, the City Council determines that the project is b&g operated b violation of this approval or any conditions thereof, the City Coud may q& tbc applicant to convert the project to a development which meets a~ stadards Of the underlying R-3 zone per the recorded conversion plan shown on Exhibit “G”, dated April 21,1993 and July 17,199l.
31. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, a Coastal Development
Pen-nit shall be obtained from the Califomia Coastal ~mmission.
32. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant and the city shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to be approved by the city
Council. The contents of the agreement shall include, but not be limited to, the
following items:
a) Standards for maximum qualify@ households.
b) Standards for maximum rents.
cl Party or process responsible for quaMying residents.
4 How vacancies will be marketed and filled.
4 RE!slrictions and edorcemf!nt mechanisms.
fl lmngth of time for affordability of units.
s) Maiutenance provisions.
h) City concessions or incentives to the developer.
3 Minimum percentages of low-income units.
tf it is mutually acceptable to the applicant and the City, it is possible that this agreemeut include the provisions of Condition No. 26 above regarding the Cit~?s equity poeition in the project per Scxtion 21.18.045 of the Carl&ad Municipal
code.
Unless a standard variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is
author&d by virtue of approval of this site plan.
The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of the respec&e sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project.
The developer shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.&E., Pacific Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any proposed construction site within this project the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City
Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all
PC RESO NO. 3267 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
conditions and requireme :s the City Engineer may impose with regards to the
hauling operation.
Additional drainage easements and drainage structures shall be provided or installed prior to the issuance of grading or building permit as may be required by the City Engineer.
The drainage system shall be designed to ensure that runoff resulting from a lo-
year frequency storm of a 6 hours or 24 hours duration under developed
conditions, is equal to or less than the runoff from a storm of the same tiequency
and duration under existing developed conditions. Both 6 hour and 24 hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determine the detention basin capacities necessary
to accomplish the desired results.
Building permits for the project shall not be issued until full half street
improvements to Laguna Drive are completed adjacent to the project frontage including any necessary offsite transition sections or the construction of the required improvements has been guaranteed by one of the following alternatives:
1. Award of City Contract which includes the construction of said Laguna
Drive improvements.
2. Applicants preparation of appropriate plans, specifications and supporting
documents and execution of a secured agreement for the construction of
said improvements.
The applicant shall comply with the reqtriffmcnts of the National Pollutant
Dis&uge Elimination system (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best manawt practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to dkchaqetosensitiveareas. Plansforsuch~shallbeapprovedbythe cityEngheupriortoapprwalofthebuildingpermit.
The owner shall l!le fix an adjummt plat and certificate of compliance to
cons&date APN 15223-08/W into one parceL The Certikate of Compliance shallkreax&dpriortoissuingabuWngpczmi~
Thrawaasballenterintoalien contraccforthefutuhimp- ofthestorm
&8iaal~thprojectfkmtagepriortoissuhgabuildingpermiL TheMaster
~Planhashvealedtbacthis36”stanndrainisdcficiaDtinsizc,
43. Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be
submitted to and approved by the Fire Department.
PC BESO NO. 3267 -9-
lb3
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
20
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
.-
Additional onsite public hydrants are required.
Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval of access, driveways and general traffic circulation.
An all-weather access road shall serve the project during construction.
All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurtenances shall be operational prior to combustible building materials being located on the project site.
Proposed security gate systems shall be provided with “Knox” key operated
ovenide switch, as specified by the Fire Department.
All private driveways shall be kept clear of parked vehicles at all times, and shall have posted “No Parking/Fire Lane” pursuant to Section 17.04.020, Carlsbad
Municipal Code.
Plans and/or specifications for fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, extinguishing systems, automatic sprinklers, and other systems pertinent to the project shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to construction.
Buildings having an aggregate floor area exceeding 10,000 square feet shall be protected by an automatic sprinkler system.
Prior to submittal of water improvement plans, the applicant shall submit to the Fire Department a map, showing the street network, conforming to the following
criteria:
l 400’ scale
l Photo reduction on mylar t At least two existing streets and/or intersections shall be referenced on the
map (not a separate vicinity map)
l Maps shall include the following information:
Street curterline
Streetname!s
Fire hydrant locations
. . Wata a :
53. The entire potable and non-potable water systems for subject project be evaluated
in detail to ensure that adequate capacity and pressure for domestic, landscaping
and fire flow demands are met.
PC RESO NO. 3267 -lO-
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 il ii it j j
54. The Developeis Engineer shall schedule a meeting with the District Engineer and the City Fire Marshal and review the preliminary water system layout prior to preparation of the water system improvement plans.
5s. The Developer will be responsible for all fees and deposits plus the major facility charge which will be collected at time of issuance of building permit. The Developer shall pay a San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge which will be collected at issuance of application for meter installation. I
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of April, 1993, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
BAILEY NOBLE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
PLANNING DIRECI’OR
PC RESO NO. 3267 -ll-
-
/
I
I
I
ST. FRANCIS COURT CUP 90-15 &($
APPLICATION COMPLETE DATE: Januarv 3. 1991
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
I. RECOMMENDATION
STAFF REPORT 0 3 JULY 17, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CUP 90-15 - ST. FRANCIS COURT - Request for approval of a Conditional
Use Permit to allow the development of a senior citizen housing project
consisting of 84 dwelling units on a two lot in-fill site on the north side of
Laguna Drive at the northern terminus of Madison Street in the R-3 Zone within the Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 3266 recommending APPROVA& of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution No. 3267 recommending APPROVAL of CUP 90-15 based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIFTION AND BACKGROUND
The proposed project site, shown on the location map, consists of two existing lots which will be consolidated into one. One lot has a single family residence which will be removed for this project and the other is a vacant in-fill lot with some sheds located on it. The
gross site area is 1.23 acres. Since a 10’ wide right-of-way dedication is required, the net
acreage for the project site is 1.18 acres. The surrounding land uses consist of multi-family residential to the east, single family residences to the north and west and single family and
professional offices to the south across Laguna Drive.
The proposed p&ct involves the development of a senior citizen housing project per the requirements of section 21.18.045 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows senior citizen
housing by Conditional Use Permit. A total of 84 dwelling units are proposed with 30 studio units, 48 one-bedroom units and 6 two-bedroom units. The project will feature a three-story structure with contemporary Spanish style architecture, a parking lot, landscaping and various project amenities. The proposed 84 dwelling units on the 1.18 net acre site holds a density of 71 dwelling units per acre. This density is beyond the density allowed by the RMH General Plan designation. A senior citizen use, however, is
CUP 90-15 - ST. FFMNCls COURT JULY 17, 1991 PAGE 2
allowed a density of up to 7~ dwelling units per acre by CUP. As such, all appropriate and required findings and conditions of approval have been placed on the project.
Project amenities include: a kitchen in every unit, a landscaped interior courtyard, a second story common sundeck with views, a potting shed and garden with fruit trees and a common recreational room. In addition to satisfying all four standard findings required
for a Conditional Use Permit, the project must also comply with all additional requirements and findings of Section 21.18.045 of the Zoning Ordinance and all applicable standards of
the underlying R-3 Zone. The proposed project is shown on Exhibits “A’‘-“G”, dated July
17, 1991.
[II. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1. Can all the necessary findings required for a Conditional Use Permit be made?
Specifically:
a. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and
objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located;
b. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the use;
C. That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested uses to existing or permitted future uses in
the neighborhood will be provided and maintained;
d. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly
handle all trafk generated by the proposed.
2. Does th! project comply with all of the requirements of Section 21.18.045 of the
Zoning ordinance which allows senior citizen housing by Conditional Use Petmit?
3. Is the project consistent with the Mello II Local Coastal Program?
4. Is the project consistent with the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan?
CUP 90-15 - ST. FRANCIS COURT
JULY 17, 1991
PAGE 3
DECUSSION
The proposed use is necessary and desirable for the development of the community. All
the existing senior citizen housing projects in the downtown area have long waiting lists
of eligible residents, which demonstrates the need for this use within the community. The
proposed use is in harmony with the General Plan. The General Plan designation is RH (Residential High density). The proposed use will not be detrimental to the existing adjacent land uses because of the project’s design, compliance with all applicable development standards and the conditions of approval that will be imposed.
The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use in compliance
with all applicable development standards. As shown on Exhibit “A” the site has been designed to include the required amount of parking spaces, compliance with all standard parking lot requirements, the construction of the three-story structure and interior and
perimeter landscaping.
Several features necessary to adjust the requested senior citizen use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained. In order to ensure
compatibility with existing adjacent land uses the project has been designed to minimize
impacts to the single family residences to the north and west of the project site. As shown
on Exhibit “A” the parking lot is located on the west portion of the site so that there is over 70 feet of buffer space between the single family lot to the west and the project structure.
There is a 20 foot rear yard setback between the north property line and the edge of the
building. The third-story component of the structure on the north end of the site has been
stepped down to two-stories with an open sundeck area located above as shown on the elevation (Exhibit “C”). This design in coordination with the heavily landscaped area along
the north property line wiU help to minimize the impacts to the single family residences
to the north. The project will also feature landscaping throughout the perimeter of the
project and project site to add to the compatibility with the adjacent land uses. As shown on Exhibit “F’, the proposed conceptual landscape plan involves the relocation of several
of the large mature palm trees currently onsite. The proposed senior citizen use will be
separated from adjacent land uses by a six foot high stud and stucco fence which will,
surround the pqerty. As shown on Exhibits “B” and “C’ the building is primarily a three- story structure with a contemporary Spanish architecture with clay mission roof tiles
articulated by a varied roof line and arches with decorative windows and doors. The
building height is 33 feet measured to the peak.
The proposed project will be served by Laguna Drive and the adjacent public street system.
The project will generate approximately 336 ADT, which will not adversely impact the ability of Laguna Drive or the local streets to handle the project’s traffic. The proposed use
typically does not generate a lot of traffk due to the age of the residents associated with
this use. Most of the traf% associated with this type of use would be from visitors.
CUP 90-15 - ST. FRANCIS COURT
JULY 17, 1991
PAGE 4
2. ZO IN rJ
Section 2 1.18.045 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines specific development standards and
findings necessary for a Conditional Use Permit to be granted for a senior citizen housing project. Each of these are outlined below:
Access to Services and Facilities
One of the primary findings require\! to approve a Conditional Use Permit for senior citizen housing is to determine that the project’s location will afford the residents of the project
easy access to community, commercial, and service facilities. The proposed location is a
short walk from Jefferson Street to the east where there is a bus route to the downtown
and other destinations. The project’s location also allows for a short flat walk to the downtown area. The project site is under a mile from the City’s Library, Post Office and the new Senior Citizen Facility. The site is also in close proximity to various services and
facilities such as a super market, retail centers, professional offices, banks, pharmacies,
medical and dental offices, restaurants, coffee shops, churches, as well as Maxton Brown
Park which provides visual access to Buena Vista Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean. The
project’s location therefore meets the intent of locating senior citizen housing in close proximity to various services and facilities which can be easily used by the residents.
Ane of Occupants
One of the conditions of approval for a senior citizen housing project is the minimum age
requirement. The Code requires that the minimum age for a resident in such a use is 62 years of age. This condition will be placed on the project as a condition of approval.
Three-Stow Buildinns
As required by Section 21.18.045 all three-story structures associated with a senior citizen
use shall include elevators for easy access to various levels of the structure. This project provides elevators as shown on Exhibit “A”.
R-3 Developmsptsranpacdb
Section 21.1&04S requires that all applicable development standards of the underlying zone be satis&d. In this case, the underlying R-3 zoning standards are satisfied. There is a front setback of 20 feet off Laguna Drive, there is a 20 foot setback off the rear property line and a 10 foot setback from the east property line. These setbacks are the minimum setbacks required given the project’s lot size. The setback to the west exceeds the required 10 foot setback because of the parking lot location. The setback on the west side of the lot is approximately 70 feet. The building height limit for the R-3 Zone is 35 feet, and the proposed building is 33 feet high, 32% lot coverage is proposed and the
allowed lot coverage in the R-3 Zone is 60%. The project site, consolidated from two existing R-3
-
CUP 90-l S - ST. FRANCIS COURT
JULY 17, 1991 PAGE S
lots will exceed the required minimum lot area of 7500 square feet (53,504 square feet) and the required minimum lot width of 50 feet (209 feet).
Parking Area
The parking area for the senior citizen use must be in compliance with the City’s parking ordinance, Chapter 21.44 of the Municipal Code. The proposed project satisfies this condition by providing the required amount of standard parking spaces and providing
standard aisle width, curb cut width and vehicle turn-around area in the parking lot. The
parking lot is also landscaped in accordance with Chapter 21.44. The parking lot landscaping is shown on Exhibit “F”.
Occunant Use of Parking Area
As required by Section 21.18.045 no fee shall be imposed on residents for the use of the parking lot. This condition will be placed on the project as a condition of approval so that
the senior residents and their guests have free access to and use of the parking lot area.
Reauired Parking
A senior citizen housing project is allowed to have a reduced parking requirement. The allowed parking may be one space for every two units. The proposed project consists of
84 dwelling units which requires 42 parking spaces to be provided. As shown on Exhibit “A” the project proposes 42 parking spaces and therefore complies with the parking
requirement for senior citizen use.
Allowable Densiw
A density bonus is possible by the CUP process for this kind of use so that the City may
foster the development of rental housing available only to senior citizens. The Code allows
a density of up to 75 dwelling units per acre for senior citizen housing. The project
proposes 84 units on a net lot area of 1.18 acres with a density of 71 dwelling units per
acre, which is below the allowable maximum density. The project, therefore, complies with
the allowabk da&y permit@ for this use.
. . Reauired m Convgston Plan
The applicant has submitted all the required CUP exhibits per Section 21.18.045 for senior
citizen housing. These exhibits include a site plan, elevations, floor plans, landscape plan,
and a conversion plan (gee Exhibits “A’‘-“G”, dated July 17, 1991).
The conversion plan is required by code to demonstrate that the building can practically be altered from a senior citizen use to a use that would comply with the underlying zoning and General Plan designations. In the case of this project the plan (Exhibit “G”) shows conversion from 84 dwelling units to 14 dwelling units (allowed by the underlying General
CUP 90-15 - ST. FRANCIS COURT JULY 17, 1991 PAGE 6
conversion fkom 84 dwelling units to 14 dwelling units (allowed by the underlying General
Plan Designation of RH).
3. COASTAL ZONE
The project is located within the Mello II Local Coastal Program. The project complies with this Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP addresses eight issues for project review,
including allowable land use, agriculture, environmentally sensitive habitat areas,
geological, floodplain and shoreline hazard areas, public works and public services
capacities, recreation and visitor serving uses, shoreline access, and scenic and visual resources. A condition of approval for this CUP will be the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit by the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance any
grading or building permits.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The subject site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1, northwest quadrant. The proposed project, with 84 dwelling units, is 70 dwelling units above the amount
allowed using the growth management control point for the site. As outlined in City
Council Policy No. 43, a senior citizen project can use units within the existing surplus of
units for the northwest quadrant. As such there will be no adverse impacts on public
facilities or public services created by the proposed use and all of the adopted performance standards are complied with. The adopted performance standards and compliance with them are summarized below:
CUP 90-15 - ST. FRANCiS COURT
JULY 17, 1991 PAGE 7
The project initial study showed that there will be no adverse environmental impacts f?om
the proposal since the site is an in-fill location surrounded by existing development currently being served by existing public facilities and services, A noise study was completed for the applicant by a noise consultant. The noise impacts from I-S were shown
to be minimal because the subject site is within 2,000 feet of Interstate 5. The noise
impacts from Laguna Drive were also assessed, although Laguna Drive is not a City of Carlsbad Circulation Element roadway and therefore is not subject to the City’s noise policy. The existing noise levels from Laguna Drive at the southern property line were measured at 59 to 60 CNEL and approximately 57 CNEL at stmctures accounting for the
setback off Laguna Drive. This project, therefore, complies with the City Noise Policy of
60 CNEL for exterior. Since this project site is within the Coastal Zone the required 30 day
review period, including State level review, was conducted. No comments were received
during the public review period. Since no significant environmental impacts will be created
by the proposed use, the Planning Director has issued a Negative Declaration on May 9,
1991.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2.
3.
4. 5. 6.
7.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3266 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3267
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Disclosure Fotm
Exhibits “A”-%“, dated July 17, 1991.
ENM:vd
June 12, 1991
PEBRUARY 24, 1993
TO1 PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM8 ROUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
8UBJECTI IT. FRANCIS COURT SENIOR HOUSINO PROJECT, CUP 90-15 670 LAGUNA DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
On July 17, 1991, the Planning Commission referred the above project to staff for additiona'. work on the affordability aspect of the project. The minutes of the Planning Commission indicate that the Commissioners were supportive of requiring the project applicant to rent a percentage (greater than 25%) of the units at a rate affordable to low incomo households.
Housing and Redevelopment Staff has been working with Mary Steiger and members of her development team since July 17, 1991 to develop a proposal which meets the city's affordable housing objectives and still allows Ms. Steiger to build her desired project. Staff and Ms. Steiger have finally reached agreement on the affordability aspects of the proposed project. Therefore, we believe the project can noti be returned to the Planning Commission for review and action. Attached for information purposes is a summary of the project proposal as evaluated by Housing and Redevelopment Staff.
The affordability aspect of the proposed project is as follows:
l Sixty-one (61) of the units, or Sl*, will be affordable to households/persons with gross household incomes in the lou
income raago of 618 to 80% of the San Diego County Median. Eligible incomes would range from approximately $17,350 for a one person household to $33,050 for a four person.
The rents for the units will range from $350 to $650 per month and the size of units will range from 267 sq.ft. (studios) to 743 sq.ft. (two bedroom).
These units will be restricted in terms of.the amount of rent that can &a charged for a minimum of thirty (30) years.
l Fourteen (14) of the units, or 19*, will be rented at market rates. Initially, these rents will most likely be affordable to low income households. However, the units will not be restricted for affordability purposes. Therefore, if the market rate rents increase, the property owner will not be restricted to low income affordable rat.8 for these units.
0 One unit will on the unit). be used for an on-site manager (no rental income
-
l The applicant has agreed to maintain the low income affordability requirements for a minimum of thirty (30) years as noted above.
l The applicant will receive no financial assistance from the City of Carlsbad. The granting of the Density Bonus allowed by ordinance for Senior Housing is adequate incentive to make this project financially feasible to the applicant. All appropriate and required findings and conditions of approval have previously been recommended for the project in order to allow the Commission the ability to grant the Density Bonus and use units from the "Excess Dwelling Unit I@ Bank for the purposes of approving the proposed project.
Housing and Redevelopment staff recommends approval of the proposed project with the understanding that the affordability terms outlined above will be incorporated into the project as conditions through an Affordable Housing Agreement. The project meets the objectives of the City in terms of providing housing affordable to low income households. The City will be able to record the restricted 61 low income units as a partial accomplishment in meeting its share of "new constructiona affordable housing once the units are built.
EVA24 B. BECRBR Bouaing and Redwalopment Dirootor
ST. FRANC16 COURT AFFORDABLE HOUSINO PROJECT amy OF PROP08AIl
PROJECT Three story building with a total of 76 DESCRIPTION rental units for Seniors only. The breakdown -of units is as follows:
l 14 studio units
1 bedroom units (537 sq.ft. each) 6 2 bedroom units (743 sq.ft. each)
l 1 unit will be used for on-site manager (no rental income)
The project will, include such amenities as:
l a large recreation room;
l area for beauty and barber services, social gatherings, movies C games;
l meeting area for health and governmental
lever handles, wide doors,
Barbara Lange - property owner
Mert Issacman - Southern Sun Development
SIT1 CONTROL Mary and John Steiger and Barbara Lange own property free of encumbrances. The property ia ,located at 670 Laguna Drive in Carlsbad. It represents a 1.23 acre (1.18 acre net) lot on the north side of Laguna between Jefferson and Madison Streets.
l value of the site is estimated at
76
AFFORDABILITY The affordability of the units is as follows; PEATVRES
l 61 units (81%) will be affordable to low income households (61% to 80% of County median). These units include a mixture of studios, 1 bdrs. and 2 bdrs.
The unit rents will be set based on a sliding scale approach according to gross household income and household size. For example, if a 1 person household has an income of $20,250 (702 of county median), the rent for the unit, including utilities, would be set at $506 per month. A 2 person household at 70% of county median would pay $579 per month.
The unit rents will be set at a fixed rate based on a gross household income at 65t of the county median and applicable household size. For example, a 1 person household would pay $470 per month and a 2 person household would pay $538 per month.
The method for setting rents will be out- lined within an affordable housing agree- ment between City and developer.
l 14 units (19%) will be market rate units (may or may not be affordable to low income persons depending on market)
The designated units will remain affordable to low income households for a minimum of thirty (30) years.
FINANCIAL The lender is Centennial Mortgage Company. The loan will be insured by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development through their Section 231 program.
The applicant is requesting Bp financial assistance from the City of Carlsbad.
77
The proposed project involves the development of a senior citizen housing project per the requirements of Section 21.18.045 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows senior housing by conditional use permit.
The project Will feature a 3 story structure with contemporary Spanish Style architecture, a parking lot, landscaping and various project amenities.
uses consist of multi-family le family residences and
MANAGEMENT earn will reside PLAN rty and coordinate
IMPACTS applicant will assume responsibility for qualifying tenants for units and monitoring continued eligibility.
assume no CONDITIONS
n will take
CASE
CASE
-
c-
NO: CUP 90 . 15
l NAME: St. Francs Court
APPLICANTz m Steiner
REQUEST AND LOCATION: c
the co ction 0 t . . . hf 0 consistinn 0 dwellin units. Several IE.affdd or a e
at the terminus of Madison Street on the northside of Larmna Drive.
. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel A and 6 of that Dortion of Lot 1 m Se ction 1. TOWIIS~~D 12,
South Ran . 1 West bad. Count-v of S
Dieno. APN: 155223.08/09 (Assessofs Parcel Number)
Acres 1.18 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 76
GENERAL PI-AN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RMH/O
Density Allowed 11.5 du/acre Density Proposed 64 dulacre as alIo . wed rm Sectmq
Growth Control Point of RMEj
Existing Zone R-3 Proposed Zone R-3
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements)
Zoninn
Site R-3
North R-1-10
south VR
East R-3
west R-3
Us
Vacant/Single Family
Single Family
ResidntiaVProfessional
Multi-family
Single Family
School Digtrict B Wata District mad SewaDisnict~
Equivalent Dwelling Units (SewaCapacity) 76EDlfs Public Facilities Fee Agreatmt, dated October 22. 1990
Negative De&ration, issued Mav 9.1991 X
- catifkd Environmental Impact Report, dated Other, ENMzd
UIYOFCANSBAD
GROWIIi MANAGEMENT PROCRAM
LOCAL FAQLTlIEs IMPACIS ASSESSMENT FORM
no b Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTl’IY AND IMPACI- ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO.: St. Francis Court - CUP 90-15
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: GENERAL PLAN: RMH-O 1
ZONING: R-3
DEVELOPER’S NAME: &I 1
ADDRESS: 3138 ShIine Drive. Oceanside. CA 92056
PHONE NO.: 1619) 757-1405 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: m-223-08/09
QUANmY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. fl., DU): u3 AC
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
k
8.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage =
Library: Demand in Square Footage =
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: DemandinAaeage=
Drainage: DemandinCFS=
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: DcmrndhADTs-
(Identify Trip Dihbutioa on site phn)
Fire: Saved by Fire Station No. =
OpcnfJP-: Acreage Provided -
Sewa: DcmrndhEDUS-
Idahfy Sub Basin -
(Identify trunk line(s) impaaed on site plan)
Wata: DanandiaGPD -
The project is 62 units above the Growth Manam Dwelling unit allowance.
311
J&L*
A&L
N/A
N/A
1,
N/A
16.724
ENM?Jd
80
--
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
/ APPUcudrS STATEMENT OF wcLoBu# OF cam&N owE#yw IEm#moNu / DlscmMRYAmON~EPmOI~cflvCOUNClCoa~~ AppucAnoNawHlcHwuwacw
eoAm.wM~oa~ I 1 :P’rasa Pfha
The following information must be disclosed:
t &diC8l’tt
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the’ application. Zarbara Lancre -ar7r - _ -. L.. Steicer Z9r.n 1. Steicer
2. Ownq
~gtrhga”raame~,dre~es of all pwsons having any5~rsJi\\~tst in the pmm im&md. , . : 1- u a -, Oceanslclc F2034 . . L Li. bL 3133 ,Ci*:v~lne Drrve, Cceanside 42056 20 :-xi ; _ . . Eteicer 7172 CL-v1 ina T*rit* fine, 92Oj6
3. ~anypenocride~~punwnt~(l)or(r)rbou,l,r tmpomrmor~,nstth8Mfn8a8ndaddfess8s
ofallindividu~sowninOmoro~1~olttnrhu~h~~~orownirrOuypvtrunhipirrtH~inthe
partnership.
4. tfW7ypMSOII~~tO(1)W@)-k8~~ W8tlWt,IbtthOMfW-
addrossoaofanypusmsonMg8#ofUcuordlmc!orai~nor+grdlt
thotrust
oqpnMbnqr8stMtaow~ol
N/E.
FAMOOO1 12tQl 81
-a-- . __ --.-a, m-I-.- a mmd*bmrl erll4emlr nr)Md- *ST11 . ll*(Q\ A-W-1 161 ah
‘isclown sf8tw7mnt P8g@ 2
. Have you had mor8 than $250 worth of business trans8Cted with any member of City staff, Boar&,
Commissions, Committees and COunCil within the past tweh~e months?
Yes - No L If yes, p/98$0 indicate person(s)
Pawn IO ddnod a8: ‘Any indhdml. Rmt. Co~lp. M VUWJm. anddon+ 8ocAd dub. kdmld wguam. cwpwdwl, w. b-J&
~~ndicao, thir and uy 0th~ ceunty, city and county, clly munictpabhty, dlm@iu w ahrr PourrcrJ rUMhl06 or uly O@W OrWe w wmbmkm mng Y
unit.’
Zarbara Lance
name of owner
Sarbara Sanqe .“‘.aryt E teiqer
Pfintortyponaflloofapplicant
I h E
-:.. --
-,. ! 3; L -- I >’ *I . -..-
ai : c-
8 ..i ( 5 I 2 j
i ,
.,” ;>; ’
Ij / ?’ ‘\$ -%\. ’ +1 &,% -. T ,qp _’
v / :/ /’
-2' i'
.q : .*
h I j' :
--+
I
---- ..L. .I * ‘(G. iI. ! -7 t ,-.I ,,i !” ;.* .I k lr t D ir
J- 1
111 -_. - .-,
=I dir p
z
Ill
6.
i-
EXHIBIT “A’
I
h f -
9 E i%
EXHIBIT “ ”
I’ ‘1
$ q
I- I c.. 1. I :;:;-;i + ,
.-hb
\
;{ t ${ ;f
8; 12
! I I!#
T
-- i ri jia;
; /^
;
i:
j ;:
4 : I
EXHIBIT “DE
I .- . . .___ I. __. -. . . .
t---
+--
_.. ._ --.-. _. , t-,a t -- .&I -.
‘\. I-== I ._ r I r 3 ! j--j II&&- I . .
.
i -
I--
h i
f-
+--- -- ,a-,+
I t
EXHIBIT “E’
-4 Ir I I
; I
$ : . i
1
4 5
!
!ii d
. f
= f f 5 f
- -a - . ., .
x e
I
7’ !I Ii: jf 1 ;: t .z;‘.,
EXHIBIT “F”
#,i, .* :*; ‘: _ .t , . . :* : ii: ___..___-_ - ..__ ._-- _ ..-_ __i_.--- .-._ -_ Y-l.& _b- _. _-.. .-_---- ---..-Le.--- ---- i-0)
i - i
1'
/” ’ .’ 4, : L, I
II
I: = 2 ,i “’ I
= 1 1. E$ -$
j 2’1 1 J@
:(I 9 t; tE
I E)(Hl& “&:
. ..- : ..; pa-~>:~u.>*,-Aay-,~ LLrL;~,~~p-urrurrruYurPuur.---
EXHIBIT 4
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. CUP 90-15(A) - SAINT FRANCIS COURT - Request for an amendmentof a Conditional Use
Permit to modify one condition to extend the time by which building permits must be issued and add
one condition to ensure that the project complies with the requirements of the revised senior housing
ordinance. This would allow the development of senior citizen housing consisting of 76 total units, of
which 61 units will be restricted a$ affordable housing units, 14 units will be market rate units, and
one unit will be for an on-site manager. The project would be developed on two existing, R-3 zoned
lots located on the north side of Laguna Drive at the terminus of Madison Street, in the Northwest
Quadrant of the City, in the Coastal Zone, within Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
Commissioner Monroy excused himself from the hearing because his daughter lives in the vicinity of the
project. He left the room.
PLANNING COMMISSION October 18,1995 PAGE 2
Eric Munoz, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that this is an
amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit for the Saint Francis Court project which was approved
in August 1993. With that original approval by the City Council, there was a condition included which
required that building permits be pulled within two years of the date of approval. August 3, 1995 was the
deadline. The applicant, in keeping with required time lines, requested an amendment to this CUP to
specifically amend this condition to allow another two years, until August 1997, to pull permits. Staff
recommends approval.
Mr. Munoz noted that the Planning Department received a note from Thomas and Thelma Hayes, who are
temporarily residing in Montana, regarding this project. They are requesting that the number of parking
spaces not be reduced for the project and that sidewalks be constructed on the north end of Madison Street
and the north end of Roosevelt Street, which pedestrians need desperately to walk safely to the Village
center. She would also like to see street lights installed on Roosevelt, north of the post office.
Chairperson Welshons invited the applicant to speak.
Mary Steiger, 3138 Skyline Drive, Oceanside, co-applicant, addressed the Commission and reviewed the
history of her project. She stated that the permits were never pulled because of the economic downturn
and the inability to secure financing. She feels that the extension of time will enable the market to continue
to improve which will then improve the marketability of the project. Both are required in order to secure
financing.
Commissioner Erwin inquired when this project first came to the Planning Commission. Ms. Steiger
replied in 1991.
Commissioner Erwin commented that he remembers this project when it first came in. There was a lot of
discussion at that time regarding density. He recalls that he voted against it because of the high density.
Commissioner Compas inquired whether a two year extension would be sufficient to secure financing. Ms.
Steiger replied she is not sure. She has heard of a new federal program which may apply to the project.
Chairperson Welshons opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Patricia Speelman, 2430 Buena Vista Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she
lives adjacent to the property. She is not opposed to senior housing but she is very opposed to this project because it reaches almost to her fence. She stated that there is currently a towing business being run out
of the property and there are junk cars strewn about. The property was neatened up prior to the last
meeting and the trees were cut and mulched but she was unhappy that all the mulch was dumped right
next to her property. There are also junk yard dogs on the property that bark loudly and seem to be
vicious. She doesn’t believe the property owner knows what she is doing to the community. The neighbors
don’t want to put up with all the problems. She doesn’t think that a business should be allowed to be run
out of a home situated in R3 zoning. She presented a petition from all the neighbors on Buena Vista Circle
who are requesting that the CUP not be extended. There are 24 names on the petition.
Commissioner Compas inquired how she would feel if the CUP is denied but the business allowed to stay.
Ms. Speelman reiterated that she has no problem with senior housing. What disappoints her the most is
that the project is three stories high just 20 ft. from her property line. She will lose all her privacy. Her
ultimate goal would be to have the project reduced by nine units. This could be done by eliminating the
rear building. She could accept the project if that were done.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if she had voiced her complaints to the code enforcement officer. Ms.
Speelman replied that she has done this on numerous occasions. The last she heard is that they were
trying to serve the renter.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION October 18,1995 PAGE 3
Diedre Knowlton, 2430 Buena Vista Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she also
objects to the height and density of the proposed project. The height will shadow her property and she will
lose all her sunshine. She also doesn’t like the balcony on the rear building. Anyone on the balcony will
be able to see directly into her bedroom, living room, and kitchen. Even the 13 ft. trees between her home
and the project will not preserve her privacy. Ms. Knowlton stated that she doesn’t believe there is enough
parking for the project and that cars will be parked on the street. Finally, she is concerned about the
drainage. She thinks the project should take rainwater runoff to Laguna Drive. Her property is lower than
the project property so currently the water runs onto her land and pools there. She requested that the
Commission consider these factors and decline the CUP extension.
David McMann, 2401 Buena Vista Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he wants
everyone to know that he is not opposed to senior housing. He does not accept the applicant’s comments
that she has been unable to secure financing due to the economy. He believes the real reason is that the
applicant has not made a good effort to locate financing. He also suspects that another reason is that the project is poorly designed. He originally heard that the City would be providing some of the financing and
he would like to know if that is still the case. Mr. McMann is also concerned about the conversion plan and
would like to know if the project would still revert to 14 units if it is not successful. He sees no mention of
that in the staff report. He has also heard that the CUP process would be abandoned on this project
because the ordinance has been amended. If that happens, what will happen if the applicant does not
perform. Mr. McMann doesn’t want to see the uncertainty of this project go on for another two years.
Chairperson Welshons allowed the applicant an opportunity for rebuttal.
Mary Steiger, 3138 Skyline Drive, Oceanside, co-applicant, addressed the Commission and responded as
follows:
* Flooding - All of the water from the homes behind the property runs onto her property. It is a major
problem. During the original approval, they had engineers speak to the problem and there are plans on
file in the Planning Department which will eliminate the flooding problems. Since the City constructed
the curbs and gutters, the water cannot flow out so it pools on the property. She is trying to get
something done before the rainy season starts.
* Tenant Problems - She realizes that there has been a problem with the tenant and she has spoken to
code enforcement about it. One man rents the property. Many families with children have approached
her to rent the property. She has sent the tenant a letter stating that he must comply with the zoning, as
stipulated in his lease. She understands that code enforcement has spoken with him and they are now
satisfied that is in compliance. The man does have two dogs but there is over an acre of property and it
is completely fenced. He is entitled to have two dogs and there is no way the dogs can get through the fence.
* Parking - She feels that the project is adequately parked. If Commissioners want to see a similar project
to see if there are parking problems, they should look at the Tyler Street and Jefferson Street senior
housing projects.
Chairperson Welshons inquired what efforts are being made to secure financing. Ms. Steiger replied that she met with a HUD lender in Los Angeles in 1990-91, however she did not submit an application. That
lender seemed to think it was a good project. Most other lenders she has spoken to would require a market
study which costs $7,500 so she has not pursued it further.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if any recent contact has been made with HUD. Ms. Steiger replied that
HUD is not a lender; they would only insure a loan.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION October 18,1995 PAGE 4
Chairperson Welshons inquired what lenders have been contacted since 1990-91. Ms. Steiger replied that
she contacted Bank of America but the economy was bad at that time.
Commissioner Compas inquired if the extension is approved, when would a market study be done. Ms.
Steiger replied that she would not want to do a market study unless she feels the market is ready and
viable. That depends a lot on whether lenders are willing to lend on this type of project.
Commissioner Compas inquired if she plans to do anything on the rear building to appease the neighbors.
Ms. Steiger replied that the rear building has already been scaled down. She realizes that the roof is flat
but she would like to use it as a balcony because it has a great view.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if any lenders had been contacted in the last year. Ms. Steiger replied that
the market is not viable yet.
Commissioner Nielsen commented that all indications are that the market will be improving this next year.
Ms. Steiger concurred that the signs are hopeful. She spoke with CHAPA and they indicated there are
funds available. However, she did not want to submit an application without an extension to the CUP.
Commissioner Compas inquired if she concurs that the property is an eyesore. Ms. Steiger replied that the
major problem is water. She doesn’t know yet what can be done about the water.
Chairperson Welshons inquired why nothing has been done yet to secure Coastal Commission approvals.
Ms. Steiger replied because the market was bleak.
Chairperson Welshons requested staff to respond to the public and applicant comments.
Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, stated that the project requires a drainage system from the property
to Laguna Drive to transport the ponding water to the street system.
Eric Munoz, Associate Planner, responded as follows:
. The City’s equity position in the project has not changed since the original approval. The conversion
plan also remains the same.
. The CUP process is not being abandoned; however, the current code requires a Site Development Plan
for senior housing.
* Trees and power lines were a topic at the last hearing. Staff has consulted with the City’s landscape
consultant who feels that landscaping will screen the neighboring property and the landscape concept is
in substantial conformance with this project’s preliminary landscape plans.
* The project parking meets the code now as it also did with the original approval.
* Code enforcement has advised that their case has now been closed; it has not been reopened.
Mr. Munoz went to the side board and described the building layout and an overview of the property rights
available to property owners adjacent to the project site. He stated that there is sufficient room for a
balcony on top of the rear building, as a project amenity for the seniors.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairperson Welshons
declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION October 18,1995 PAGE 5
Chairperson Welshons inquired how much control the Commission has to require the applicant to secure
financing. Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, replied that the Commission can approve the project as it
is tonight or additional conditions could be added, including requiring a good faith effort to obtain financing
by a date certain or shortening the time of the proposed amendment to force that good faith effort.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the Commission would be establishing a precedent by doing that. Mr.
Rudolf replied that he has not been on staff long enough to know if there is a precedent. He believes it is
more a fairness issue than a precedent issue. Future applicants will seek treatment similar to that given to
this applicant.
Mr. Wayne stated that in his 15 year tenure with the City, he does not recall the Planning Commission ever
having to deal with a financing issue. However, the Planning Commission has required good faith actions
before. The real issue here is performance. If building permits are not pulled in two years, the CUP would
be null and void. The Commission could require the applicant to come back and show good faith.
Commissioner Noble inquired if the State of California’s two year moratorium would have any effect on this
project. Mr. Munoz replied that the moratorium applied only to tentative maps, not site development plans
or conditional use permits.
Commissioner Nielsen is bothered by the due diligence on the part of the applicant. There has been no
action by the applicant to secure a loan. She commented to Commissioner Compas that she doesn’t see
the project being constructed in the near future. There is a real question whether or not the project is
viable.
Chairperson Welshons polled the Commission to determine what action should be taken. She advised
them that the Commission can accept the CUP amendment, deny the amendment, or modify the
conditions to require the applicant to secure financing.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that he could go along with a one year extension with a requirement that the
applicant take action to secure a lender.
Commissioner Savary agrees with Commissioner Nielsen for a one year extension. During that time, the
applicant must secure financing and Coastal Commission approval.
Commissioner Noble stated that he is not in a position to stop the applicant from going bankrupt. That is
her privilege. He thinks the Commission should approve the extension, but only for one year.
Commissioner Compas could go along with a maximum one year extension and the applicant must show
that they have made some progress toward financing.
Commissioner Erwin stated that he opposed this project last time but the Commission is not discussing the
merits of the project tonight. It is obvious that no good faith effort was made to get funding. He would
support a one year extension from August 1995. That is sufficient time to get Coastal Commission
approval and find a lender.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if this will go on to the City Council. Chairperson Welshons replied yes.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION October 18,1995 PAGE 6
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Nielsen, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3798, recommending approval of an amendment to
Conditional Use Permit 90-l 5 (CUP 90-l 5(A)), based upon the findings and subject to
the conditions contained therein, with the modification that the extension is for one year
only and will expire in August 1996.
VOTE: 6-O-l
AYES: Compas, Erwin, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Monroy
Staff was directed to make the appropriate wording changes in the resolution to reflect the one year
extension.
RECESS
The Commission recessed at 7:15 p.m. and reconvened at 7:23 p.m.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, was excused from the meeting due to illness.
Commissioner Monroy returned to the meeting.
-7 IT
DOE 4036
,I-SBAD CA 92018
-
-e 55 Printed ++*
‘iSBAD LAGUNA APARTMENTS
:-7 MONTGOMERY ST
:,:JILiE :?A 95955
-tA+!GN e. jUANIT GOMEZ
k~lhs SANTA ROSA CT
IIf=; 4.qiij-j cgi 91734
.3GE r-T SC ADRIENNE SOOHOO
,3fiy 4QslJ: ZiE>>c;O ,:a 42154
PREWETT ELAINE R EST OF
PO aox 53B!
ruri-AcC IL wt I* I 505B#
2Ai EN C NORNHOLD
,?<I15 BALDWIN LN
C +?EfLSBAD CA 92008
ZLSBREF LEW I S
:7 DORA DR
::7IFF BY THE SEA CA 433Q.7
“:4:-23CSPE S ,:< ?!AR‘,’ \/iRGA - 1
:,II:T f-iYt;E 1 ,I 4L’E ’ p+- I,\1I’AS <;A I 92024
ANzzELPO .T; L 1 NC+ **=ylTzA I VI-0 YL
,771: YAFift!ET ST
3CEqqS I DE 69 S,7Q5&
-Icay i-4 ,CaltAHAN
.1 B’;EPJ+J L’ISTA CIR
-...534D CA 92iJcJe
AS;-LSB+z~ L;\::UNA AFARTMENTS i-,7 LL c’C!rJTG~,~:ER’f ST
:.~!iC~l’v’I i-i-E CA 95959
f?Q”C-pT A I.* 5 MERRY BORDEN
;I0 ISOY 1244
C /:HLSBAD CA 92013
ij’iiI,>$fT x zp’cps IL .-
23 ClIiRPDRATE PARK 139
!RV::\\iE +;; 92714
=I.::& 6 LOWRY
: BijE?J?A :-,iSTA CiR
-,-;DAD ;‘A 92iwa
nl:L:tiARD A & JOELLEN PENMAN
24 3 1 BUENA VISTA CIR I:.+\$!LSR,Z$D CA 92053
JOHN DEYzLING
2411 PIJEMA VISTA ::IR
CtlRLS~AD CA 92003
q‘f TP:soLL
13 _,,4 - _. ---r,Tf?RG LN
_ i- 5 E A D !:: A 92009
i r?!&?ENCE E % KRISTINA NUGENT
7391 BUENA VISTA CIR
r:t\%LSBAD CA 92009
JGi4P.J C LEVY
2391 BUEXA VISTA CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92003
JiFFREV t ANN CHANDLER
FC I-10X 1319
RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92067
. ES .?A?1 1 LY
7; :?:XNA ‘:ISTA ZIR
:.:SBAD CA 92003
AR-I HUR E k .WIRTHA BELL
2X1 BJJENA VISTA CIR
I’PRLSDAD CA 92003
lMAS H HM’ES
001, 1356
‘,>TjBAD CA 92013
I<,-:( I?xJC
J’j5S SWALLOW LN
; AHLSPAD CA 92009
DO!? IS M !‘,URNER
2451 FUENA VISTA CIR
CARLS-nAD CA 92008
;54T ‘, SHIRLEY EIIMERLING
: $?-:i ST
.+~TTahi EEACH CA 90265
JBERTO F ;!x SARA ROJAS
650,ROOSEVELT ST
ARLSBAD CA 92003
- NEMETH
L 132 SAXONY RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
- JOE P ,Pc FRANCES APDDACA
2622 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD 1CA 92008
ZOLEDAD SOT0
r7J!5 MADISON ST
I:AHLSBAD CA 92003
JCSE .?.I i’f4RY ?l‘iORENO
2$5 MAD i SON ST
;TAqL_s;BA~ CA 92003
INCENT B a?+ ANNE RYAN
1:03 FEDERAL HILL DR
ALLS CHURCH VA 22044
ERA A SDTO
*?5 OAK AVE
-^.RiSBAC CA 92003
1-i ; ERGIN
:.(‘??5 SKYLINE RD
I:t\RLSB.AC CA 92003
FPESIDENTIAL PLA.ZA pg i<C:i: i ,567 ,~+s?l-SBJ’.D CA 92013
-MES P ?+ LiLLIAN GORDON
,2 BOX 594
+RLSBAD CA 92013
>RAJENDRA 6 Z. PRATIMA DESAI
:‘o i3o:x 7205
CAF ISTRANO BEACH CA 92624
.JIJD 1 TH A THOMSCiN
22902 BEiGUEST DR
EL. Tt?RO CA 92630
Cl‘.!EV I E/E JEFFERSON
.! BOX 645
-nLSBAD CA 92019
C.HANEY
i’7?2 YADISON ST
<‘t?HLSBAD CA 92009
;ETH $+OE?J 1.2
PCC R@.X 252401
ENCINiTAS CA 92023
JACK D PHILiIPS
37~2 1 idGRAHaM ST
SAN DiEGO ,,a ?2109
.THARD S & LESLIE LAPJDRETH
=* ARBUCKLE PL _
--R’LSBPD CA 9xm3
DANIEL R SWEM
43il; ELM TREE DR
K:F ANS I DE CA 92056
S I FINASJCIAL CORP
PO BOX 925
FsqJLB~@Og. c+ 92088
ANLON
-06 BORLA .=‘L
-5iiSB4D CA 92009
REFCO ENTERPRISES INC
PC1 BOY 7103
:iANCHO SANTA FE C.A 92067
.STON H ?< YELEN TUCKER
Ii0 MADISON ST
-:JLSBAD CA 92003
PE-iER A t GEORGETTE ROCK
3121 S EL CAMINO REAL
SpsN CLEMENTE CA 92672
GOlLL FAMiLY
362 MZRNINCSIDE DR ,:222 F\-:LLERmrON CA 92635
4NENE ENTERPRISES INC
79 JEFFERSON ST
iLSBAD CA 92003
i:T.-TOf t ANGELA BALAKER e * .-.
3311 ALDER 4:JE
<ARLSBAD CA 921203
33 BENISON
-14 MADiSON ST
?iSBAD CA 92003
STEPHEN f.1 & CATHERINE STROiHER
3311 MARGARET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92003
,:ErjRGE $< IDELLA SVIHVS
755 LAGUzNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
‘\YO MARGARET A
i? CAMINITO VERDE
-,RLSBAD CA 92009
SONDRA CURTIN
3449 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92003
CLYDE J b DORA BARSON
2725 JEFFERSON ST 6
SARLSBAD CA 92003
-i’,‘ILLE W HONE
“6 ORANGE AUE 601 PONADO CA 92118
PAN I Bi JANE MAGTIRE
PO BON 4239
CARLSBAD CA 92013
CTTq M y: IL CATHERINE BANDEMER
2720 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92003
X 0 t ANA AGUINA
STATE ST
3BAD CA 92008
P HEALD
,3x 1707
1ROOK CA 92088
ARDSO% PROS CONTRACTORS IN
?Y 1211
33AD CA 92018
MARIAN MILLER
-’ Y 672
r CA 92074
,.I IL MORRDW
-1AD I SON ST
.S.AD CA 92008
-J BARLOW
‘-I “ANKFDRT ST
-L-15:3 CA 92117
:ibS OFFICE PARTNERSHIP
fK.30 IlEECH AVE A
CARLSDAD CA 92008
RICHARD i JQNEf
l;‘lBS ROYAL LYTHAM ROW
SAN DIEGO CA 92128
:jERRj-IANN J zf HILTR’JD GLZCWLER
10345 ilEiI5SA CT
C:UPEPT IN0 CA 95014
WI!.iO;-I PROPERTi ES
4;‘OO K.EPRNY MESA PI?
SAN DIEGO CA 92111
.r RF JO
;‘SP7 MADISON BT
i‘t\RLSBAD CA 92OOB
VIRGINIA L .Sr GARY JACKSON
2713 ROOSEVELT ST e. t-ARLSBAD CA 92008
~-lt:ST:~?Z
pn 740s: LSO
CARLSBAD CA 92018
DRADfJ!$W
iBB08 DRAVATA CT
SAN DIEGt CA 92123
ADA 3 **scp::;I
2‘51 Cr;NEFLG.iER ST
ENC INITAS CA 92024
RO3ERT A DiiFF
2590 ROOSEVELT ST
CASLSEAD CA 92OO.B
ALEXAXDER t IRENE NEt$ZTij
1172 SAXONY RD
EINCIINITAS CA 92024
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN
G- i”3
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, September 20, 1995, to consider a request for an extension of a
Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of senior citizen housing consisting of 76 total
units of which 61 units would be restricted as affordable housing units, 14 units will be market
rate units and one unit for an on-site manager on two lots zoned R-3 located on the north side
of Laguna Drive at the terminus of Madison Street in the Northwest Quadrant of the City, in
the Coastal Zone within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 generally located at and more
particularly described as:
Parcel A and B of that portion of Lot 1, Township 12 South, Range 5 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California.
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 September 14, 1995. If you
have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (619) 438- 1161, ext.
4441.
If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CUP go- 15x 1
CASE NAME: SAINT FRANCIS COURT
PUBLISH: SEPTEMBER 8, 1995
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
(For.m A)
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
‘$3 -L
Attached ace the materials necessary for you to notice
CUP 90-15(A) - St. Francis Court Amendment
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of
.
Thank you.
Assfstant City Man-‘
November 9, 1995
Date