HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-05; City Council; 13535; Costa Do Sol, . .
C=I”Y OF CARLSBAD - I*& AGE-- BILL $+($&!a
COSTA DO SOL - SP 203(A)/CT 92-01 (A)/
PUD 92-01 (A)/SDP 93-04(A)
DEPT. PLN+I 1 CITY MGRSi?t
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT City Council Resolution No. % - 76 APPROVING the Negative
Declaration, SP 203(A), CT 92-01(A), PUD 92-01(A), and SDP 93-04(A), as recommended for
approval by the Planning Commission, and INTRODUCE Ordinance No. N?j- 3q 9
APPROVING SP 203(A).
ITEM EXPLANATION
On January 3, 1996 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Costa Do Sol
project. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Negative Declaration, Specific
Plan Amendment, Tentative Map Revision, Planned Development Permit Amendment, and Site
Development Plan Amendment. The commission’s vote on all the project actions was 5 to 1
(Monroy). Two citizens gave public testimony at the hearing. The first citizen to speak was
opposed to allowing the developer to purchase Affordable Housing Credits in Villa Loma and
the second speaker was in favor of allowing the credit purchase.
The Planning Commission’s primary discussion focused on the Developer’s request to satisfy
the project’s inclusionary housing requirements through the purchase of Affordable Housing
Credits in Villa Loma. Most of the commission’s questions and discussion involved recently
adopted City Council Policies No. 57 and 58, and the recommendations of the Combined Project
Review Committee. The lnclusionary Housing Ordinance designates the City Council as the final
decision-maker on this matter and it is the council’s exclusive prerogative to determine whether
or not it is in the public interest to allow the project to participate in a combined project such as
Villa Loma.
The amended project was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission with the
condition that allows the Developer to purchase credits in Villa Loma, subject to compliance with
Policies No. 57 and 58. In support of the credit purchase condition, the Planning Commission
acknowledged the recommendation of the Combined Project Review Committee and made a
finding that the Developer’s request to purchase credits is consistent and in compliance with the
policies and procedures of the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance and City Council Policies Nos.
57 and 58. The Planning Commission also acknowledged that the Mariners Point project
located directly east and within Specific Plan 203, was approved by the City to participate and
satisfy their inclusionaty housing requirements in an off-site affordable housing project referred
to as the Laurel Tree project, which is located north of the specific plan.
On March 31, 1994 the City Council unanimously approved the original Costa Do Sol project.
The property has since been purchased by Greystone Homes Inc., and they are requesting an
amendment to the approved project which consists of the following changes:
1. Replacement of 40 condominium units and a small recreational area in the eastern
portion of the site with 7 single-family homes on lots ranging in size from 7,067 to 16,692
square feet;
2. Redesign of the RV storage area and open space recreational lot;
3. Incorporation of a provision to allow the project’s required affordable housing units to be
located at Villa Loma; and
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 13, 53 5
4. An addition of a new provision to Specific Plan 203, to allow the Villa Loma and Laurel
Tree combined affordable housing projects to potentially satisfy the inclusionary housing
requirements for residential projects within Specific Plan 203.
A Negative Declaration was processed addressing the Specific Plan Amendment. The
environmental document was found by staff and the Planning Commission to have been
prepared in compliance with State and City regulations. The requested changes in the Tentative
Map, Planned Development Permit, and Site Development Plan, including the reduction in the
number of total dwelling units from 152 to 119 units, would not create any additional
environmental impacts that have not otherwise been evaluated in the Final EIR that covers the
property. The reduction in the total number of dwelling units further reduces any potential visual,
air quality, traffic, public service, and resource impacts that may result from implementation of
the project. Since a Final EIR was certified for Specific Plan 203 and the requested amendments
to CT 92-01 are consistent with the plan, no additional environmental review is required per the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
FISCAL IMPACT
As discussed in the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan, all necessary major capital
facilities will be provided concurrent with development and funded by the Developer of the
project. A financing plan that comprehensively addresses the provisions of public facilities within
the facility zone has been approved by the City Council.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS
II Facilities Zone I-I 20 II II Local Facilities Management Plan I I - 20 II
II Growth Control Point I - I 6 DU/ACRE II II Net Density I-I 4.14 II ir----~ Special Facilities I - I C.F.D. NO. 1 ~~~~ II
EXHIBITS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
City Council Resolution 9s - 76
City Council Ordinance A/S- 3y7
Location Map
Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 3862, 3863, 3864, 3865, and 3866
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 3, 1996
Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 3, 1996.
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
RESOLUTION NO. 96-76
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,
TENTATIVE MAP REVISION, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AMENDMENT, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE, NORTH OF CAMINO DE
LAS ONDAS, WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 203 IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 20 IN THE
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE CITY.
CASE NAME: COSTA DO SOL
CASE NO: SP 203(A)/CT 92-01 (A)/PUD 92-01 (A)/SDP 93-04(A)
WHEREAS, on January 3, 1996 the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider a Negative Declaration, Specific Plan Amendment
(SP 203(A)), Tentative Map Revision (CT 92-01(A)), Planned Development Permit
Amendment (PUD 92-01 (A)), and Site Development Plan Amendment (SDP 93-04(A)),
for project development on 28.39 acres of land and adopted Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 3862, 3863, 3864, 3865, and 3866 respectively, recommending
approval to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on 19th day of
MARCH , 1996, held a public hearing to consider the recommendations and heard
all persons interested in or opposed to SP 203(A)/CT 92-01 (A)/PUD 92-01 (A)/SDP 93-
04(A); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Negative Declaration on the above referenced project is
approved, and that the findings and conditions of the Planning
Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3862, on
file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the
findings and conditions of the City Council.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I.7
I.8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval
of the Specific Plan Amendment (SP 203(A)) is approved and that the
findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3866, on file with the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the
City Council and Ordinance m-349 shall be contemporaneously
adopted.
4. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval
of the Tentative Map Revision (CT 92-01(A)) is approved and that the
findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3863, on file with the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the
City Council
5. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval
of the Planned Development Permit Amendment (PUD 92-01 (A)) is
approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning
Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3864, on
file with’ the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the
findings and conditions of the City Council.
6. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval
of the Site Development Plan Amendment (SDP 93-04(A)) is approved
and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission
contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3865, on file with the
City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and
conditions of the City Council.
7. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, ‘Time
Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT’
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be
sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6,
which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking
judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later that the
nineteenth day following the date on which this decision becomes
final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a
request for the record of the deposit in an amount sufficient by the
required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost
of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition
may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day
following the date on which the record is either personally delivered
or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A
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
written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings
shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008.”
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 19th day of MARCH , 1996, /
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
3
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
ORDINANCE NO. !6-349
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SPECIFIC PLAN 203
TO DESIGNATE VILLA LOMA AND LAUREL TREE AS TWO
OFF-SITE COMBINED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS
THAT ARE POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE TO SATISFY
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 203 ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF PASEO DEL
NORTE, SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, AND
NORTH OF THE AVIARA MASTER PLAN, IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: COSTA DO SOL
CASE NO: SP 203(A)
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Specific Plan 203 is amended as shown on the two
exhibits, dated January 3, 1996, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission
as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3866 constitutes the findings and
conditions of the City Council.
SECTION Ill: The Council further finds that this action is consistent with the
General Plan in that the Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the Housing
Element of the General Plan and it complies with the requirements of the
lnclusionary Housing Ordinance. Designating off-site combined affordable housing
sites such as Villa Loma and Laurel Tree that are potentially available to residential
projects within Specific Plan 203 assists in meeting the affordable housing goals
and objectives for those projects that qualify to purchase Affordable Housing
Credits.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it
. ‘.
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
to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of
Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the day of , 1996, and thereafter
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad on the day of I 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES: ,c ;i
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
Al-TEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
2
, .
SPECIFIC PLAN 203 MINOR AMENDMENT
The following text shall be added to Page 45 of Section lV.C.3.ii., Affordable Housing
Section of Specific Plan 203:
(4 Subject to review and approval of the staff Combined Project Review
Committee in accordance with City Council Policies No. 57 and 53,
and approval of an affordable housing agreement by the City of
Cartsbad, residential projects in Specific Plan 203 may be allowed
to provide their required inclusionary housing units in the Wlla Loma
and Laurel Tree projects subject to the availability of Affordable
t-lousing Credits. Exhibit 9A shows the location of these projects in
relation to these projects in relation to Specific Plan 203.
Oceanstde
‘I -, i A+-- v- . n, / 7- I ,
Laurel T-- -
0 ..\n.- :’ __ 1 ., ,: p ,*7 r--rl _ -. .%m
4 ..,Q, ) 1 g- y&+ - FL/ ---/t ._.._.._.. *..- ‘. ki r .? - I- di 5 6 .\ 19 I. I
/ ._.._.._.._.._ ry- - 11
VliiaLoma~ San m3go
County
Encmtas
Exhibit 9A HofrnanP,anning ---.--~---- -- ------; _._.. ---;-.--------~; __________ -;--.-- OffsIte -Cwlb!ned !nclus!onary -&QJeC& *ssociates .__. .._____..__ City of Cadsbad, ZONE 20 SPEClF!CPLAN~ ---. -- - ------------------ ------_-____________-~~~-~~~~~~.-~~.._______
- EXHIBIT 3
COSTA DO SOL
CT 92-01 (A)/PUD w-01 (A)/
SDP 93-04(A)/SP 203(A)
. ’
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
f 23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3862
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIFIC
PLAN TO DESIGNATE VILLA LOMA AND LAUREL
TREE AS TWO OFF-SITE COMBINED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECTS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY
AVAILABLE TO SATISFY INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 203 ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE,
SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, AND NORTH
OF THE AVIARA MASTER PLAN.
CASE NAME: COSTA DO SOL
CASE NO: SP 203(A)
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for approval of the project
more fully described as an amendment to a specific plan to designate Villa Loma and
Laurel Tree as two off-site combined affordable housing projects that are potentially
available to satisfy inciusionary housing requirements for residential projects within Specific
Plan 203, for certain property to wit:
Portions of Lots G and H of the Ranch0 Agua Hedionda Land
Grant Map 823, and portions of Sections 21, 22, and 28,
Township 12S, R4W.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of January, 1996,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law and provided in Section 19.04 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows: Il
‘. -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
f 23
24
25
26
27
20
-.
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative
Declaration according to Exhibit “ND”, dated September 5, 1995 and “PIT’,
dated August 29,1995 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
Findings:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have
a significant impact on the environment.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified
for this project and any comments thereon prior to recommending approval of the
project. Based on the EL4 Part-II and comments thereon, the Planning Commission
finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on
the environment and thereby recommends approval of the Negative Declaration.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of January, 1996, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Nielsen, Noble, Savary
and Welshons
NOES: Commissioner Monroy
ABSENT: Commissioner Erwin
ABSTAIN: None
WILLIAM COMPAS, chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNkG CGMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3862 -2- /a
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Portions of Lots G and H of the Ranch0 Aqua
Hedionda Land Grant Map 823, and portions of
Sections 21, 22 and 28, Township 125, R4W.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) to
designate two ofkite combined Affordable Housing
Projects as potentially available to satisfy the inclusionary
housing requirements of residential projects in SP 203.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public
are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days
of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning
Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4455.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
b
JG:kr
SEPTEMBER 5, 1995
MICHAEL J. HaZhkfLLER
SP 203(A) Planning Director
ZONE 20 - MINOR HOUSING AMENDMENT
SEPTEMBER 5, 1995
Rev. 6/W lmAdalii\Merg~-w~ot
/3
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Cartsbad. California 92009-l 576 - (619) 438-l 161 @
. .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TG BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. SP 203(A)
DATE: August 29. 1995
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Zone 20 - Minor Housinp Amendment
APPLICANT: Grevstone Homes Inc.
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 495 E. Rincon. Suite 115. Corona
California 91719
DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment of the Zone 20 Snecific Plan (SP 203) to designate two offsite
combined Affordable Housine Proiects as notentiallv available to satisfy the inclusionarv housing
reauirements of residential nroiects in SP 203.
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 - Transportation/Circulation - Public Services
- Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems
- Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics
- fWater -- - Cultural Resources
-AirQuality - Noise - Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Significance
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
Onthebasisofthisinitjnlev&uation:
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 find 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.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuan t to applicable standards and (b) have
heen avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice
of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
lill
q
q
q
q
m
--%FQLd+. & Planney *turur
p- I- ys-
Date
Date
2 Rev. 3/2ap5 /.j-
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to detamine 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 Bnvironmental 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 Signifkant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant.
. Based on an “Em-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated p ursuant to that earlier ElR 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 environme ntal document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is requir&l (Prior Compliance).
.
’
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare
an EJR if the sign.ificant 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 pumuan t 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
. . If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation memures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measues are agraxl to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate
“Potentially Signi&xut Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated
Negative Declamtiar may be prepared.
. An ElR 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 ElR 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 EXR; (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 Rev. 3mP5 17
’ rsau~(ladsuppatinllnf-samrs):
I. LAND USE AND PL,ANNlN G. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #l(s): )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? ()
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ()
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? 0
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? ()
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ()
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ()
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ()
III. GEOLOGIC PROE#EIMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
:
a) Fault rupture? (‘)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ()
c) Seismic ground kilm, including liquefaction? 0
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ()
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
5
l
Issue0 (and zsqothg Infw !3oumSl:
e)
0
g)
h)
9
Landslides or mudflows? ()
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ()
Subsidence of the land? ()
Expansive soils? ()
Unique geologic or physical features? 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? ()
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ()
c> Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ()
4 Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ()
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? ()
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? 0
c
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
0
h) kqicts to groundwater quality? ()
POtWhll~
Signifkaut
Impect
POtWipuy
SigIlifhQt
UIlh4 . . .
Izzgzd
LemThul
In&t
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
6 -.3/28/95/9
.
kulu (and suppcrtiss JnfulMicm samrs):
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? ()
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ()
POtUUiaUy
SiitlifiC.allt
EbtXltM~ Unless LessThl
Sigllifii Iwigath Significant No
hwt Lncarpor~ Impact w=t
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ()
d) Create objectionable odors? ()
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
0
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ()
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? 0
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ()
e) Hazards or bauks fix pedestrkms or bicyclists? 0
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting I alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle
raw? 0
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ()
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
7
. .
Issues (and !hppahg Illf- -1:
a>
W
cl
4
d
VIII.
a)
b)
cl
Potentially
SiillifiUUlt
Unless LeuTllaIl
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? ()
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ()
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ()
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? 0
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
0
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ()
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? ()
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous sum (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticideq chemicals or-on? 0
b) Possible i.nte&rence with an emergency response
2 plan or emergency evacuation plan? ()
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? 0
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ()
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
8 Rev. 3/28/% J 1
.-
Is?alu ouKi sqptiag r?lfw sames):
e) Increase fire hazard in amas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ()
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Jncreases in existing noise levels? 0
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ()
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? ()
b) Police Protection? ()
c) Schools? ()
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
0
e) Other governmental services? ()
XII. UTILlTlES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a)
b)
cl
$4
d
0
Ii!)
Power or natural gas? ()
Commmications systems? 0
Localorregimalwater tmtment or distribution
facilities? ()
Sewer or septic tanks? ()
Storm water drainage? 0
Solid waste dispoml? 0
Local or regional water supplies? ()
POtWiaUy
Sigllifii
Unlear LesTlMll No
lmpect
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
9
-
1 _
kSllU(lldSUppthgWaIMtiUlSamrr):
XIII. AESTHETIC!% Wouldtheproposal:
POtWidl~ signifii POtClltidl~ Unless LusTbml
S&pit-ii Mitioptioa Significant No
Impact lncarparated w=t Impect
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 0
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? () - -
c) Create light or glare? ()
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? 0
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ()
c) Affect historical resources? ()
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ()
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ()
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional park or other recreational facilities? 0
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
10 Rev. 3/28/95 2 3
-
. *
Isiws (and suppabg Ilemath solmm): -auy Sigllifii
POtddl~ Unless L.4sanan
Sigllifii luiw Significant
wJ=t Inaxpmated Impact &t
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
a)
W
cl
x
x
x
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 anal- used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
Impacts adequdy 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.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
incorporated,” describe the mitigation measums which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
11 uev- 3m;zJ 4
. -
. * DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
The Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) coven the 640 acre Zone 20 Planning Area The certified Final Program EIR
90-03 for Specific Plan 203 addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the future buildout of
the Zone 20 Specific Plan area and is on tile in the Planning Department. Use of a Program ElR enables the City
to character& the overall environmental impacts of the specific plan The Final Program EIR contains broad,
general environmental analysis that serves as an information base to be consulted when ultimately approving
subsequent development projects (i.e. tentative maps, site development plans, grading permits, etc...) within the
specific plan area.
The specific plan includes a section on affordable housing that implements the Housing Element of the General
Plan. The affordable housing section contains language stating that a residential project’s affordable housing
requirements may be satisfied outside of the specific plan and within the Southwest Quadrant, if certain findings
are made by the City Council. Minor Specific Plan Amendment SP 203(A) would further qualify this provision
in the affordable housing section by designating the location of two potential offsite combined affordable housing
projects (Villa Loma - SDP 9346 & Laurel Tree - SDP 95-01) that may be available to satisfy the inclusionary
housing requirements of residential developments in SP 203.
Before either of the two offsite combined affordable housing projects would qualify to satisfy development in SP
203 the project must have a Site Development Plan approved by the City and have subsequently undergone
environmental review per CEQA and Title 19 of the Carl&ad Municipal. Villa Loma is an approved affordable
apartment project which is currently under construction and Laurel Tree is an apartment project pending approval by the City.
LAND USE AND PLANNING/ POPULATION AND HOUSING
SP 203(A) establishes the potential location of inclusionary housing units in SP 203 and is, therefore, in compliance
with the Housing Element and the Inclusionary Housing Grdinance, Section 2 1.85.070(6) of the Carl&ad Municipal
Code. The housing section amendment does not create any environmental impacts, and all environmental impacts
associated with the development of the two combined affordable housing projects has been evaluated and
considered during the Site Development Plan process for those projects.
Due to the Mture of this project, in that no physical development is associated with the amendment of the housing
section of the specific’plan, Section III through XVI are checked “no impact” and there is no discussion of physical
environmental impacts aaso&ted with those topics on the checklist.
f
12 Rev. 3p8pL&@
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES UF APPLICABLE1
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE1
13
- ..- -
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 PROJEm.
bate Srgnature
14 Rev. 3/28p5 ‘Ef d ,’
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3863
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
r 23
24
25
26
27
20
A RESOLUTION OF THE P LANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REVISION TO A
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO REPLACE 40
CONDOMINIUM UNITS WITH 7 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS,
AND PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OFF-SITE
THROUGH THE PURCHASE OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING CREDITS IN THE VILLA LOMA PROJECT, ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF PASEO
DEL NORTE AND NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS
WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 203 IN THE SOUTHWEST
QUADRANT OF THE CITY.
CASE NAME: COSTA DO SOL
CASE No: CT 92-01(A)
WHEREAS, Greystone Homes Inc. has filed a verified application for certain
property to wit:
Parcel 2 of Parcei Map 6136 in the City of Carisbad, County of
San Diego, California, fkd and recorded in the San Diego
County Recorder’s Office, July 6,1977.
with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative
Tract Map Revision to replace 40 condominium units with 7 single-family lots, and satisfj
inclusionary housing requirements off-site by purchasing AfFordable Housing Credits in
Villa Loma, as shown on Exhibits “A-U”, dated Januaq 3, 1996, on file in the Planning
Department and incorporated by this reference (‘Tentative Map Revision for Costa Do Sol
CT 92=01(A)) as provided by Section 20.12.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 3rd day of Januq, 1996
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered ah
factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map Revision.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I 23
24
25
26
27
28
-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
commission as follcnvs:
4 That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CarIsbad Tentative Tract Map Revision, CI’
92-01(A), based on the fouowing findings and subject to the following
conditions:
FIndines:
1. The Planning Commission finds that:
a. the project is a subsequent residential development within an approved
Specific Pian (SP 203) pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines;
b. the project is consistent with Specific Plan SP 203 as amended according to
SP 203(A);
C. there was an EIR certified in connection with the prior approved Specific Pian
SP 203;
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as
significant in the prior EIR;
e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163 exist.
2. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the certified Final EIR 93-03 which are appropriate to this
Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for CT 92-
01(A) is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the
following:
a. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed
density of 4.14 du/acre is within the density range of 4 to 8 du/acre specified
for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and
is at or below the growth control point of 6 du/acre;
b. Circulation - The locai cul-de-sac street leading to the 7 singie-family lots has
36 feet of paving, 56 feet of public right-of-way, and connects to Hidden Valley
Road which is a non-loaded collector street. Ail the locai, collector, and
major streets within this area would be constructed to full public street width
PC RESO NO. 3863 -2- 42 3
!.
\ *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
t 23
24
25
26
27
28
C.
d.
e.
f.
8.
- -
&andards, and have curb, gutters, sidewalks, and underground utilities. The
proposed street system is adequate to handle the project% pedestrian and
vehicular traffic and accommodate emergency vehicles;
Noise - A noise study was completed for the project, and traffic noise from
Interstate 5 and Paseo Del Norte would not adverseiy impact the residential
development;
The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and
the Inclusionaty Housing Ordinance since the Developer has been conditioned
to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to purchase 21 Affordable Housing Credits in the Villa Loma project;
Open Space and Conservation - The project is designed to avoid the riparian
drainage area in the northwestern comer of the site. This open space would
connect with the open space on Poinsettia Park to the north. A 20 foot trail
easement is also provided along the project’s western property line to
accommodate Citywide Trail Link No. 37, which connects the future sidewalk
along Camino De Las Ondas with the future Poinsettia Community Park;
Parks and Recreation - The project is conditioned to pay park-in-lieu fees.
A six foot high masonry wall in conjunction with a heavily landscaped
easement would be provided along the northern property line to buffer the
project from the Poinsettia Community Park. The community park also
contains a 20 to 25 foot landscaped setback adjacent to the common property
between the two land uses. City Wide Trail Link No. 37 through the project
is aligned to connect with Trail Link No. 29 located within the park; and
Public Safety - The proposed project is required to provide sidewalks, street
lights, and fire hydrants, as shown on the tentative map, or included as
conditions of approval.
4. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the tial map will not be
approved unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve
the project. In addition, the project is conditioned such that a note shall be
placed on the final map that building permits may not be issued for the
project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available,
and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains
available, and the District Engineer 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;
. . . .
PC RESO NO. 3863 -3-
. l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
f 23
24
25
26
27
28
b. Prior to final map approvai the developer is conditioned to enter into an
agreement with the appropriate school district to ensure that adequate school
facilities are available to serve the project;
C. Park-in-lieu fees are required;
d. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval; and
e. The developer 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.
5. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant
to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued
availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the
project.
6. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part
of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20.
7. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 90-384.
8. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision
as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan,
any applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and
the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in
that the proposed project is required to provide sidewalks, street lights, and fire
hydrants, as shown on the tentative map, or included as conditions of approval. The
local cuide-sac street leading to the 7 single-family lots would have 36 feet of paving
and connect to Hidden Valley Road which is a non-loaded collector street. Ail the
iocai, collector, and mqjor streets within this area would be constructed to full public
street width standards, and have curb, gutters, sidewalks, and underground utilities.
The proposed street system is adequate to handle the project’s pedestrian and
vehicular traffic and accommodate emergency vehicles.
9. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for residential development at 4 to 8 du/acre
in the General Plan, in that the proposed residential land use is compatible in scaie,
architecture, and building materials with the multi-family residential development
to the south. Public street improvements would be provided to accommodate traffic
generated by the project and the project must comply with ail the drcuiation and
public facility requirements of Locai Facilities Management Pian Zone 20. The
PCFtESON0.3863 -4 I? .d' d
.
. *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
P 23
24
25
26
27
28
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
a@tcent properties to the west, south, and east have either existing residential
deveiopment or are planned for residential development, therefore, the proposed
small lot single-family residential development would be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. A six foot high masonry wail and adequate landscape
buffers and setbacks would be provided along the northern property line to minimize
impacts between the residential and community park land uses.
That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since
the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the
density proposed, in that the residential development compiles with ail city poiides
and standards, including yards, setbacks and building height, without the need for
variances from development standards.
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision,
in that the project has been designed and structured such that there are no conflicts
with any established easements.
That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive
or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that primary
building orientation, including the placement and separation of the homes, in
combination with the proposed variety of floor plans and the dominant wind/solar
radiation patterns, will allow utiiization of natural heating and cooling opportunities.
That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing
proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those
housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure f&h or
wildlife or their habitat, in that ail feasible mitigation measures or project
aitematives identified in the certified Final EIR 9343 which are appropriate to this
proJect have been incorporated into the project and no significant impacts to tish,
wildlife or their respective habitats will occur.
That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of
existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the
drainage requirements of Specific Plan 203, City ordinances, and Meiio II have been
considered and appropriate drainage facilities have been designed and secured. In
addition to City Engineering Standards and compliance with the City’s Master
Drainage Plan, National Poiiution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
standards will be satisfied to prevent any discharge violations.
PCRJBON0.3863 -5 32
1
i
2
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
? 23
24
25
26
27
28
17. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the
Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the
exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the
project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to
the impact caused by the project.
Pianninn Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Tentative
Tract Map &vision for CT 92=01(A) entitled “Costa Do Sol” as shown on Exhibits II II A - “U” on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference,
dated January 3, 1996, subject to the conditions herein set forth. Ail other
conditions and approvals of said prior permit as amended to date and not amended
by this action remain in full force and efkct. Exhibits “A” - “u”, dated January 3,
1996 replace Exhibits “A”- TV” dated October 6, 1993. Staff is authorized and
directed to make or require the Developer to make all corrections and modifications
to the exhibits and/or documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent
and conform to City Council’s final 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x W, mylar copy of the
Tentative Map as approved by the final decision making body. The Tentative Map
shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The Map copy shall be submitted
to the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or
improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
The Developer shall provide the Planning Director with a 500’ scale mylar of the
subdivision prior to the recordation of the dinal map. Said map shall show all lots
and streets within and adjacent to the Project.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan
check, a reduced, legible 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.
The final map shall not be approved unless the City Council finds as of the time of
such approval that sewer service is available to serve the subdivision.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
the District 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. A note to this effect shall be placed on the final map.
PC RI330 NO. 3863 -4s 243 .A .+I
. ’
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2 23
24
25
26
27
28
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
-.
The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July
28, 1987 (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any
development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth
management system or Facilities and Improvement Plan and to fulfill the subdivider’s
agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated April 28,1995, a mpy of which is on
file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not
paid, this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for
this project will be void.
Prior to approval of a final map or the issuance/approval of a building permit, which
ever occurs first, the Developer shall submit evidence to the Planning Director that
impacts to school facilities have been mitigated in conformance with the City’s
Growth Management Plan to the extent permitted by applicable state law. If the
mitigation involves a financing scheme such as a Mello-Roos Community Facilities
District which is inconsistent with the City’s Growth Management Plan including City
Council Policy Statement No. 38, the Developer shall disclose to future owners in the
project, to the maximum extent possible, the existence of the tax and that the school
district is the taxing agency responsible for the financing district.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are
required as part of the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan and any
amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
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 residential housing project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as
provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined
to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the
project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
Approval of CT 92=01(A) is granted subject to the approval of PUD 9241(A), SDP
9241(A), SP 203(A), and the Negative Declaration. CT 92=01(A) is subject to all
conditions contained iu planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3864,3865, and 3866
for PUD 92=01(A), SDP 92-01(A), and SP 203(A).
The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance
with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The plans shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director
prior to the approval of the final map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever
occurs first. The Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on
the approved plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition,
fkee from weeds, trash, and debris.
The first submittal of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanied
by the project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
PC RESO NO. 3863 -7- 34
. .
. *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
f 23
24
25
26
27
28
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
. . . .
The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales office
at all times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but
not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks, and streets.
Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall receive approval of a Coastal
Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission that substantially
conforms to this approval. A signed copy of the Coastal Development Permit must
be submitted to the Planning Director. If the approval is substantially different, a
revision to the tentative map shall be required.
Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, or where a map
is not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units,
the Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to
purchase 21 Mordabie Housing Credits from Villa Loma, in accordance with the
requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
and City Council Policies No. 57 and 5% dated September 12, 1995. A signed
Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the Housing and
Redevelopment Director not later than sixty (60) days after the final approvai of the
proJect by the City Council. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be
binding on all future owners and successors in interest.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are
required as part of the approved Final EIR W-03, as contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No(s) 3546.
The applicant shall submit a wall and fencing plan subJect to Planning Director
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
Prior to approval of the detailed landscape plan, the Recreational Vehicle Storage
area shall be visuaiiy screened fkom the public right-of-way with landscaping, or a
wail, or a combination of both, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
The project% final detailed landscape plan shall be amended to show 24” box trees
that are spaced at appropriate intenals within the landscape easement along the
rear of Lots 43-56 to provide a visual buffer between the park site and the homes,
to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. The trees shall be planted prior to the
occupancy of the homes on Lots 43-56.
The Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation oc all
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR 90-03 that are found by this
resolution to be feasible.
PC RESO NO. 3863 -8-
1 Engineerinn Conditions:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
t 23
24
25
26
27
28
Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions,
upon the approval of this proposed major subdivision, must be met prior to approval
of a final map.
The proJect must comply with ail of the prior Engineering Conditions of Approvai
for CT 92-01; SDP 93-04 and PUD 92-01, except for the following revisions:
a Prior Engineering Condition of Approval PC RESO. NO. 3546, number 89
“D” is deleted and changed to readz
“Ilre existing detentiondesiit basin located offsite on APN 21447142 at the
southwest comer of Poinsettia Lane and Ratiquitos Drive shall be modified
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This proJect may be eligible to apply
for a partial reimbursement for modifications.”
b. Prior Engineering Condition of Approval PC RESO. NO. 3546, number 87 is
deleted and changed to read:
T’he developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer
shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an
acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said plans shall
include, but not be iimited to the following, which shall be included in the
project’s CC&R’=”
1. The homeowner’s association shaii coordinate the use of the City’s
established program to assist residents with the removai and proper
disposal of toxic and hazardous waste products.
2. Toxic chemicais or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor
oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and
other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or
private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use
and disposai of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides,
fertiiixers and other such chemicai treatments shall meet Federal,
State, County, and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
3. Rest Management Practices shall be used to eiiminate or reduce
surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and
surface improvements.
c Prior Engineering Condition of Approvai PC RESO. NO. 3546, number 78 is
deleted and changed to readz
PCRESON0.3863 -9-
i . I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
f 23
24
25
26
27
28
25.
26.
27.
28.
The developer shall pay the planned iocai drainage am fee or shall
construct drainage systems in conformance with Master Drainage Pian and
City of Carisbad Standards as required by the City Engineer.”
d. Prior Engineering Condition of Approval PC RESO. NO. 3546, number 89 “E”
is deleted and changed to &
“Sewer service for the project shall be provided by the Poinsettia Park Off-
Site Sewer project and to the satisfaction of the Carisbad Municipai Water
District (CMWD), District Engineer. The developer shall enter into an
“Agreement for Reimbursement of Costs for the Construction of Poinsettia
Park Off-Site Sewer, CM%D project No. 94-404" for a proportional share of
the total constnuztion cost”
The developer shall pay sewer impact fees for the North Ratiquitos (Aviara) Sewer
Pump Station to provide for sewer faciiities for Lot No.% 1 through 32,105 through
121 (single-family residential units) and Lot No. 91 (site specific recreation facility)
if and only if the proJect will utiiize this pump station.
The developer shall reimburse the City of Carisbad for any portion of Hidden Valley
Road that is constructed by the City within the proJect% reai property boundary, in
conjunction with the City’s Poinsettia Park proJect.
A funding mechanism for the full improvements for Poinsettia Lane and Alga Road
must be approved or fees paid, in conformance with the updated Zone 20 Locai
Facilities Management Plan funding program.
Prior to fhuti map approval the future disposition of existing easement items 1,2 &
3, under the Existing Easements section on sheet 1 of 4 of Replacement Tentative
Map of Costa Do Sol, shall be identified.
Fire Conditions:
29. Additional on-site public water mains and fire hydrants are required.
30. Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts
location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydrants. The
plan should include off-site hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
31. Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways and
traffic circulation for Fire Department approval.
32. An all weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles shall
be provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the Fire
Chiec the access road has become unsenkeable due to inclement weather or other
reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety , require that construction operations
cease until the condition is corrected.
PC RESO NO. 3863 -lO- 3 ?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1 23
24
25
26
27
28
33. All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational before
combustible building materials are located on the construction site.
34. Prior to fmal inspection, all security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be
equipped with a “Knox”, key-operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall
contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for specifications and approvals prior installation.
Water District Conditions:
35. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can
be met.
36. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego
County Water Authority capacity will be collected at issuance of application for
meter installation.
37. Sequentially, the Developers Engineer shall do the following:
a. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection
requirements. Also obtain G.P.M. demand for domestic and irrigational needs
from appropriate parties.
b. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning
Department for processing and approval.
C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement
plans, a meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review,
comment and approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (ie -
GPM - EDU).
38. This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the
development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available
at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to
be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map.
39.
40.
Lots 1 thru 33 and lots 105 thN 121(50 totai lots) shall be served by Gravity system
that flows into existing sewer system at Camino De Las Ondas and Seascape Drive
in§ion.
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to OOCUT, 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
PC RESO NO. 3863 -1 l- 39
. *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1 23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
Code Reminders:
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
If the disturbed area is five acres or more, prior to the issuance of a grading permit
or building permit, whichever occurs first, the developer shall submit proof that a
Notice of Intention has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.
Some improvements shown on the tentative map and/or required by these conditions
are located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient
title or interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title
or interest. The applicant shall conform to Section 20.16.095 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code.
The developer shall install street lights along all public and private street frontages
in conformance with City of Carl&ad Standards.
The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the
final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carl&ad Municipal Code.
The Developer shall provide the following note on the final map of the subdivision
and final mylar of this development submitted to the City:
“Chapter 21.90 of the Carl&ad Municipal Code establishes a Growth Management
Control Point for each General Plan land use designation. Development cannot
exceed the Growth Control Point except as provided by Chapter 21.90. The land use
designation for this development is Residential Medium (RM). The Growth Control
Point for this designation is 6 dwelling units per nonconstrained acre.
Parcels l-119 were used to calculate the intensity of development under the General
Plan and Chapter 21.90. Subsequent redevelopment or resubdivision of any one of
these parcels must also include parcels l-119 under the General Plan and Chapter
21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.”
‘The following note shall be placed on the Final Map: “Prior to issuance of a building
permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the Developer shall pay a one-
time special development tax in accordance with the City Council Resolution No. 91-
39.”
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of
the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of
PC RESO NO. 3863 -12- 9 3 ;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
t 23
24
25
26
27
28
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
The project shall comply with the latest residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated
and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the
satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Building.
The Developer shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name
policy subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval.
Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required
passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping
and recreational facilities.
All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape
Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the
Planning Department.
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. 3863 -13-
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I 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 3rd day of January,
1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Nielsen, Noble, Savary
and Welshons
NOES: Commissioner Monroy
ABSENT: Commissioner Erwin
ABSTAIN: None
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chkperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3863 -14-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
f 23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3864
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIN G COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDINGAPPROVALOFANAMENDMENTTO
A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO; (1) RE-
SUBDIVIDE CONDQMINIUM LOT NO. 115 OF CT 92-01
INTO 7 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, AND; (2) REDESIGN
THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING AREA AND
THE RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE LOT, ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF PASEO
DEL NORTE AND NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS,
WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 203 IN THE SOUTHWEST
QUADRANT OF THE CITY.
CASE NAME: COSTA DO SOL
CASE No: PUD 92-01(A)
WHEREAS, Greystone Homes Inc. has filed a verified application for certain
property to wit:
Parcel 2 of Parcei Map 6136 in the City of Carisbad, County of
San Diego, California, filed and recorded in the San Diego
County Recorder% Office, July 6,1977.
with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planned
Development Permit Amendment to replace 40 condominium units with 7 single-family lots,
redesign the recreational vehicle storage parking area and recreational open space lot as
shown on Exhibits “A-U”, dated Januaq 3,1!W, on file in the Planning Department and
incorporated by this reference (“Planned Development Permit Amendment for Costa Do Sol
PUD 92=01(A)) as provided by as provided by Section 21.45.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 3rd day of January, 19%
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I 23
24
25
26
27
28
factors relating to the Planned Development Permit Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Planned Development Permit Amendment.,
PUD 92-01(A), based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission finds that:
a. the project is a subsequent residential development within an approved
Specific Plan (SP 203) pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines;
b. the project is consistent with Specific Pian 203 as amended according to SP
203(A);
C. there was an EIR certified in connection with the prior approved Specific Plan
203;
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as
significant in the prior EIR;
e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163 exist.
2. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the certified Final EIR 93-03 which are appropriate to this
Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for PUD 920
01(A) is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the
following:
a. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed
density of 4.14 du/acre is within the density range of 4 to 8 du/acre specified
for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and
is at or below the growth control point of 6 du/acre;.
b. Circulation - The iocai cuide-sac street leading to the 7 single-fmiiy lots has
36 feet of paving, 56 feet of public right-of-way, and connects to Hidden Valley
PC RESO NO. 3864 -2- -: A/ 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
s 23
24
25
26
27
28
Road which is a non-loaded collector street Ail the local, collector, and
mqJor streets within this area would be constructed to full public street width
standards, and have curb, gutters, sidewalks, and underground utilities. The
proposed street system is adequate to handle the project’s pedestrian and
vehicular traffic and accommodate emergency vehicles;
C. Noise - A noise study was completed for the proJect, and traffic noise from
Interstate 5 and Paseo Dei Norte would not adversely impact the residentiai
development;
d. Housing Element - The proJect is consistent with the Housing Element of the
Generai Plan and the Indusionary Housing Ordinance since the Developer
has been conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to
purchase 21 Affordable Housing Credits in the Villa Loma proJecti
e. Open Space and Conservation - The proJect is designed to avoid the riparian
drainage area in the northwestern comer of the site. This open space would
connect with the open space on Poinsettia Park to the north. A 20 foot trail
easement is also provided along the project% western property line to
accommodate Citywide Trail Link No. 37, which connects the future sidewalk
along Camino De Las Ondas with the future Poinsettia Community Park;
f. Parks and Recreation - The project is required to pay park-in-lieu fees. A six
foot high masonry wail in conjunction with a heavily landscaped easement
would be provided along the northern property line to buffer the proJect from
the Poinsettia Community Park. The community park also contains a 20 to
25 foot landscaped setback adJacent to the common property between the two
land uses. City Wide Trail Link No. 37 through the project is aligned to
connect with Trail Link No. 29 located within the park; and
Public Safety - The proposed project is required to provide sidewalks, street
lights, and fire hydrants, as shown on the tentative map, or included as
conditions of approval.
4. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the final map will not be
approved unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve
the project. In addition, the project is conditioned such that a note shall be
placed on the final map that building permits may not be issued for the
project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available,
and building cxmot occur within the project unless sewer service remains
available, and the District Engineer 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;
PC RESO NO. 3864 -3- +/
1
E
f
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
f 23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
b.
C.
d.
e.
Prior to final map approvai the deveioper is conditioned to enter into au
agreement with the appropriate schooi district to ensure that adequate school
facilities are available to serve the proJect;
Park-in-lieu fees are required;
All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval; and
The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and
payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be
available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant
to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued
availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the
project.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part
of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 90-384.
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the
Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the
exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the
project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to
the impact caused by the project.
That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with
Chapter 21.45 of Title 21, the General Plan, applicable specific plans, master plans,
and all adopted plans of the City and other governmental agencies, in that the
proJect is consistent with Chapter 21.45, Specific Pian 203, the Generai Pian, and
the Locai Coastai Program, because it meets ail the Planned Development standards,
the single-fmiiy residential land uses would be developed at the appropriate lot size
and residential density.
That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide
a service or facility which will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the
neighborhood and the community, in that the development of small lot single-family
homes would provide a balance and mix of residential land uses within Specific Pian
203. A majority of the residential development planned for the specific plan area
would be standard single-family homes on 7,500 to 10,000 sq. ft. lots. The
X-, PC RE!30 NO. 3864 -4 Ai3
1
i
?
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
P 23
24
25
26
27
28
11.
12.
development of smaller lot single-family homes would create a more diversified and
balanced community.
That such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity, in that the project is designed to avoid the riparian drainage area in
the northwestern corner of the site. This open space would connect with the open
space in Poinsettia Park to the north. Drainage facilities would be provided
concurrent with development of the project to reduce erosion and flooding. All
manufactured slopes would be landscaped to prevent erosion and to visually screen
the slopes.
That the proposed Planned Development meets all of the minimum development
standards set forth in Chapter 21.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section
21.45.080, and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the
Design Guidelines Manual, in that:
a
b.
d.
e.
The local cul-de-sac street leading to the 7 single-family lots would have curb
gutters, and sidewalks on both sides, and have a minimum pavement width
of 36 feet. This exceeds the 30 foot minimum street width standard;
The project would provide a mixture of one and two-story homes, and have
varied roof lines, and a variety of Front building elevations and front yard
setbacks;
Adequate recreational vehicle storage space would be provided in one area
and be sufficiently screened from the public right-of-way and surrounding
PrcFdes;
The single-family homes would have two and three car garages which would
meet the parking and storage requirements of the ordinance, and guest
parking would be provided on both sides of the streets, and
A 10 foot landscaping easement is provided Macent to Hidden Valley Road
and Camino de ias Ondas. In addition, a six foot high masonry wail in
conjunction with a heavily landscaped easement would be provided along the
northern property line to buffer the project from the Poinsettia Community
Park. The community park also contains a 20 to 25 foot landscaped setback
adjacent to the common property line between the two land uses.
13. That the proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural
topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on
the site, in that the project is located on an existing graded building pad and there
is not a need for siguificant additional grading.
14. That the proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site
is compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or
disruptive element to the neighborhood, in that the proposed project meets ail City
PC RJZSO NO. 3864 r,. .&!2 -5-
staudards and the proposed residential density is consistent with the General Pian
(414 du/acre). The proposed residential land uses are compatible in scale,
architecture, and building materials with the residential development to the south.
Public street improvements would be provided to accommodate trafTic generated by
the project The adjacent properties to the west, south, and east have either existing
residential development or are planned for residential development, therefore, the
proposed small lot single-family residential development would be compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood. A six foot high masonry wail and adequate
landscape buffers and setbacks would be provided along the northern property line
to minimize impacts between the residential and community park land uses.
15. That the project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated
with the project and does not dominate the project, in that the local cul-de-sac street
leading to the 7 single-family lots would be short and curved, would have 36 feet of
paving width, 56 feet of public right-of-way, and connect to Hidden Valley Road
which is a non-loaded collector street. Ail the local, collector, and mqjor streets
within this area would be constructed to full public street width standards, and have
curb, gutters, sidewalks, and underground utilities. The proposed street system is
adequate to handle the project’s pedestrian and vehicular traffic and accommodate
emergency vehicles.
Planning Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby RECOMMEND APPROVAL, of the Planned
Development Permit Amendment for PUD 9241(A) entitled “Costa Do Sol” as shown
on Exhibits “A” - “U” on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this
reference, dated January 3,19%, subject to the conditions herein set forth. Ail other
conditions and approvals of said prior permit as amended to date and not amended
by this action remain in full force and effect Exhibits “A” - “U”, dated January 3,
1996 replace Jhhibits “A” - “W” dated October 6,1993. Staff is author&d and
directed to make or require the Developer to make all corrections and modifications
to the exhibits and/or documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent
and conform to City Council’s fkal 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.
2. Appruval of PUD 9241(A) is granted subject to the approval of CT 92-01(A), SDP
92=01(A), SP 203(A), and the Negative Declaration. PUD 92-01(A) is subject to all
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3863,3865,3&M for
CT 92=91(A), SDP 92-01(A), and SP 203(A).
. . . .
PC RESO NO. 3864 ‘3 1..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
f 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 3rd day of January, 1996, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Nielsen, Noble, Savary
and Welshons
NOES: Commissioner Monroy
ABSENT: Commissioner Erwin
ABSTAIN: None
WILLIAM COMPAS, chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3864 -7-
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3865
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE P kWNING COMMISSION OF
3 THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDINGAPPROVALOFANAMENDMENTTO
4 A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REPLACE 40
CONDOMINIUM UNITS WITH ‘7 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS,
5 AND PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OFF-SITE
THROUGH THE PURCHASE OF AFFORDABLE
6 HOUSING CREDITS IN THE VILLA LOMA PROJECT, ON
7 PROPERTY GENERALLY LQCATED EAST OF PASEO
DEL NORTE AND NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS,
8 WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 203 IN THE SOUTHWEST
QUADRANT OF THE CITY.
9 CASE NAME: COSTA DO SOL CASE NO: SDP 93-04(A) 10
11 WHEREAS, Greystone Homes Inc. has filed a verified application for certain
12 property to wit:
13
14
15
Parcel 2 of Parcei Map 6136 in the City of Carisbad, County of
San Diego, Caiifomia, filed and recorded in the San Diego
County Recorder’s Office, July 6,1977.
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site
with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
16
17
18 Development plan Amendment to replace 40 condominium units with 7 single-family lots,
19 and satisfy inciusionary housing requirements off-site by purchasing Affordable Housing
20 Credits in Villa Loma, as shown on Exhibits “A-U”, dated January 3, 1996, on file in the
21
22
? 23
Planning Department and incorporated by this refmnce (“Site Development Plan
Amendment for Costa Do Sol” SDP 93=04(A)) as provided by Section 2133.120 of the
24
25
26
27
28
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 3rd day of January, 1996
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
f 23
24
25
26
27
28
_-
factors relating to the Site Development Plan Amendment.
I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
~ Commission as follows:
I 4 That the above recitations are true and correct.
9 That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Site Development Plan, SDP 9344(A),
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission finds that:
a. the project is a subsequent residential development within an approved
Specific Plan (SP 203) pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines;
b. the project is consistent with the Specific Plan SP 203 as amended according
to SP 203(A);
C. there was an EIR certified in connection with the prior approved Specific Plan
SP 203;
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as
significant in the prior EIR; and
e. none of the circumstances re,quiring Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163 exist.
2. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the certiiied Final EIR 93-03 which are appropriate to this
Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for SDP 93-
04(A) is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the
following:
a. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed
density of 414 du/acre is within the density range of 4 to 8 du/acre specified
for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and
is at or below the growth control point of 6 du/acre;
b. Circulation - The iocai cul-de-sac street leading to the 7 single-family lots has
36 feet of paving, 56 feet of public right-of-way, and connects to Hidden Valley
Road which is a non-loaded collector street Ail the local, collector, and
PC RESO NO. 3865 -2- 5-o
1
2
t
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
P 23
24
25
26
27
28
C.
d.
e.
f.
8.
m+r streets within this area would be constructed to full public street width
standards, and have curb, gutters, sidewalks, and underground utilities. ‘Ihe
proposed street system is adequate to handle the project’s pedestrian and
vehicular trail’ic and accommodate emergency vehicles;
Noise - A noise study was completed for the project, and traffic noise from
Interstate 5 and Paseo Dei Norte would not adversely impact the residential
development;
Housing Element - The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the
General Plan and the Inciusionary Housing Ordinance since the Developer
has been conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to
purchase 21 Affordable Housing Credits in the Villa Loma project;
Open Space and Conservation - The project is designed to avoid the riparian
drainage area in the northwestern comer of the site. This open space would
connect with the open space on Poinsettia Park to the north. A 20 foot trail
easement is also provided along the project’s western property line to
accommodate Citywide Trail Link No. 37, which connects the future sidewalk
along Camino De Las Ondas with the future Poinsettia Community Park;
Parks and Recreation - The project is required to pay park-in-lieu fees. A six
foot high masonry wail in conjunction with a heavily landscaped easement
would be provided along the northern property line to buffer the project from
the Poinsettia Community Park. The community park also contains a 20 to
25 foot landscaped setback adjacent to the common property between the two
land uses. City Wide Trail Link No. 37 through the project is aligned to
connect with Trail Link No. 29 located within the park; and
Public Safety - The proposed project is required to provide sidewaiks, street
lights, and iire hydrants, as shown on the tentative map, or included as
conditions of approval.
4. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the fmal map will not be
approved unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve
the project. In addition, the project is conditioned such that a note shall be
placed on the final map that building permits may not be issued for the
project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available,
and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains
available, and the District Engineer 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;
PC RESO NO. 3865 -3- 5-l
z
i
4
r *
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
! 23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
b.
C.
d.
e.
.-
Prior to final map approvai the developer is conditioned to enter into an
agreement with the appropriate school district to ensure that adequate school
facilities are available to serve the project;
Park-in-lieu fees are required;
All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval; and
The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and
payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be
available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant
to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued
availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the
project.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part
of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 90-384.
The Planning Commission finds that the Developer’s request to purchase 21
Affordable Housing Credits from Villa Loma is consistent with the policies and
procedures of the Inciusionary Housing Ordinance and City Council Policies No. 57
and 58. The combined inciusionary housing project entitled Villa Loma has been
approved under a Site Development Plan 94-06, by the City Council. Villa Loma has
since been constructed and there are 21 Affordable Housing Credits available for
purchase by this project
The Combined Project Review Committee has reviewed the dewloper’s request to
purchase Affordable Housing Credits in Villa Loma and found that request to be
consistent and in compliance with the requirements of City Council Policy No. 57.
Pianninn Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby RRCOMMEND APPROVAL of the Site
Development Pian Amendment for SDP 93-04(A) entitled “Costa Do Soi” as shown
on Exhibits “A” - “U” on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this
reference, dated January 3,19%, subject to the conditions herein set forth. All other
conditions and approvals of said prior permit as amended to date and not amended
by this action remain in full force and effect. Exhibits “A” - “u”, dated January 3,
PC RESO NO. 3865 -4- 52
1996 replace Exhibits “A”-“VV” dated October 6,1993. Staff is author&d and
directed to make or require the Developer to make all corrections and modifications
to the exhibits and/or documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent
and conform to City Council’s final 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.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I 23
24
25
26
27
28
2. Approval of SDP 93=04(A) is granted subject to the approval of CT 92-01(A), PUD
92-01(A), SP 293(A), and the Negative Declaration. SDP 93=04(A) is subject to all
conditions contained in Pianning Commission Resolution Nos. 3M3,3&+4, and 3866
for CT 92=01(A), PUD 92-01(A), and SP 203(A).
3. Prior to the approval of the Enal map for any phase of this project, or where a map
is not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units,
the Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to
purchase 21 Affordable Housing Credits from Villa Loma, in accordance with the
requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
and City Council Poiicies No. 57 and 5% dated September 12, 1995. A signed
Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the Housing and
Redevelopment Director not later than sixty (60) days after the final approval of the
project by the City Council. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be
binding on all future owners and successors in interest.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
PC RE!SO NO. 3865 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I 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 3rd day of January,
1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Nielsen, Noble, Savary
and Welshons
NOES: Commissioner Monroy
ABSENT: Commissioner Erwin
ABSTAIN: None
h!!iLU .
WILLIAM COMPAS, Cl&person
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: s
Planning Director
I PC RESO NO. 3865 -6- 2---4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I 23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3866
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIN G COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDINGAPPROVALOFANAMENDMENTTO
A SPECIFIC PLAN TO DESIGNATE VILLA LOMA AND
LAUREL TREE AS TWO OFF-SITE COMBINED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS THAT ARE
POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE TO SATISFY
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 203
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF
PASEO DEL NORTE, SOUTH OF PALQMAR AIRPORT
ROAD, AND NORTH OF THE AVIARA MASTER PLAN.
CASE NAME: COSTA DO SOL
CASE NO: SP 203(A)
WHEREAS, the City of Carisbad. has filed a verified application for certain
property to wit:
Portions of Lots G and H of the Ranch0 Agua Hedionda Land
Grant Map 823, and portions of Sections 21, 22, and 28,
Township 12S, R4W.
with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Specific Plan
Amendment as provided by Government Code Section 65450 at Sec.; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 3rd day of January, 19%
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the Specific Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the above recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i 23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Specific Plan Amendment, SP 203(A),
according to Exhibit “X”, dated January 3,1996, attached hereto and made
a part hereoE, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
Findinns:
1.
2.
3.
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Negative Declaration SP 203(A), the environmental impacts therein
identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to recommending
approval of the project. Based on the EIA Part-II and comments thereon, the
Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have
a significant effect on the environment and thereby recommends approvai of the
Negative Declaration.
The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration SP 203(A) reflects the
independent judgement of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
The Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the Housing Element of the General
Plan and it compiles with the requirements of the Inciusionary Housing Ordinance.
Designating off-site combined affordable housing sites such as Villa Loma and
Laurel Tree that are potentially available to residential projects within Speciik Plan
203 assists in meeting the affordable housing goals and objectives for those projects
that qualify to purchase Mordabie Housing Credits.
Pianniw Conditions:
1.
2.
. . . .
The Planning Commission does hereby RJXOMMEND APPROVAL of the Speciik
Plan Amendment for SP 203(A) entitled “Costa Do Sol” as shown on,Exhibits “X”,
dated January 3, 19%, subject to the conditions herein set forth. Ail other
conditions and approvals of said prior permit as amended to date and not amended
by this action remain in full foczc and effect. Exhibits “X”, dated January 3,1996
supplements the Housing Section of Specific Pian 203, dated May 1993. Staff is
author&d and directed to make or require the Developer to make all corrections
and modifications to the exhibits and/or documents, as necessary to make them
internally consistent and conform to City Council’s final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any
proposed development substantia.Uy different from this approval, shall require an
amendment to this approval.
Approval of SP 203(A) is granted subject to the approval of CT 92=01(A), PUD 92-
01(A), SDP 9344(A), and the Negative Declaration. SP 203(A) is subject to all
conditions contained in Pianning Commission Resolution Nos. 3M3,3864, and 3865
for CT 92=01(A), PUD 9241(A), and SDP 9344(A).
PC RESO NO. 3866 -2- ..s 69
. ’
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1 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 3rd day of January,
1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Nielsen, Noble, Savary
and Welshons
NOES: Commissioner Monroy
ABSENT: Commissioner Erwin
ABSTAIN: None
h!Iikbw/#
WILLIAM COMPAS, @hairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3866 -3- 57
- EXHWr 5
Item No. 1 0
P.C. AGENDA OF: JANUARY 3,1996
Application complete date: July 6, 1995
Peed Planner: Jeff Gibson
Project Engineer: Mike Shirey
SUBJECX SP 203tAYCT 92-01~AYPUD 9241tAYSDP 93-04(A) - COSTA DO SOL
Request for recommendation of approval of a Negative Declaration,
amendment of a Specific Plan, revision of a Tentative Map, amendment of a
Planned Development Permit and Site Development Plan to: (1) Add to
Specific Plan 203, the Villa Loma and Laurel Tree combined affordable
housing projects as potentially available to satisfy the inclusionary housing
requirements for residential projects within the specific plan; (2) re-subdivide
Condominium Lot No. 115 into 7 single-family lots; (3) redesign the
recreational vehicle parking area and the recreational open space lot; and (4)
satisfy inclusionary housing requirements through participation in the Villa
Loma project, all on property generally located east of Paseo de1 Norte, north
of Camino de las Ondas, and south of Palomar Airport Road, in the PC Zone
in Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3862,3863,
3864,3865,3866 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration, SP 203(A),
Cl’ 92-01(A), PUD 92-01(A), and SDP 93-04(A), based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION .
This application would change the property’s approved Tentative Map, Planned
Development Permit, and Site Development Plan by replacing 40 residential condominium
units in the eastern portion of the project site with 7 single-family lots, redesign the RV
storage area and the recreational lot, and provide the required affordable housing at Villa
Loma. In addition, the proposal includes a amendment to the Affordable Housing Section
of Specific Plan 203. The amendment would establish two potential locations, Villa Loma
and Laurel Tree combined affordable housing projects, for satisfaction of inclusionary
housing requirements associated with residential projects within the specific plan. The
project is consistent with all City codes, policies, and ordinances as welI as Specific Plan 203.
There are no unresolved project issues associated with this residential subdivision.
SP 203(A)/CT 92-Ol(A)/r JD 92-Ol(A)/SDP 93-04(A) - COSI’W Do SOL
JANUARY 3,1996
III. PROJECX DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On November 3,1993, the Planning Commission recommended approva) of a Tentative Map
(CT 92-Ol), Planned Development Permit (PUD 92-Ol), Site Development Plan (SDP 93-
04), and Hillside Development Permit (HDP 92-10) to, subdivide, grade, and construct 112
single-family homes and 40 - one, two, and three bedroom condominium units on the
gradually sloping lot located east of Paseo de1 Norte and directly north of Camino de las
Ondas. On March 31, 1994 the City Council unanimously approved the project. The
property has since been purchased by Greystone Homes Inc., and they are requesting an
amendment to the approved project which consists of the following changes:
1. Replacement of 40 condominium units and a small recreational area in the eastern
portion of the site with 7 single-family homes on lots ranging in size from 7,067 to
16,692 square feet;
2. Redesign of the RV storage area and open space recreational lot; and
3. Incorporation of a provision to allow the project’s 21 required affordable housing
units to be located at an off-site location (Villa Loma).
The parcel totals 29.2 gross acres and has been recently graded according to the original
approved project (CT 92-01). It is located in the Coastal Zone, the Planned Community
Zone (PC), and has a General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Medium (RM).
There would be a centrally located active recreational facility containing a pool, spa,
basketball court, and a children’s play area, in addition to a recreational vehicle storage area
to serve the entire project.
A portion of the approved project’s 40 condominium units were designated for on-site
affordable housing. The developer is now proposing to eliminate all of the condominium
units and provide the project’s required affordable housing units through the purchase of
Affordable Housing Credits in the already approved and constructed Villa Loma affordable
housing project located along El Camino Real. Villa Loma currently has 184 Affordable
Housing Credits available for purchase by developers in the Southwest Quadrant. This
request triggers the requirement to amend the project’s Site Development Plan and Specific
Plan 203. The staff Combined Project Review Committee, per City Council Policy 57,
evaluated the request to purchase credits, determined that the project met the appropriate
policy criteria, and made the recommendation that the request be approved by the Housing
Commission. On November 9, 1995 the Housing Commission reviewed the proposal to
purchase credits in Villa Loma, and recommended denial of that proposal to the City
Council. Recently adopted City Council Policy 58 requires that the Planning Commission
review and recommend approval of any requests to purchase credits in Villa Loma,
therefore, the request is being processed with this application.
In addition, on November 15, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a
request for a minor amendment to the project’s Planned Development Permit (PUD 92-
1. 9 -
. f SP 203(A)/CT 92-01(A)/& JD 92-Ol(A)/SDP 93-04(A) - COSrw DO SOL
JANUARY 3,1996
02(B)) which consisted of the following changes to the single-family portion of the project:
1. A change to the approved single-family floorplans; and.
2. A change to the approved single-family architectural elevations.
The approved floorplans and building elevations consist of one and two-story, single-family
homes ranging in size from 1,767 square feet to 2,546 square feet, with two and three-car
attached garages. The architecture is contemporary with tile roofs, and stucco exteriors.
The homes on the seven (7) new single-family lots would have the same floor plans and
architecture as approved by the Plamting Commission on November 15th.
The proposed project is subject to the following adopted land use plans and regulations:
A. Carlsbad General Plan;
B. specific Plan 203;
C. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21;
1. Chapter 21.45, Planned Development;
2. Chapter 21.53, Section 21.53.120 - Site Development Plan - “Affordable
Housing”, and Chapter 21.85, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance;
D. City council Policy for Small Lot Single Family Homes;
E. Title 20, Subdivision Ordinance;
F. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program;
G. Growth Management (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20).
IV. ANALYSIS
The staffs recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the
project’s consistency with the applicable State and local policies, regulations, and standards.
The following analysis section discusses compliance with these requirements in the following
format:
1. Table depicting consistency or compliance with regulations and standards, and,
2. Discussion of project specific planning issues.
SP 203(A)/CX’ 92-Ol(A)/k m 92-Ol(A)/SDP 93-04(A) - COSI‘A DO SOL
JANUARY 3,1996
A CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan. The
table below indicates how the project complies with Elements of the General Plan which are
particularly relevant to this proposal.
Land Use Proposed residential density of 4.14 du/net acre is consistent with GP
designation of RM 4-8 du/net acre and growth control point of 6
du/net acre. The project would be compatible in intensity,
architecture, and scale with surrounding residential development.
Housing As required in an Affordable Housing Agreement, the project would
provide 21 dus as affordable to lower income households in an
approved and constructed of&ite combined affordable housing project
(Villa Loma).
Open Space
Noise
Constrained lands are protected in a .62 acre open space lot;
and
City Wide Trail Link No. 37 is aligned along the west side of
the project
Noise Study indicates no traffic noise impacts from I-5 and Paseo De1
Norte.
Circulation
I
Required roadway improvements, including the local street leading to
the 7 single-family lots as shown on the tentative map.
Parks & Rec. Proposed project is required to pay park-in-lieu fees.
Public Safety Proposed project is required to provide sidewalks, street lights, and
fire hydrants, as shown on the tentative map, or included as
B. SPECIFIC PLAN 203
The proposal to replace the approved residential condominium units on Lot No. 115 with
7 single-family lots does not affect the project’s compliance with Specific Plan 203. The
proposed development still complies with the specific plan since the plan implements the
General Plan which allows the small lot single-family land use in the Residential Medium
(RM) designation. Small lot single-family development is consistent with the remainder of
the approved project which also includes 112 single-family lots.
The developer is also requesting that the project’s affordable housing requirements be
satisfied at the Villa Loma combined inclusionary housing project located on El Camino
Real in the Southwest Quadrant. This request requires an amendment to the Affordable
. . SP 203(A)fCT 92-Ol(A)/r d’D 92-Ol(A)/SDP 93-04(A) - COS &A DO SOL
JANUARY 3,1996
Housing Section of Specific Plan 203. The amendment (SP 203(A)) would establish two
potential locations, Villa Loma and Laurel Tree, for satisfaction of inclusionary housing
requirements associated with residential projects within Specific Plan 203. Villa Loma and
Laurel Tree are both located outside of the Specific Plan boundaries. The amendment
brings Specific Plan 203 and the pro+ct into compliance with the Iirclusionary Housing
Ordinance, Section 21.85.070(6). This ordinance requires that a specific plan designate sites
for the location of inclusionary housing units, including any off-site inclusionary projects,
which would include Villa Loma and Laurel Tree. A project’s participation in either of
these two off-site combined inclusionary housing projects would be subject to an Affordable
Housing Agreement and final approval by the City Council.
c. CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 21:
1. Planned Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.45:
Specific Plan 203 and the Planned Community Zone (PC) both designate Chapter
21.45 as the implementing ordinance for the property. The proposed amendments
to the Planned Development Permit comply with the Planned Development
Ordinance as follows:
a. The local cul-de-sac street serving the 7 single-family lots is curved and would
have curb, gutter, and sidewalks on both sides, and have 36 feet of paving.
This exceeds the 30 foot minimum private street width standard. The local
street would be constructed to full public street width standards and have
underground utilities. These public street improvements would be adequate
to serve the vehicular traffic demand of 17 Average Daily Trips generated by
this portion of the project.
b. The amended project would provide a mixture of one and two-story homes
which have varied roof lines, and a variety of front building elevations and
front yard setback.
C. Adequate recreational vehicle storage space would be provided in one area
and be sufficiently screened from the public right-of-way and surrounding
properties with fencing and landscaping.
d. The single-family homes would have two and three-car garages which would
meet the parking and storage requirements, and guest parking would be
provided on both sides of the streets.
e. A 10 foot landscaping setback would be provided adjacent to Hidden Valley
Road and Camino de las Ondas. In addition, a six foot high masonry wall in
conjunction with heavy landscaping would be provided along the northern
property line to buffer the project from Poinsettia Community Park to the
north. The community park also contains a 20 to 25 foot landscaped setback
adjacent to the common property between the two land uses.
4* I -
SP 203(A)/CP 92-Ol(A)/k JD 92-Ol(A)/SDP 93-04(A) - ~I’H DO SOL
JANUARY 3,1996
f. The proposed single-family residential land use is similar in height,
architecture, and building materials to the multi-family residential
development to the south. In addition, the adjacent property to the east is
planned for residential development, therefore, the proposed small lot single- family development would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
8* The project complies with the standards of the Planned Development
Ordinance as follows:
Private Street & Driveway 30 Feet
I
30 to 36 Feet of Paving
Width
Lot size I 3,500 sq. ft. I 7,067 - 16,692 sq. ft.
Building Separation
Street Setback
10 ft. 2oto 60 ft.
10 to 20 Feet 20 to 59 Feet
Parking: Resident: 2 Covered Spaces per
I
7 - 2 or 3 Car Garages
Home
RV Storage
Storage Space
2,380 sq. ft.
480 cubic Feet
Per Unit
13575 sq. ft.
2 and 3 Car Garages
Recreational Space
A. Common I 11,900 sq. ft. I 17,971 sq. ft.
Private
I
53 lots with 15 ft. x 15 ft.
Rear Yards
2. Site Development Plan - “Affordable Housing”, Chapter 21.53, and Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance, Chapter 21.85:
The developer is proposing to provide the project’s required affordable housing units
through the purchase of Affordable Housing Credits in Villa Ioma. There are
currently 184 Affordable Housing Credits in Villa Loma available for purchase by
developers in the Southwest Quadrant. This entire project would have an
inclusionary housing requirement of 21 dwelling units which leaves a balance of 163
credits in Villa Loma. Recently adopted City Council Policies No. 57 and 58 require
that a staff Combined Project Review Committee evaluate requests to purchase
credits and that the Planning Commissi on and the Housing Commission make a
recommendation to the City Council on the purchase/sale of any Affordable Housing
Credits in Villa Loma. The Inclusionary Housing ordinance designates the City
Council as the final decision-maker on this matter and it is their exclusive prerogative
. . SP 203(A)/CT 92-Ol(A)/r JD 92-Ol(A)/SDP 93-04(A) - co31’A DO SOL
JANUARY 3,1996
to determine whether or not it is in the public interest to allow the project to
participate in a combined project such as Villa Loma.
The staff Combined Project Review Committee evaluated the request to purchase
credits, determined that the project met the appropriate policy criteria, and made the
recommendation that the request to purchase credits be approved. In summary the
committee stated that, “Consensus was reached that, while the feasibility argument
regarding Costa Do Sol on-site proposal is difficult to validate, the advantages of
using existing “excess units” in a quality project supports the request to buy credits.
The purchase of credits also recovers City investment in the Villa Loma project as
anticipated in the financing plan”.
The Housing and Redevelopment Department recommended approval of the credit
purchase request to the Housing Commission, based on the Combined Project
Committee’s findings. On November 9,1995 the Housing Commission recommended
denial of this project’s request to purchase credits in Villa Loma based on the desire
to see the affordable units constructed on-site as part of the approved “for-sale”
condominium project located on Lot 115 (CT 92-01). City Council Policy No. 58 also
requires that the Planning Commission review and make a recommendation to the
City Council on requests to purchase credits, and if applicable, place appropriate
conditions on the project to implement the credit purchase. The staff Combined
Project Review Committee’s recommendation/worksheet and a copy of City Council
Policy No. 57 and 58 are attached to the staff report. Also based on the findings and
recommendations of the Combined Project Review Committee, the Planning
Department is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the request to purchase credits in Villa Loma.
To reflect the proposed change from affordable condominium units located on-site
to the purchase of Affordable Housing Credits in Villa Loma, the project’s Site
Development Plan (SDP 93-04) must be amended. This amendment includes a new
affordable housing condition in Site Development Plan Resolution No. 3865 in order
to implement the Affordable Housing Credit purchase. When a project is approved
with the Credit purchase condition, a reservation of the Credits is made for the
project.
D. CITY COUNCIL POLICY FOR SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES:
This City Council policy provides guidelines to encourage the quality development of small-
lot (less than 7500 sq. ft.) single-family projects. The intent of the guidelines is to ensure
that the homes have building articulation on all four sides and will not appear as “row”
housing. They are primarily designed to apply to projects where there is a predominance
of two-story units. The project complies with these guidelines as illustrated on Exhibit “A”-
“U”, dated January 3,1996. The various homes contain one-story roof elements, proposed
side yard setbacks equal or exceed seven feet, structures would be separated by at least 18
i* -
. . SP 203(A)/CT 92-Ol(A)/k JD 92-Ol(A)/sDP 93-04(A) - Cask DO SOL
JANUARY 3.1996
feet, the homes would have ofktting building planes on all four sides, and all have varying
roof elements.
E. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, TITLE 20:
The proposed resubdivision of Condominium Lot No. 115 into 7 single-family lots would
comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20 as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Full public street improvements would be provided on the local cul-de-sac street
leading to the 7 single-family lots, and along the Hidden Valley Road and Camino
de las Ondas street frontages. These improvements would include curb, gutter,
sidewalks, and underground utilities;
The residential lots would meet the 35 to 45 foot lot frontage requirement. The
residential development complies with all city policies and standards, including yard
setbacks and building height, without the need for variances from development
standards;
Adequate sight distance for vehicles would be provided at the intersection of the
proposed local cul-de-sac street and Hidden Valley Road;
The proposed change from 40 multi-family condominium units to 7 single-family
units reduces the project’s Average Daily Trips, and results in less demand on the
surrounding traffic circulation system. The local cul-de-sac street leading to the 7
single-family lots would have 36 feet of paving and connect to Hidden Valley Road
which is a non-loaded collector street. The proposed street system is adequate to
handle the project’s pedestrian and vehicular traffic and accommodate emergency
vehicles;
The 7 single-family lots would gravity sewer south into the existing sewer system
located in Camino de las Ondas which leads to the North Batiquitos Sewer Pump
Station. The reduction of dwelling units from 40 to 7 also lessens the demand on the
existing sewer system;
Adequate drainage facilities would also be provided. The lots would drain into the
cul-de-sac street which drains into Hidden Valley Road, and then north into the
existing drainage system that flows towards Batiquitos Lagoon. The drainage
requirements of Specific Plan 203, City ordinances, and Mello II have been
considered and appropriate drainage facilities have been designed and would be
secured. In addition to City Engineering Standards and compliance with the City’s
Master Drainage Plan, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
standards will be satisfied to prevent any discharge violations;
The existing graded building pad for Lot No. 115 is adequate to accommodate the
single-family homes and RV storage area without significant additional grading;
: 1 -
SP 203(A)lCI’ 92-Ol(A)/rJD 92-Ol(A)/SDP 93-04(A) - Co31’w DO SOL
JANUARY 3,1996
8. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that primary building
orientation, including the placement and separation of the homes, in combination
with the proposed variety of floor plans and the dominant wind/solar radiation
patterns, wilI allow utikation of natural heating and cooling opportunities; and,
9. The exactions imposed on the Developer are to mitigate impacts caused by or
reasonabIy related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in
rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. These exactions include
public facility and circulation impact fees, and street frontage, sewer, and drainage
improvements to meet the demand created by the subdivision.
F. MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM:
The proposal to replace the approved residential condominium units on Lot No. 115 with
7 single-family lots does not affect the project’s compliance with MelIo II. The original
project, CT 92-01, has a valid Coastal Development Permit issued by the Coastal
Commission and Lot No. 115 has already been graded. There would be no significant
changes to the approved drainage facilities, and erosion control and landscaping has been
provided as part of the grading for the original project. The proposed change from larger
Scale multi-family residential structures to smaller scale single-family homes further reduces
potential visual impacts when the project is viewed from the public roadways, therefore, the
changes are consistent with the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program.
G. GROWTH MANAGEMENT:
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20 in the
Southwest Quadrant. The project’s total dwelling units would be reduced by 33 units and
result in less impact on public facilities. The impacts on public facilities created by the
project and CompIiance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows:
,...: :..: :::.:.,.y ‘.. ... :. .>::;,>;:i,;.i .::; . . ,,,_,:. . . . . . . . :...: .:., :,.:::..:. :G:- : : . . . . .::.: ~.:‘:~~::...:..::. ,. . . . :
: .;..::;i::g-:.: : . . ...
j:: : .,.,: j,:.:j,,::,:,j: ..,. ,:. jj.: ,.,.,,
‘. .,. ..,. :,..,.~.(:.,. : : .:..,.):...~., .::.::.. Sij. :: ; j i....; :.: : ; :.:.::,;,: . . . . j ;.i:;;,: ; j:;:.;:;.,:
:. ;.,. :..:,.,:.::,: j.. .: ..,,., :,:: :‘: ..;,,;.: ..:. :’
:
:;,j:: ::. ‘.,i’ij:‘F~~~~~~~~~li,.:~,I- : ‘;‘-j’-:ii:IMpA~~,~~~i:i_: ~c~m~NCE:m~, .:: ;. :, ;:,,i,;~j’ :-‘i:sT.:~ii.: :.....,. ,_
: ..,.i :: ..: : . .., ,: :.; :..::.:z: ::...: ,. : . . : ::: :..: ::. ..... :., :, : : ., .: ,, ,,
::. : j y. .,.... :>.:.: ,.:.: .,...:, ,:, ,,,,.~.~..~.~.,,,,,,,,.,:..~,~~ .. :.<:. :::j(,: :.:: ,.:.: :,i: . . . . . . . ,, ,:: ..:,‘,jij~li~j,:::.j:.:::~::~:..: ... . . . . . . . -‘i:[;:,;..: :i-J!xg4p~S:.:. : .:.;I; ,::.. .: :. .: ..:; 1: .> :I:;: :, >
.,, .,:. L,: ::;:
I I Citv Administration I 413.7 so. ft. I Yes
Library I 228.6 sq. ft. I Yes
Waste Water Treatment I 120 EDU I Yes
Parks I .83 ACRES I Yes
Drainage BASIN 3 Yes
Circulation
Fire I Station # 4 I Yes
8. _- -
. * SP 203(A)/CT 92-01(A)/& CTD 92-Ol(A)/SDP 93-04(A) - Cou 1 A Do SOL
JANUARY 3,1996
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Qpen Space
Schools
4.3 ACRES
CUSD
Yes
Yes
Sewer Collection System 120 EDU I Yes
unit -all&vance of 17232 dwelling units for the property. -
The project site is located within the boundaries of Specific Plan 203 which covers the 640
acre Zone 20 planning area. The direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts
resulting from the future residential development and buildout of Specific Plan 203 have
been discussed and evaluated in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-
03) for the plan. Additional project level studies for the original Tentative Map (CT 92-01)
were conducted, including a geotechnical/soils investigation, biological analysis, traffic study,
archaeology evaluation, sewer study, and a drainage study. These studies provided more
focused and detailed project level analysis and indicated that additional environmental
impacts beyond what was analyzed in Final EIR 90-03 would not result from development
of the property.
The requested changes in the Tentative Map (CT 92-01(A)), Planned Development Permit
(PUD 92-01(A)), and Site Development Plan (93-04(A)), including the reduction in the
number of total dwelling units from 152 to 119 units, would not create any additional
environmental impacts that have not otherwise been evaluated in the Final EIR that covers
the property. The reduction in the total number of dwelling units further reduces any
potential visual, air quality, traffic, public service, and resource impacts that may result from
implementation of the project. Since a Final EIR was certified for Specific Plan 203 and
the requested amendments to CT 92-01 are consistent with the plan, the CEQA Guidelines
under Section 15182, “Residential Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan”, states that if a public
agency has prepared an EIR on a specific plan after January 1,1980, no EIR or Negative
Declaration need be prepared for a residential project undertaken pursuant to and in
conformity to that specific plan.
Additional environmental review for the minor amendment to the Affordable Housing
Section of Specific Plan 203 was conducted, and based on an Environmental Impact
Assessment, the Planning Director has determined that no significant environmental impact
will result. Subsequently a Negative Declaration was issued for the project, dated
September 5,1995. The designation of Villa Loma and Laurel Tree as combined affordable
SP 203(A)/CT 92-01(A)/rUD 924Il(A)/‘SDP 93-04(A) - &IA DO SOL
JANUARY 3,1996
housing projects as potentially available to satisfy inclusionary housing requirements for
residential projects within Specific Plan 203 is consistent with the I’nclusionary Housing
Ordinance. In addition, there is no physical development involved with the affordable
housing designations, therefore, the minor amendment does not create any environmental
impacts. CEQA compliance and all environmental impacts associated with the physical
development of the two combined affordable housing projects has already been evaluated
and considered during the project approval process. Laurel Tree has been approved by the
City Council and Villa Loma is partially constructed.
ATI’ACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3862
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3863
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3864
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3865
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3866
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Jmpact Assessment Form
Disclosure Form
Council Policy No. 57
Council Policy No. 58
Project Review Committee Results, dated October 31, 1995
Full Size Exhibits “A”-“U”, dated, January 3, 1996.
I’ - -
. * BACKGROUND DATA SHEEl
CASE NO: CT 92-Ol(A)/PUD 92-Ol(A)/SDP 93-04(A)/SP 203(A)
CASE NAME: Costa Do Sol
APPLICANT: Grevstone Homes Inc.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: 7 single-famiIv homes
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 2 of Mau 6136. City of Carlsbad, filed and recorded San
Dieno Countv Recorder’s office, Julv 6. 1977
APN: 214-140-40 Acres 29.2 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 119 Lots
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation Residential Medium
Density Allowed 6 du/acre Density Proposed 4.14
Existing Zone pC Proposed Zone N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site PC Vacant
North PC/CUP Community Park Vacant
South RD-M Multi-Family
East RD-M-Q Vacant
West PC Multi-Family
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 120 EDU
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated AnriI 28.1995
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued N/A
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Final EIR 90-03, September 14. 1993
Other, N/A
-
CITY OF CARLSBAD
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: COSTA DO SOL - CT 92-Ol(A)/PUD 92-Ol(A)/SDP 93-04(A)/SP 203(A)
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 20 GENERALPLAN:RM ZONING pC
DEVELOPER’S NAME: GREYSTONE HOMES INC.
ADDRESS: 495 EAST RINCON. SUITE 115. CORONA, CA 91719
PHONE NO.: (714) 273-9494 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO: 214-140-40
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 29.2 GROSS ACRES/119
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: N/A
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 413.7
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 220.6
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) -E.!L
Park: Demand in Acreage = 0.83
Drainage: DemandinCFS= N/A
Identify Drainage Basin = N/A
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 1190
(Identity Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = NO. 4
Open Space: Acreage Provided - 4.3
Schools:
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demand in EDUs - 120
Identify Sub Basin - N/A
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD - 26.400
The project is 53.3 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance
The following information must bo disdosed:
1. A~nllcr~ K? 2 3 IS?5
List the namer and addresses of all persons having a fIn8ncial interest k thi applkatlon. , -*
g //dAA es. PC -. .
P92f E e/u&i/ -e//s
2. Owtlet
List the namer and addresses of all parsons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
cAu* 4s &FM
3. If any penorl identified punuurt to (1) of (2) abova ia 8 corporation or putnorship, list the names and addresses
of ail individuals owning more than 10% ot the shares in the corporation 01 owning any partnership interest in the
partnership.
.
4. nanypomonid-~to(l)or(2)8bovohr~~ orrtru8tJlstthonamesand
addr~otuy~urvingr,~or~~dttnnocr-prol#orOvriutkrrorrr~orkrr~aryof the trust
FRMOOOl lam 71
2075 La8 Palmaa Drlve l Carhbrd, California 92009-1576 l (619) 438-l 161 @
Dlsclosufe st8romort
5. Have you had mom thqn $250 worth of business transacted with any member of Ciry staff, Boards,
Commissions, ommittees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No 2 It yes, please indicate person(s)
1 1
(NO-: A!tactt addMod paqm m nacmmy.)
Signature of Owner/date
&y&k f&m , /NC
Print or type name of owner / c4~fiFm 8-
Print or type name of applicant
FtiMOOOl 12f91
** -
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject:
Specific Subject:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Off-site and Combined
Inclusionary Housing Projects
Policy No. 57
Date Issued
Effective Date
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File.
BACKGROUND
Ihe City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.85) establishes certain requirements under
which residential developers must provide housing that is affordable to lower-income households as a
zondition of project approval and permit issuance.
I’he Ordinance provides that inclusionary units “should be built on-site and, wherever reasonably possible,
je distributed throughout the project site.” The Ordinance also provides that “circumstances may arise.. .
in which the public interest would be served by allowing some or all of the inclusionary units associated with
lne project site to be produced and operated at an alternative site or sites.” This alternative is described
is a “Combined Inclusionary Housing Project” or “Combined Project”. The Ordinance, in addressing
Combined Projects, states that “it is the exclusive prerogative of the final decision making authority of the
City to determine whether or not it is in the public interest to authorize the residential sites to form a
combined Inclusionary Housing Project. ”
PURPOSE
[t is the purpose of this policy to establish the criteria which will be utilized in order to make the necessary
finding that off-site satisfaction of an inclusionary housing requirement, when proposed through a Combined
Project, is in the public interest.
POLICY
The following criteria will be applied in order to make the necessary public interest finding. Each criteria
is defined in terms of specific questions which, when affirmatively answered, would support an off-site
option:
Page 1 of 4 73
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
Policy No. 57
Date Issued
Effective Date
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
General Subject: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Specific Subject: Off-site and Combined
Inclusionary Housing Projects
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File.
1. Feasibilitv of the On-site Pronosal.
ä Are there significant feasibilitv issues due to factors such as project size, site constraints, and
competition from multiple projects that make an on-site option impractical?
b Will ‘an affordable housing product be difficult to integrate into the proposed market
development because of significant price and product type disparity?
b Does the on-site development entity lack the canacitv to deliver the proposed affordable
housing on-site?
2. Relative Advantages/Disadvantages of the Off-site ProDosal
b Does the off-site option offer greater feasibilitv and cost effectiveness than the on-site
alternative, particularly regarding potential local public assistance and when applying the
City’s Affordable Housing Financial Assistance Policy.
l Does the off-site proposal have location advantaaes over the on-site alternative, such as
proximity to jobs, schools, transportation, services; less impact on other existing
developments, etc.?
b Does the off-site option offer a development entity with the canacitv to deliver the proposed
project?
b Does the off-site option satisfy multinle develoner oblieatioq that would be difficult to satisfy
with multiple projects?
Page 2 of 4 7”J
* >“ - -.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Policy No. 57
Date Issued
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Effective Date
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
General Subject: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Specific Subject: Off-site and Combined
Inclusionary Housing Projects
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File.
3. Advancing Housing Goals
b Does the off-site proposal advance and/or support City housing goals and policies as
expressed in the Housing Element, CHAS and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance?
it is likely that off-site proposals will involve “mixed” results with the application of the above criteria. The
“public interest” finding shall be made when a Combined Project Review Committee made up of the City
Manager, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Financial Management Director, Planning
Director, Housing & Redevelopment Director, and the Mayor (ex-officio), reaches consensus that a proposal
substantially and affirmatively satisfies the above criteria and that this conclusion can be appropriately
documented through the use of a Combined/Off-site Project Evaluation Assessment Worksheet. (Attachment
1).
PROCEDURE
1. Projects with an inclusionary housing obligation will be processed according to the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
2. Project approvals must be conditioned with the option to propose an off-site method (i.e., Combined
Project) of satisfying the inclusionary obligation. A project proposing an off-site option may or may
not also propose an on-site option.
3. Prior to final map or issuance of building permits, applicants must submit an Affordable Housing
Agreement as described in the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance which specifically describes any off-
site proposal.
4. Off-site proposals in the form of a draft Affordable Housing Agreement will be reviewed by the
Combined Project Review Committee and it will be determined if the necessary fmdings can be made
by staff.
* -* I - -
CITY OF CARLSBAD , .
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
Policy No. 57
Date Issued
Effective Date
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
General Subject: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Specific Subject: Off-site and Combined
Inclusionary Housing Projects
copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File.
Staffs fmdings and recommendation, including the Combined/Off-site Project Assessment
Worksheet, will accompany the Affordable Housing Agreement to the Housing Commission for
action.
Prior to final map or issuance of building permits, the proposed Affordable Housing Agreement
will be considered by City Council along with the recommendation of staff and Housing
Commission.
.City Council will be the final decision making authority in determining whether an off-site
proposal is in the public interest and permitting this option.
Page 4 of 4 7b
0 ’ ., OFF-SITE AND COMBINED INCLUSIONARY HOUSLNG PROJECT
ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CKGROUND
2. Applicant Name and Address:
3. Description of Project with lnclusionary Housing Obligation:
4. Proposed On-site Project Oescription (if any):
5. Proposed Off-site Project Description:
6. Description of On-site Project Constraints:
SUMMMW OF ASSESSMENTCRITERIA
ASSESSMWTCONCLlJSlON (Check appropriate box)
DoEsmr- stJlRM7?3otFa7E
ASSE-- cJw-snE#?ow~ NcoMzwslYE momsAL
I. Feasibilitv of the On-site Proposal.
a. Are there significant feasibilitv issues due to
factors such as project size, site constraints,
and competition from multiple projects that
make an on-site option impractical?
Brief Narrative:
b. will an affordable housing product be difficult
to intearate into the proposed market
development because of signifmnt price
and product type disparity?
Brief Narrative:
c. Does the on-site development entity lack the
caoacitv to deliver the proposed affordable
housing on-site?
Brief Narrative:
.
ATTACHMENT “I‘ TO COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT NO. 57
- . ,. ?’ ‘UMARY OF ASSESSMENT CRITF-‘1 i
ASSES&ENTCONCLWON
(Check appropriate box)
DoEsnK)1-T sumls-
ASSESSMENT- -moms4L llycollEcLusNE l7TomsM
2. Relative AdvantaaeslDisadvantaaes of the Off-
site Prowsal.
a. Does the off-site option offer greater feasibility
and cost effectiieness than the on-site
alternative, particularly regarding potential
local public assistance and when applying the
City's Affordable Housing Financial Assistance
Policy?
Brief Narrative:
b. Does the off-site proposal have location
advantases over the on-site alternative, such
as proximity to jobs, schools, transportation,
services; less impact on other existing
developments, etc.?
Brief Narrative:
c. Does the off-site option offer a development
entii with the capacitv to deliver the
proposed project?
Brief Narrative:
j. Does the off-site option satisfy multiple
develooer obliaations that would be difficult
to satisfy with multiple projects?
Brief Narrative:
3. Advancina Housiha Goals
a. Does the off-site proposal advance and/or
support City housing goals and policies
expressed in the Housing Element. CHAS
and lnclusionary Housing Ordinance?
Brief Narrative:
-
Page 1 of 4
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCILPOLICYSTATEMENT
Policy No. 58 Date Issued September 12, 1995
Effective Date SeDt. 12. 199s Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
General Subject: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Specific Subject: Sale of Affordable Housing
Credits
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File.
PURPOSE
To establish a policy to be followed by City Council and City staff in selling Affordable Housing Credits,
controlled by the City, to developers who will use the Credits to satisfy obligations to provide affordable
housing pursuant to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.85).
BACKGROUND
[n the development of the 344-unit affordable housing project known as Villa Loma in the Southwest
Quadrant of the City, the developers and the City created a project which may be treated as a Combined
Project as defined in the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. With City Council approval, Combined
Projects allow “some or all of the inclusionq units associated with one residential project site to be
produced and operated at an alternative site”. The “alternative site” becomes a Combined Project. Villa
Loma was conceived and developed with City participation based on the creation of 184 excess affordable
housing units which would be available to satisfy other developers’ inclusionary housing obligations thus
making it a potential Combined Project. City financial participation in the project was also based on the
:oncept of recovering costs through the sale of the excess units. Furthermore, Villa Loma was structured to
give the City control of these units (Affordable Housing Credits or “Credits”) and their sale to potential
Combined Project participants. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a policy to guide the City in the
zffective implementation of these Affordable Housing Credit sales transactions.
POLICY
l’wo basic factors will be considered in a Credit sale transaction - the financial aspect, which is the Credit
pricing - this determines cost to a purchaser and revenue to the City; and the affordable housing aspect,
which is the use of this mechanism to satisfy a developefs obligation under the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance. Based on these considerations, the following will guide Credit sales:
. -
. .
-
Page 2 of 4
CITY OF CARLSBAD Policy No. 58
Date Issued Sept. 12, 1995
Effective Date Sept. 12, 1995
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
General Subject:
Specific Subject:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Sale of Affordable Housing
Credits
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File.
b Price. The Credit price will be determined according to the following formula which divides the local
financial contribution provided to the Villa Loma project by the total number of Credits available.
The local financial contribution consists of all City financial assistance provided to the project (either
as loans or expenditures for land including accrued interest on such amounts for the period of time
they are outstanding); and the local developer contribution to the project provided in order to satisfy
an affordable housing obligation):
Affordable Housing Credit Pricinn Formula
= Unit Price of Affordable
+ Number of Affordable Housing Credits (Rounded
Local Financial Contribution Housing Credits Available to nearest $l.OOO)*
City Contribution 84.2 Million*
Developer Contribution 184 $28,000*
(Aviara Land Associates) .9
TOTAL S5.1 Million
* To be adjusted with the addition of interest.
b Terms of Purchase and Sale. The commitment to purchase and sell Credits will be accomplished
through an Affordable Housing Agreement as required by the Inchrsionary Housing Ordinance. Thi$
Agreement will contain the terms of the Credit sale and will acknowledge the satisfaction of ar
affordable housing obligation through participation in a Combined Project (Villa Loma).
- -
Page 3 of 4
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
Policy No. 58
Date Issued sent. 12. 1995
Effective Date SeDt. 12. 1995
Cancellation D&e
Supersedes No.
General Subject:
Specific Subject:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Sale of Affordable Housing
Credits .
I Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File.
I
& Selection of Purchasers. The following procedure will apply to the selection of purchasers and
allocation of Credits:
1. Project Review. Staff, through the Combined Project Review Committee (see Council Policy
No. 57) will review all applications and approved projects with inclusionary requirements and
determine which projects will be recommended to satisfy their obligations through the
purchase of Credits. If the number of acceptable projects have affordable housing
requirements which exceed the available number of Credits, projects will be ranked and
allocated Credits accordingly. Projects will be reviewed and ranked using the following
criteria:
a) The immediacy of the need to satisfy an affordable housing obligation with respect to
the market rate project that is generating the obligation.
b) The readiness and capacity of the developer to enter into an Affordable Housing
Agreement and perform under its terms.
d The acceptability of the Combined Project as an off-site option in lieu of the
satisfaction of the affordable housing obligation on-site with respect to the project that
is generating the obligation (see Council Policy No. 57).
2. Electing to Purchase Credits. Developers will be notified of staff’s recommendation to permit
the purchase of Credits and given the opportunity to accept or reject this option.
3. Reservation of Credits. Developers wishing to use the option of purchasing Credits must have
. their projects approved with conditions allowing this option. In addition to Planning
Commission approval, the recommendation of the Housing Commission will be required for
the Credit purchase option of satisfying the Inclusionary Housing Obligation. When a project
is approved (e.g., tentative map) with the Credit purchase condition, a reservation of the
Credits is made for the project. L. ‘f
. - -
Page 4 of 4
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Policy No. 58
Date Issued Sept. 12. 1995
Effective Date &Dt. 12. 1995
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Specific Subject: Sale of Affordable Housing
Credits
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File.
4.
5.
6.
Affordable Housing Agreement. Within sixty (60) days of the approval of the Credit purchase
condition, the developer must deliver to the Housing and Redevelopment Director a signed
Affordable Housing Agreement in the form prescribed by the City with a non-refundable
deposit in an amount equal to 10% of the total Credit sale price. The Affordable Housing
Agreement will be scheduled for City Council consideration and, if and when approved, will
be executed by the City. The Affordable Housing Agreement will require payment of the
balance of the purchase price upon execution and prior to final map or issuance of a building
permit.
Failure of Develoner to Perform or Denial of Purchase Ontion. If the developer is unable K
perform as required, or is denied the option of purchasing Credits, the Credits will be mad<
available to another project(s), subject to this process.
This policy is subject to all other requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
. OCTOBER 31, 1995
TO: POLICY 57/58 PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE
FROM: Housing & Redevelopment Director
MEETING SUMMARY, OCTOBER 12, 1995, TO REVIEW A REQUEST BY GREYSTONE
HOMES, INC. (COSTA DO SOL) TO PURCHASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS
IN THE VILLA LOMA PROJECT
Attending: Raymond Patchett, City Manager Jim Elliott, Financial Management Director Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Jane Mobaldi, Deputy City Attorney Evan Becker, Housing & Redevelopment Director
After reviewing the role of the Committee, the Committee reviewed and discussed the Housing S Redevelopment Director's recommendation and the "Assessment Worksheet." The Housing 6 Redevelopment Director indicated to the Committee that the applicant had signed an Affordable Housing Agreement to proceed with their approved on- site affordable project, but was requesting that they be permitted to purchase affordable housing credits as an alternative.
The Committee discussed the applicant's claim that a relatively small on-site affordable project would have questionable feasibility. Several members indicated that this could be said of most affordable projects needing subsidies. The Housing & Redevelopment Director indicated that the scale of the project could make subsidy requirements greater and that in the competition for subsidies, including competition from other Carlsbad projects, this project might have a difficult time.
It was noted that the homeownership and mixed-income aspects of the on-site proposal were positives.
Discussion of the overall status of inclusionary projects in the Southwest Quadrant indicated that almost 500 units could be completed or under construction in 1996 (Villa Loma and Laurel Tree); and that another approved on-site project (Sambi) would be coming forward shortly. Consensus was reached that, while the feasibility argument regarding the Costa Do Sol on-siteproposal is difficult to validate, the advantages of using existing "excess units" in a quality project supports the request to buy credits. The purchase of credits also recovers City investment in the Villa Ltama project as anticipated in the financing plan.
EVAN E. BECKER Housing & Redevelopment Director
ar
OFFSITEAE”’ COMBINED llVCLUSlOhMRY HOI”&* - PROJECT
ASSESSMENTMN?KSHEET
- FT------- - ---_-- --- - _------- -. ------ - .-... -, --, . ..-.. .--..- --_- . .-,~~‘-
495 East Rincon, Suite 115
Corona, CA 91719
!. Off-site or Combined Project Name: Villa Loma Apartments
I. Desaiption of Project with lndusionary Housing 0bliiationz Costa Do Sol, CT 92-01, is a
proposed 152~unit project with a 23-unit affordable housing requirement. (See Attachments 1 & 2
1. Proposed On-site Project Description (if any): Costa Do Sol, SDP 93-04, is a 40-unit
condominium project combining 23 affordable units and 17 market units. The affordable units
range from one to three bedrooms, and would range in maximum price from approximately
$72,000 to $109,000.
i. Proposed off-site Project Description: Villa Loma (formerly La Terraza) Apartments is a 344-unit
apartment development in which all units are restricted and affordable to households with incomes
not exceeding 60% of San Diego County Median. The project contains a distribution of I, 2, 3
and 4 bedroom units. Units are scheduled to be occupied in October, 1995.
Villa Loma is being developed by La Terraza Associates, a limited partnership in which Bridge
Housing Corporation is the Managing General Partner.
Villa Loma was financed with assistance from the City of Carlsbad and the Cadsbad
Redevelopment Agency. The assistance was structured in such a way as to create affordable
units which would be marketed exclusively by the City to other developers in order to satisfy an
affordable housing obligation. Thus, Villa Loma Apartments is a Combined Project according to
the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance, and developers may propose to participate in this as an “off-
site” method of satisfying an affordable housing obligation.
Participation in Villa Loma Apartments by the applicant would be in the form of a purchase of
Affordable Housing Credits under terms established by City Council Policy Number 58.
5. Description of On-site Project Constraints: (Also see Attachment “3”, applicant letter of August
25, 1995). In proposing an on-site affordable project, the applicant has identified constraints
which they feel would affect the project’s feasibility. These include the uneconomical size of the
affordable project; and potential conflict created by the significant price difference between the
affordable units and the proposed market units. In addition to these constraints, the applicant
feels that the location of the Villa Loma project is superior to their on-site location.
. . WORKSHEET : : .:. . . . . . ,: ,. ; :.,. :/: . . . . .., ..,. . . ASSESSh@KONUUS/ON -5:‘;. ’ ;. (cb@& @.)prdpriafe ;fiox), .‘:-:: .Y:‘-’ .,: : :
1. Feasibiiii of the On-site Proposal.
a. Are there significant feasibilitv issues due to factors such as project size, site constraints, and competition from multiple projects that
make an on-site option impractical?
Attachment “1” to Council Pofii Statement No. 57
ASSESSMAfTCOUCLUSICW
(Check approprfate box)
DoEshlOTWffW3T slmmm?sm
AssEssaEuT~ -a?wwsa : -:,. - .,
3rief #anative: 77~ of!&8 affonlable pmj8ct is of marginal size as a condon?inium project. Although it is diiXcu/l
o qu8ntify the economic implications, it will likely b8 difficult for the market units in thb project to absorb the
economic subsidy requirement of the affordable units. Based on the estimated restricted jJWh8Se prices of the ?ffotiable units and an estimated unit cost of $140,000, the applicant will be facing an average subsidy
~uirernen~ of approximately $40,000 per unit. Unlike rental ptu@c~s, for-sale units do not have signitlcan~
subsidy programs available from federal or other SOUTCBS. The likely SOUTCBS of subsidy would be the deve/operz
antior the City~ed8ve/opment Agency.
3. will an affordable housing product be difftulf
to inteurate into the proposed market X
development because of significant price
and product type disparity? .
grief N8fT8@8: The integration of the 23 8ffordabl8 units info the proposed 40-unit condominium project is a
lesirable approach, and price disparities, while signkant, are less of 8 conc8rn because all units are for-sale
condominium product. The affoIdabl8 condominiums will be priced well below the single family product which
b estimated at ihe mid %2OO,ooO’s. The fact that the affordable componenl is for-sale somewhat neutr8lizes
!his disparity between the condominium and detached product.
:. Does the on-site development entity lack the
caoacitv to deliver the proposed affordable
housing on-site?
X
Brief Narrative: The Developer is nOi experienced in the development of 8ffOrdabl8 housing 8nd has not
astablished a relationship with an affordable housing developer.
a. Does the off-site option offer greater feasibilii
and cost effectiveness than the on-site X
alternative, particularly regarding potential
local public assistance and when applying the
City’s Affordable Housing Financial Assistance
Policy?
2. Relative AdvantaaesKIisadbantaaes of the Off-
site Proposal.
Brief Narrative: The Villa Loma project is under construction and has known feasibility. Villa Loma would
likely offer a signifTc8ntly lower cost to the applicant than the potenti8l subsidy required to construct the on-s&
affordable units. The applicant’s participation in Villa loma would permit the recovery of City investment
provided to the pmject; converse/y, the developer’s on-site project would create the demand for additional n8u
subsidy from some source.
b. Does the off-site proposal have location
advantaqes over the on-site alternative, such
as proximity to jobs, schools, transportation,
services; less impact on other existing
developments, etc.?
X
Brief Narrative: The Vi//a Loma kX8tiOn has advantages over the On-Site pmj8ct in terms of proximity to pbs
and project amenities. The proposed on-site project location is at least equivalent in terms of proximity to
schoois, parks and services. Vi118 Loma iS a S8kOI?&ined affordable development with M/e impad on other
communities. The on-site proposal could be a source of 17381 or perceived impact on the single-family 8nd
condominium communifies into which it is integrated.
- WVRKSUEET
ASSESS#EKTCOlUCl.USlON
(Check appropriate box)
I c. Does the off-site option offer a development
entity with the caoacitv to deliver the proposed X
Proi=fJ II Brief Narrative: The Vi//a Loma pmj8ct is being developed and managed by a h@hly experienced and
specialized affordable housing developer.
d. Does the off-site option satisfy multiole
develoDer obliaations that would be difficult
to satisfy with multiple projects?
Brief Narrative; Villa Loma wi..l likely be satisfying mu/t@/8 di3velop8r obligations. 738 proposed on-site
project Would be one of severa/ (induding Laurel Tie8 Apartments and the Sambtieatie Heights Proj8ct) in
the Southwest Quadrant comp8ting for scarce financial assistance. This means that it wouhi be difticu/t to
obtain funding. The Villa loma project has already b88n financed; it would not b8 competing for remaining
subsidy financing.
3. Advancing Housing Goals
a. Does the off-site proposal advance and/or
support City housing goals and pokies
expressed in the Housing Element, CHAS
and lnclusionary Housing Ordinance?
X
Brief Narrative: The proposal to participate in the Villa Loma Apartments as a Combined Affordable Housing
Project supports an affordable proj8ct that is tafg8t8d to the highest ptiority need identifi8d in the Housing
E/8m8nt and CHAS larger rental units for low income households. The recovery of City investment through
the applicant’s participation will provide additional resourc8s which am needed to assist further affOfdabl8
housing d8VelOpm8nt
Although the proposed on-site pro#cf is for-sale, it would be fo//owing dose/y the consfnrction of almost 500
affordable units (and perhaps more) in the SOUthW8St Quadrant. From the standpoint of the City’s inclusionary
housing policy, this may suggest the need to us8 existing ~excess affordable units before supporting
additional new construction.
DOESIK)TSUF+VRT sum&
SUMMARY oFFaTE-su -usME fwomsA-
2 1 5
,
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. SP 203(A)/CT 92-01 (A)/PUD 92-01 (A)/SDP 93-04(A) - COSTA DO SOL - Request for
recommendation of approval of a Negative Declaration, amendment of a Specific Plan, revision of
a Tentative Map, amendment of a Planned Development Permit and Site Development Plan to: (1)
Add to Specific Plan 203, the Villa Loma and Laurel Tree combined affordable housing projects as
potentially available to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements for residential projects within
the specific plan; (2) re-subdivided Condominium Lot No. 115 into 7 single family lots; (3) redesign
the recreational vehicle parking area and the recreational open space lot; and (4) satisfy
MINUTES $7
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,1998 Page 2
inclusionary housing requirements through participation in the Villa Loma project, all on property
generally located east of Paseo del Norte, north of Camino de las Ondas, and south of Palomar
Airport Road, in the PC Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
Chairman Compas advised the applicant that they have the right to be heard before a full Commission. He inquired if they would like to be continued or heard tonight. Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning Associates, 2388
Faraday Avenue, Suite 120, Carlsbad, representing the applicant, stated that he would like to proceed with
the hearing tonight.
Chairman Compas advised the public that if the Planning Commission recommends approval, the
application will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration.
Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the Costa do Sol
project is located directly north of Camino de las Ondas and east of Paseo del Norte on a parcel which is
approximately 29 acres in size. The project was first approved in 1994 by the City Council and is before the
Commission tonight to consider the following changes and amendments:
1. The revised project includes a request to amend Specific Plan 203 for the Zone 20 planning area to
have Laurel Tree and Villa Loma as offsite affordable housing projects that would be potentially
available to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements for residential projects within the planning
area;
2. Replacement of 40 condominium units in the eastern portion of the site with seven single family
detached homes;
3. The redesign of the RV storage area;
4. The redesign of the open space recreational lot per the request of the Planning Commission in the
previous conditions of approval for the project; and
5. A request to purchase 21 affordable housing credits in Villa Loma to satisfy the project’s inclusionary
requirements.
Mr. Gibson stated that the project changes, including the seven single family lots, and the redesign of the
RV and recreational area, all meet the standards of the Planned Development Ordinance, Subdivision
Ordinance, and Specific Plan 203. The proposed homes were recently approved by the Planning
Commission as part of the minor amendment to the project’s development permit. The request to satisfy
the project’s inclusionary requirements by purchasing credits in Villa Loma is consistent with recently
adopted City Council policies No. 57 and No. 58, both of which are attached to the staff report.
Mr. Gibson stated that the request to purchase credits in Villa Loma was reviewed by the recently
established Project Review Committee, The Committee concluded that the onsite condominium portion of
the project had feasibility issues, including its marginal size and the potential difficulty of market rate units in
the project absorbing the economic subsidy requirements of the 23 affordable condominium units. In
referring to the Villa Loma and Laurel Tree affordable housing projects, it was noted that the affordable
housing production in the southwest quadrant is outpacing market development and it is therefore an
appropriate time to utilize excess credits and rewver previous City investment in the creation of those units.
It was also determined that the applicant was a good candidate for purchasing credits in Villa Loma
principally due to the project’s readiness and the capacity to financially perform. In accordance with City
Council Policy No. 58 concerning requests to purchase credits in Villa Loma, this project was brought before
the Housing Commission for their review and recommendation. And consistent with the policy, it is now
before the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation.
MINUTES 88
,- * , _- -
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,1996 Page 3
Mr. Gibson stated that in accordance with the Council policy and the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance, the
City Council is the final decision maker on this matter and it is their exclusive prerogative to determine
whether or not a project is allowed to participate in a combined offsite affordable housing project such as
Villa Loma. For this project, the City Council will be evaluating the recommendations of both the Housing
Commission and the Planning Commission before making a final decision. It is important to note that the
decision to allow offsite affordable housing has already been decided by the approval and subsequent
construction of Villa Loma. Therefore, the remaining question to be decided is which projects are allowed to
participate in purchasing the affordable housing credits. The Project Review Committee recommended
Costa do Sol as a legitimate and viable candidate for participation in Villa Loma credit purchases and staff
is therefore bringing that recommendation forward for the Commission’s consideration. Based on the
project’s compliance with the General Plan and all applicable City standards and policy, staff recommends
approval.
Commissioner Monroy inquired why the minutes of the Housing Commission were not attached to the staff
report. The staff report only states that the Housing Commission voted against it. He would like to see a
report of the meeting and why they rendered that vote. Evan Becker, Director of Housing &
Redevelopment, replied that the minutes are still in draft form, which is why they were not included. The
minutes indicate two things: (1) that the Commission has a preference for the onsite affordable housing
which was originally proposed for this project, and (2) that a number of Commissioners felt that granting
offsite options was leading to concentrations of affordable units in a few projects and taking us away from
the distribution of units throughout a number of projects.
Commissioner Monroy requested an explanation of the real estate tax using offsite credits versus onsite
units, i.e. if the units are constructed onsite, they would be sold and pay property taxes, whereas if offsite
credits are used, no property taxes would be paid and the general fund would subsidize the policing and
other services for those units. Mr. Becker replied that this is correct. The law exempts low income housing
from property taxes. However, single family fee simple home ownership does pay property taxes.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if Costa do Sol is the first project to offer low income “for sale” units. Mr.
Becker replied that it was the first inclusionary proposal to do so.
Commissioner Welshons inquired when a developer requests the option to purchase offsite credits in Villa
Loma, is there a cost differential on the size of the units, i.e. one, two, three, or four bedroom. How does
staff establish equality in the product which was proposed, versus purchasing credits in an existing project.
Mr. Becker replied that Policy No. 57 does not have a precision analysis for comparing the onsite product
with the offsite product but it does analyze the two products to determine affordability and how it relates to
our housing needs. In this case the onsite proposal would be at 80% of median income whereas Villa Loma
is 50% of median income. The analysis must also determine that the offsite investment provides a product
which is comparable in size and affordability that is consistent with our Housing El8ment and
COmprehenSiV8 Housing Strategy and is at least as advantageous as the onsite product.
Commissioner Welshons inquired why the resolution dO8S not state the mix of amenities to be provided in
the open space and recreational area for this project. Mr. Gibson replied that the proposal being presented
is subject to the PUD Ordinance which lists certain facilities which are allowed to qualify toward satisfaction
of the recreational requirements.
Commissioner Welshons inquired how the Commission would approve that. Mr. Gibson replied that it would
be approved as part of the main motion. However, if the recommendation is denial, the design of the
recreation area could be approved by minute motion.
Commissioner W8lShOnS inquired if requesting offsite credits for affordable housing would be setting a
precedent in this zone. Mr. Gibson replied that Mariner’s Point, directly to the east of this project, was
r8Cently approved to satisfy their 54 affordable units within the Laurel Tree project.
MINUTES 8 9
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,1996 Page 4
Commissioner Noble inquired if the City has an ordinance on graffiti and graffiti enforcement. Mr. Gibson
replied that there are no standards or policies for graffiti.
Commissioner Noble commented that several months ago on television, the news featured a company
located in the industrial area that had painted a product on their building which allowed graffiti to be washed
off by using a water hose. The Commission has approved a number of projects recently which have walls
around them that might attract graffiti. He would like to know if staff could project what the added cost
would be to require the developer to use graffiti-proof paint versus regular paint. Mr. Gibson replied that he
doesn’t know what the cost would be but the applicant might have this information. He understands
Commissioner Noble’s point which is illustrated by this project which has walls facing a public park and the
public right-of-way.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired who sits on the Project Review Committee that reviews requests for offsite
credits. Mr. Becker replied that it includes the Housing & Redevelopment Director, the City Manager, the
Finance Management Director, the City Attorney, Community Development Director, and the Planning
Director.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if it is cheaper to build onsite units or purchase offsite credits for affordable
housing. Mr. Becker replied that it is not possible to do an exact analysis. The developer’s estimate for
onsite units is a minimum of 340,000 per unit subsidy gap which is based on the median income of 80%.
Staff analysis indicates they may be facing a higher figure because the band of eligibility is 80-80%, which is
a very narrow market. Credits in Villa Loma have been set by the City Council at $30,000 per unit, thus it
would be less costly to purchase the offsite credits. He added that if the developer is denied the offsite
credits and is required to provide the housing onsite, they would be seeking various types of subsidies to
cover this cost. However, it should be noted that there are no deep subsidy programs for affordable home
ownership as there are for rental housing.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if the MCC program would help that differential. Mr. Becker replied that
MCC is a very effective tool to bring home ownership to very low and moderate income families. It can
affect the interest rate by a couple of percent and it can result in a lower sales price, but the MCC program
is not a deep subsidy.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that with a differential between onsite and offsite of $10,000 this particular
project will burden the developer by about $200,000. Mr. Becker replied that is correct, however there is
more than one aspect to feasibility. Another very important aspect to feasibility is whether or not the
developer has the ability to put together the team and program to build an affordable housing project.
Typically, market rate developers in Carlsbad are not familiar with what it takes to build deeply subsidized
affordable housing.
Chairman Compas invited the applicant to speak.
Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning Associates, 2380 Faraday AVenU8, Suite 120, Carlsbad, addressed the
Commission and stated that h8 represents Greystone Development, the applicant for this prOj8Ct. tie
discussed the economic impacts of providing onsite affordable units versus purchasing offsite credits. One
impact is that the price of the market rate units would have to be lower because the affordable units are part
of the project. He noted that very few lenders will provide financing for affordable home ownership
programs. Greystone is not an affordable housing developer and this is a very difficult situation for them to
be in. If the Commission denies the option of offsite credits, it would put Greystone in the position of
coming back to the City for subsidy financing. By purchasing the credits, however, they would be paying
the City $600,000 which would go a long way to return the City’s investment on Villa Loma.
. ’
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3, 1998 Page 5
Commissioner Monroy stated that the original developer was going to finance the affordable housing
himself. He made it quite clear that he would be providing the funding. When Greystone purchased the
project, they must have known what the affordable housing conditions were on this project. Mr. Hofman
replied that Mr. Abata, the original owner, was not a developer. When Greystone purchased the project,
their intention from the beginning was to request an amendment to the onsite requirement.
Commissioner Monroy inquired what will happen if the City doesn’t go along with this request. Will they
decline to build the project? Mr. Hofman replied that unless they can find the subsidies, it would be difficult
to complete the project. It is safe to say that without the subsidies, they could not do the project.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if Greystone every considered a product other than condominiums. Did
they consider apartments? Mr. Hofman replied that they did not consider other options because they
always intended to process an amendment. At one time they did discuss granny flats but it was determined
that offsite would be better.
Commissioner Noble stated that he had ex parte communication with Mr. Howes of Hofman Planning. He
asked him the question about graffiti-proof paint. Mr. Hofman replied that the homeowner’s association
would be responsible for applying graffiti-proof paint and he doesn’t know what the cost differential would
be.
Chairman Compas opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
John Jones, 3044 State Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and read a prepared statement which
stated that he is in favor of retaining affordable units in the Costa do Sol project rather than allowing them to
purchase offsite credits. Mr. Jones indicated that the actual costs to provide affordable housing is
approximately $175,000 per unit. He believes there are ways to reduce this high cost. He thinks the cost to
build onsite units could be reduced if smaller lots are allowed and some of the units were offered as rentals.
He would also like to integrate alleys into the project as a way of reducing costs. His remarks were
presented to the Minutes Clerk and will be on file in the Planning Department.
Russell Ames, 854 Blue Bell Court, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he lives in the
Carlsbad Crest development. He is on the board of directors of the homeowner’s association. He polled
twenty members of their board and all were in favor of the proposed amendment to use offsite credits rather
than construct condominiums at Costa do Sol,
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Compas declared
the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
Commissioner Noble commented that there will be 33 less units if the Commission grants the offsite credit
option. A precedent has already been set by allowing other projects to go offsite. City policy would allow
offsite. He can support the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Monroy cannot make the findings to support Policy No. 57 and No. 58 which went to the
Housing Commission. They also opposed issuing offsite credits for this project. The main reason offsite
credits are being recommended is because the City wants to rewver their investment. Mr. Becker replied
that a large part of the analysis for recommending offsite credits focused on the feasibility issue. The
feasibility of constructing onsite units is difficult to validate. Part of this also stems from the fact that Villa
Loma is an excellent project and was built with the intention of selling credits in order to recoup the
investment. It would be in the City and public’s best interest to support the credits.
Commissioner Monroy stated that when we first analyzed affordable housing, a 1,000 s.f. unit was going to
require a subsidy of $75,000. We have always known it would cost money. If we consider the effect on
market rate housing, we will never build affordable housing onsite. This developer knew the requirement
q/ MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,1998 Page 6
when he purchased the project. The first developer made a commitment. Commissioner Monroy cannot
support the project with offsite credits.
Commissioner Savary thanked staff for including copies of Policies 57 and 58 in the staff report. It helped
her to understand it better. The Planning Commission is charged with determining land use. She can
support the density reduction from 47 units to seven units. She will support the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Welshons also appreciated being able to read Policies 57 and 58. The Planning Commission has an obligation to make findings. This project presents many gray areas. A very narrow
finding has been presented. From the beginning, she envisioned that only small projects would be buying
credits in Villa Loma. She also understands that the City would like to recoup their investment. The
Planning Commission is not here to set policy, however, she does think that the policymakers need to better
define the gray area. Commissioner Welshons will support the project but does so hesitatingly.
Commissioner Nielsen requested staff to comment on the affect of having affordable units in a project
intermingled with market rate units. He would also like to hear whether or not CHFA (California Housing
Financing Agency) could assist the developer in keeping the units onsite. Mr. Becker replied that he did not
analyze property value issues. However, from what he knows about affordable housing, he could not
support the conclusions made by the applicant. In his experience, having affordable units within a project
do not lower property values whatsoever. With regard to CHFA, if a developer wants to build onsite units,
his staff would do everything possible to help them achieve this goal. However, in his opinion, it would
require more than CHFA to make the project feasible. In fact, it usually takes several layers of subsidies.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if an affordable home ownership project is feasible. Mr. Becker replied that
it is much more difficult than a rental project because there are not enough deep subsidy sources available
for home ownership. If the City pursues a home ownership project, it would require local participation.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if there are any plans to do this in Carlsbad. Mr. Becker replied that the
Sambi project should contain a mix of home ownership and rental.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that he will support the staff recommendation.
Chairman Compas would like to see affordable housing onsite but he understands the problems. He will
also support the staff recommendation.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 3862, 3883, 3884, 3865, 3888 recommending approval
of the Negative Declaration, SP 203(A), CT 92-01 (A), PUD 92-01 (A), and SDP
93-04(A), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
VOTE: 5-l
AYES: Compas, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Welshons
NOES: Monroy
ABSTAIN: None
For the record, Commissioner Monroy could not support the recommendation because the project was
approved with the idea that there would be onsite affordable housing and this represents a significant
change to that approval.
MINUTES -7 2,
arlsbad Unified School District
801 Pine Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.2439 (819)729-9291 FAX#(SlS) 729-9885 : . . Where All Students Learn Excellently”
February 29, 1996
Mr. Ray Patchett City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Ray,
In the matter of Greystone Homes requesting approval from City council to satisfy their inclusionary housing requirements through participation in the Villa Loma project and Laurel Tree, I am respectfully requesting that the City Council postpone the decision to a later date. The postponement will allow the Carlsbad Unified School District to continue our review in determining whether or not affordable housing may be the best neighbor for our proposed new school in that area.
If you have addition& questions or a need for clarification, please call me.
GWM:ed
83-203 (AI/CT 920l(A)/PUD 929ltA)/SDP 93-4(A) - COSTA DO 80s
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, March 5, 1996, to consider approval of a Negative Declaration and application for a revision of a Tentative Map, and amendment of a Planned Unit Development, Site Development Plan, and Specific Plan to: (1) re-subdivide Condominium Lot No. 115 into 7 single-family lots: (2) redesign the recreational vehicle parking area and the recreational open space lot; (3) satisfy inclusionary housing requirements through participation in the Villa Loma project: and 4) to add to Specific Plan 203, the Villa Loma and Laurel Tree combined affordable housing projects as, potentially available to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements for residential projects within the specific plan, all on property generaiiy iocated east of Paseo Dal No&e, nor& oi C-in0 da las Ondas, and south of Palomar Airport Road, in the PC Zone, in Local Facilities Management Zone 20, and more particularly described as:
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 6136, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed and recorded in the San Diego County Recorder's Office, on July 6, 1977.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4455.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Planned Unit Development Amendment, Site Development Plan Amendment, and/or Specific Plan Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: Greystone Homes PUBLISH: February 24, 1996
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
AVIARA
DATE: February 26, 1996
TO: City Clerk City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92NS
FROM:
LtER OF TRANSMITTAL
Larry Clemens Hilh&n Properties West, Inc. 2011 Palomar Airport Road Suite 206 Carlsbad, CA 92009
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing - Villa L.oma Credit Sales
WE ARE SENDING: X Enclosed Under Separate Cover
VIA: X .Mail FOR Your Use X
Messenger Review/Comment Your
Pick-Up Files Your
-F= Information Your
Your Approval
DESCRIPTION: Letter to Mayor Claude Lewis
REMARKS: Please read the attached letter into the record on March 5, 1996. Thank you.
SIGNED: Kathleen Farley for Larry Clemens
cc:
2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD. SUITE 206 CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92009 (619) 931-1190 FAX: (619) 931-7950
: l .
. . .
-
February 21, 1996
Honorable Claude Lewis
Mayor
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Affordable Housing - Villa Loma Credit Sales (Greystone Cove Appeal of Housing Commission Decision)
Dear Mayor Lewis:
Over the past several years, significant progress has been made in Carlsbad to provide affordable housing. Perhaps it is understated to generically group Carlsbad’s efforts in
affordable housing with other attempts in San Diego County. Carlsbad has done an outstanding job to create a set of regulations that provide the vehicle, the
encouragement of private/public sector venture, and the flexibility to ensure that most
development circumstances are considered.
HillmanProperties takes great pride in pioneering affordable housing in Carlsbad, beginning our efforts with the City even before the inclusionary housing ordinance was in place. Our early involvement was an attempt to make sure the program “got off on the right foot” and to give us and the City working experience while drafting
Wfordable I9 ordinances.
I am sure you will recall the numerous and passionate debates with the citizens, land owners, and developers. The chord that rang throughout the discussions . . . . and was spoken frequently in the City staff’s recommendations and presentations to Council . . . . was flexibility.
Villa Loma was concepted and built on the premise of not only satisfying Aviara’s
affordable housing requirement (166 d.u.), but also building an additional 178 d.u. (for a
total at Villa Loma of 344 d.u’s.). The underlying foundation for the provision of
Hillman’s ‘extra’ credits was, (1) to help recoup both the City’s and Hillman’s pre- development investment and (2) to provide the needed flexibility for appropriate projects to fulfill their affordable obligation through the purchase of credits.
The City Council was supportive of the credit sale provision, signed an agreement on this basis with Aviara, and subsequently adopted a pricing structure for the credits as well as building the credit and off-site provision into the inclusionary ordinance.
Time has gone on. No Isaffordable credits” have been sold, and not for lack of potential purchasers. The purchase of Villa Loma credits give both developers and the
City desired flexibility and help carry out the affordable housing program as originally
2011 PALOWTK AtwxT Ram. SUIT 206 CAKISUAD. CAI.IFOKNIA 92007 (617) 7?1-~170 FM: (613) 1131-7’150
Mavor Claude Lewis February 21, 1996 Page Two
envisioned. To help evaluate the “off-site” potentials, the Council also approved
Council Policy 57 which sets out specific qualificational elements to allow projects to
qualify for the purchase of &affordable credits.” ,.
You currently have an opportunity to sell credits and allow your big picture 9 affordable program to begin to unfold. Greystone Homes will appear before the
Council on March 5, 1996 to appeal a Housing Commission decision which denied
Greystone’s request to fulfil1 their L‘affordable7’ obligation for their Greystone Cove project. Greystone has received City staff (and the Policy Committee’s) recommenda- tion of approval by essentially meeting &l of the Policy 57 tests. Greystone Cove, I believe, is exactly the type of project that deserves to complete their affordable
obligation through the purchase of credits. The Council wisely determined that smaller
projects, in less desireable locations (i.e. transportation corridors; shopping; schools; existing and new neighborhood composition), absolutely must have another answer other than trying to force the integration of affordable housing units in every new project.
Greystone Cove’s proposed Gaffordable creditn purchase is a correct application of the
intent of the ordinance. The sale begins to fulfil1 the agreement with Aviara, provides new capital for new affordable projects elsewhere in Carlsbad, and maintains the spirit of the ordinance mechanism to allow orderly development of market rate and affordable housing in Carlsbad.
Your consideration is requested in approving Greystone’s appeal of the Housing Commission’s decision. Thank you for your continuing efforts to recognize the macro
approach to housing in Carlsbad.
Since ly, e
D. Larry Clemens Vice President/General Manager
cc: Julie Nygaard, Mayor Pro Tern Ramona Finn& Councilmember Matt Hall, Councilmember
Ann Kulchin, Councilmember
Raymond Patchett, City Manager Ron Ball, City Attorney Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Evan Becker, Housing & Redevelopment Director
Coravr\affcrdit.alk
Hofman Planning
Associates
Yy-nica 3 I - 5-7 \,,\a[-:1 -:$--+“; _, : :2(3; ,AfiC’,,S 5
March 5,1996
City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
SUBJECT: Agenda Items No. 12 and 15 - Request by Greystone Homes, Inc. to Purchase
Affordable Housing Credits in the Villa Loma Affordable Housing Projecta and
an Amendment to a previously Approved Subdivision.
Honorable Mayor Lewis and Councilmembers:
This letter is written on behalf of Greystone Homes, Inc. It has come to our attention that the
Carlsbad Municipal School District has made a request to continue our items because they would
like to purchase a portion of our site for a titure elementary school. Although our request
provides the only mechanism to allow the location of a school on our site, the District apparently
wants more time to negotiate with Greystone Homes, Inc. prior to any City Council action. We
have been negotiating with the district over the last few weeks since we first became aware that it
was interested in our property. We will continue to negotiate in an attempt to come to a fair
agreement with the district. In this spirit of cooperation, therefore, we are willing to agree to a
continuance for a two week period. We believe this aliows sufficient time to complete
negotiations with the District.
Sincerely,
Bill Hofman
. . .z ~.C. * : ; \I. il ,?I;Cj 1 ; ct, ‘-‘. ’ __- . .,\,a -JO . -: ~~ .: i O! c.!s-2-14.3
.
r’ c
. l Carlsbad Unified School District
801 Pine Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008-2439 (619)729-9291 FAX#(619) 729-9685 : . . Where All Students Learn Excellently”
March 14, 1996
Mr. Ray Patchett
City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
THE CITY COUNCii
Dear Mr. Patchett,
On behalf of the Board of Trustees, I want to express our appreciation to the City Council and you for allowing us time to negotiate and review land use with Greystone Homes, Inc. regarding an approximate two-acre parcel of land which would have been adjacent to a proposed school site. We have reached an agreement with them to purchase the property as part of a new school site. Therefore, we are hopeful that the City will approve Greystone's request to satisfy their inclusionary housing requirements through participation in the Villa Loma project and Laurel Tree project which would allow the District to develop the property
as part of a proposed school site.
Once again, thank you and the City Council for your cooperation and assistance in planning a new sqhool site.
Superintendent
GWM:ed
1 * .-
. * PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: l am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
FEb. 24, 1996
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at California, this 26 day
of Feb, w 1996
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space is tor the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Public Hearing --------A-----------------
--------------------------
,sl* . . I I
NOTICF OF WlC Hv lAVCT 02-l lA)jPv~) COI)TA . .
he City of Caflsbnd will vilk4Qs Drive. cdibsd. epprouelofeNegotfva mndment of 0 PlonrHd 0: (1) re-SUtdMda
qulremants for residential p east of Paseo Del Norte; n
California, filed and recorded In the of Cartsbad, County of San Dkgo, State of DIego County F&corder% OffIce. m July 6,
I
have any questions ragarding this matter, call Jeff Gibson in the.Planning De$attment, at 3.34161. ext. 4455.
: .
. l
,- -
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SP-203(A)/CT 920l(A)/PUD 92-l(A)/SDP 93-4(A) - COSTA DO SOL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, March 5, 1996, to consider approval of a Negative Declaration and application for a revision of a Tentative Map, and amendment of a Planned Unit Development, Site Development Plan, and Specific Plan to: (1) re-subdivide Condominium Lot No. 115 into 7 single-family lots; (2) redesign the recreational vehicle parking area and the recreational open space lot; (3) satisfy inclusionary housing requirements through participation in the Villa Loma project: and 4) to add to Specific Plan 203, the Villa Loma and Laurel Tree combined affordable housing projects as potentially available to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements for residential projects within the specific plan, all on property generally located east of Paseo De1 No&e, north of Camino de las Ondas, and south of Palomar Airport Road, in the PC Zone, in Local Facilities Management Zone 20, and more particularly described as:
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 6136, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed and recorded in the San Diego County Recorder's Office, on July 6, 1977.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4455.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Planned Unit Development Amendment, Site Development Plan Amendment, and/or Specific Plan Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: Grey&one Homes PUBLISH: February 24, 1996
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
COSTA DO SOL
CT 92-01 (A)/PUD 92-01 (A)/
SDP 93=04(A)/SP 203(A)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Cartsbad,
California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 3, 1996, to consider a request for
recommendation of approval of a Negative Declaration, revision of a Tentative Map, and
amendment of a Planned Development PermitSite Development Plan, and Specific Plan
to: (1) m-subdivide Condominium Lot No. 115 into 7 single-family lots; (2) redesign the
recreational vehicle parking area and the recreational open space lot; (3) satisfy
inclusionary housing requirements through participation in the Villa Loma project; and
(4) TO add to Specific Plan 203, the Villa Loma and Laurel Tree combined affordable
housing projects as potentially available to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements
for residential projects within the specific plan, all on property generally located east of
Paseo del None, north of Camino de las Ondas, and south of Palomar Airport Road, in
the PC Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 20 and more particularly described as:
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 6136 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
California, filed and recorded in the San Diego County Recorder’s Office,
July 6, 1977.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after December 28, 1995. If
you have any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at (619) 438-
1161, ext. 4455.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Amendment, Site
Development Plan Amendment and/or Specific Plan Amendment in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad
at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 92-01 (A)/PUD 92-01 (A)/SDP 93-04(A)/SP 293(A)
CASE NAME: COSTA DO SOL
PUBLISH: DECEMBER 22,1995
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PlANNING COMMISSION
(F0r.m A)
TO: C1T.Y CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notide
SP 203(A)/CT 92zOl(A)/PUD 92-Ol(A)/SDP 93-04(A) - Costa DIJ Sol
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of
.
Thank you.
January 30, 1996
Date
-
FACILITIES FOR CITY CLERK
Costa Do Sol
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLANNING
801 PINE AVENUE 5201 RUFFIN RD STE “B”
CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN DIEGO CA 92 123
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JEFF GIBSON
CALIF DEF’T OF FISH & GAME
330 GOLDENSHORE #50
LONG BFACH CA 90802
~AMliI*SEASIDB HEIGHTS L - 8649 FIRESTONB BLVD DJWNBY CA 90241
GREYSTONE HOMES I&~L\~L - 6767 FOREST LAWN DR 300 LOS ANGELES CA 90068
I.LACE M KRAMER 6798 PASBO DEL NORTE CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRAMALBA CALIFORNIA INC 100 BAY-VIEW CIR 2000 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
TABATA PROPERTIES INC PO BOX 943 CARLSBAD CA 92018
RAYMOND J JORDAN 3474 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROBERT L GOLLINGS 6675 PASBO DBL NORTE F CARLSBAD CA 92009
RAYMOND F & RITA MARRS 1504 LAUREL ST SOUTH PASADBNA CA 91030
DONNA J & DONALD LYKB 1000 PAU HANA DR SOQUBL CA 95073
MICHAEL J VOSS 6675 PASEO DBL NORTE A CARLSBAD CA 92009
THORNHURGH 6675 PASBO DBL NORTB B CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARIE C BEAL 1088 LAGUNA DR B105 CARLSBAD CA 92008
BPPBRSON 6673 PASEO DEL NORTB G CARLSBAD CA 92009
HAROLD S SLATBR 6673 PASEO DEL NORTB H CARLSBAD CA 92009
HORST H BRYTSCHE 5950 PELICAN BAY PLZ PH SAINT PETERSBURG 33707
TURNER 6673 PASEO DEL NORTE B CARLSBAD CA 92009
MORTON B & MARIE SWEET 6673 PASBO DEL NORTE F CARLSBAD CA 92009
PEGGY A LAUZON 28246 WESTBROOK CT FARMINGTON HILLS 48334
COLLEEN D HOLLOWAY 6673 PASEO DEL NORTE D CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN J SCHUBLB 6673 PASBO DEL NORTE A CARLSBAD CA 92009
BADSTUENER 6673 PASEO DEL NORTE B CARLSBAD CA 92009
MATTHEW M LANGUS 14402 MIDDLETOWN LN WESTMINSTER CA 92683
HARVEY & PHYLLIS MANDEL 7373 ALICANTB RD CARLSBAD CA 92009
OSBORN SANDRA L PO BOX 2638 RANCH0 SANTA FE C 92067
CHARLOTTE T HUTCHISON 1239 LA CASA DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069
DONALD G MCCOMAC PO BOX 805 WORLAND WY 82401
ALFRED R HORNING 4811 WINDJAMMER WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROBERT H GARTNER 6677 PASBO DEL NORTE B CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHARLES B GRIMES 25233 CALLB DE TRES AM1 MURRIBTA CA 92563
MARY T &DONNA CAL1 6679 PASBO DBL NORTE D CARLSBAD CA 92009
GERmbE V BRONG 6679 PASBO DBL NORTE l ARLSBAD CA 92009
ELIZABETH SHNAELB 6679 PASBO DBL NORTB CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN G LESLIE 918 CAMINITO ESTRADA CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHARLES M WHALEN 918 CAMINITO ESTRADA CARLSBAD CA 92009
E
A
D
B
WARMAN 69525 MORNINGSIDE DR DESERT HOT SPRING 92241
AUGUST RUSS0 916 CAMINITO ESTRADA E CARLSBAD CA 92009
HAL KAISER 916 CAMINITO ESTRADA A CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSEPH F SCHWAB PO BOX 372693 SATELLITE BEACH F 32937
VIOLA M BORNHORST 915 CAMINITO ESTRADA B CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAWRENCE D WILLIAMS 5340 LOUISE AVE ENCINO CA 91316
DAVID L GANGLOFF 10723 BLGERS ST CERRITOS CA 90703
DAVID & JULIE HERR 918 CAMINITO ESTWA B CARLSBAD CA 92009
NOBUKO M ISHIBASHI 1150 ARDEN DR BNCINITAS CA 92024
SUSAN L JOHNS 1699 SAMAR DR COSTA MESA CA 92626
FREDERICK C BRANDT 13687 DONNYBROOK LN MOORPARK CA 93021
LUND 916 CAMINITO ESTRADA C CARLSBAD CA 92009
DANIEL W & HELEN ROUSE PO BOX 45117 PHOENIX AZ 85064
BRYANT BETTY W 13664 BOQUITA DR DEL MAR CA 92014
DALE & MICHBLE VINCENT 917 CAMINITO BSTRADA A CARLSBAD CA 92009
JULIA P APOSTOL 917 CAMINITO BSTRADA D CARLSBAD CA 92009
- CHARLES CHRIST 6679 PASBO DEL NORTB C CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARIS S RIBNZI 918 CAMINITO ESTRADA F CARLSBAD CA 92009
HERSHEL WBLTON 918 CAMINITO ESTRADA A CARLSBAD CA 92009
DONALD AMAYNARD 6029 DEERFORD ST LAKEWOOD CA 90713
JOSEPH B MROZOWSKI 3193 LINDENWOOD DR DEARBORN MI 48120
DONALD K MOOTB 916 CAMINITO ESTRADA D CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM N HOSHOR 4102 AVENIDA SEVILLA CYPRESS CA 90630
BARTHOLOMEW S BBSTERCI 915 CAMINITO ESTRADA D CARLSBAD CA 92009.
JAMBS B & DOROTHY OHARA 6545 VIA BARONA CARLSBAD CA 92009
RONALD E ATKINSON 6701 PASBO DEL NORTB A CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARD V CLEVER .- PATRICK JOSEPH J & SALLY KOSS 6701 PASBO DBL NORTB B 540 MARLIN CT 1835 PARLIAMENT RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 HAYWARD CA 94544 BNCINITAS CA 92024
RODNEY DENSFORD PAUL F OLIVIBR THOMAS A & SALLY VOYTKO 6701 PASEO DBL NORTE B 6703 PASBO DBL NORTB A 6703 PASBO DBL NORTB B CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JEANBTTE C DWALL MARKGGUNTHBR SCOTT J GERARD1 20545 EYOTA RD 6703 PASBO DBL NORTB D 6703 PASBO DEL NORTB B APPLE VALLEY CA 92308 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES M KENNY HELMUT E WEBBR JOHN C & S BECKER PO BOX 8436 5433 DROVER DR 9342 VIA CRBMA RANCH0 SANTA FE C 92067 SAN DIBGO CA 92115 BURBANK CA 91504
GEORGIA L FROMM DONALD G MCDOUGALL GEORGE V & BETTY KELSO 1088 LAGUNA DR B108 6835 CARNATION DR 6831 CARNATION DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRENT E & LAURA LITTLE AZOLLIA K JAGODA MARY KRYMOWSKI 862 MUIRWOOD DR 6827 CARNATION DR 6825 CARNATION DR OCEANSIDE CA 92057 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
PHYLLIS J WILSON 11816 BERNARD0 TER B SAN DIEGO CA 92128
JOAO P & PAULA FREITAS MARCIA S SIEGEL 1440 SANTA MARTA CT 6817 ZINNIA CT SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM K ONEIL EUGENE W SWACKBR HENRY T MORRIS 6815 ZINNIA CT 1333 OLIVB AVE 13 6809 ZINNIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 VISTA CA 92083 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GUY W MCROSKBY 4135 SKYLINE RD CARLSBAD CA 92008
SALVATORE J LOMBARD0 6805 ZINNIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
DUANA M ROBINSON PO BOX 781769 DALLAS TX 75378
LISETTE E AXSON LINDA C BERRY BROOKS J STORY 6806 ZINNIA CT 1691 BRONCO WAY 6711 XANA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 OCEANSIDE CA 92057 CARLSBAD CA 92009
C;&?iriY S MCGUCKIN STEPHEN R WATSON 853 DEERFLATS DR SAN DIMAS CA 91773
DAVID F MALDONADO - 6816 ZINNIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 6814 ZINNIA CT 'CPiRLSBAD CA 92009
JACK B & LYDIA KBNBWBLL 6820 ZINNIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
ELIZABETH A SCHICK 840 BLUEBELL CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAULA LBMIEUX 842 BLUEBELL CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG PO BOX 85366 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CAROLYN R PUGA 846 BLUEBELL CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
ELLEN H RICE 850 BLUEBELL CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
DONALD B 61 HELEN LEHMBR 852 BLUEBELL CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
RUSSELL F AMES 854 BLUEBELL CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM G NBBLBTT 856 BLUEBELL CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHARLES E KINSBY 872 MARIGOLD CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
RALPH S AOKI 853 BLUEBELL CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALFRED GREENBERG 851 BLUEBELL CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
EVELYN HARVEY 849 BLUEBELL CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
LOIS L PRATUM 845 BLUEBELL CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
PETER R MILLION 440 FORESTWOOD DR VALPARAISO IN 46383
SHERRI S AZIMI 841 BLUEBELL CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAUL E BASART 839 BLUEBELL CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHARLES H WISSMAN 4375 SERBNA AVB OCEANSIDE CA 92056
JOSE & DOLORES NOVOA 22 ALIENTO RANCH0 SANTA MARG 92688
LBBCIA J ROBMBR 834 MISTLETOE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT M & MARY MOYBS 840 MISTLETOE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES J STEWART PO BOX 2997 30401 PATCH BARRACKS* A 09131
REED 844 MISTLETOE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
LOUIS A WEINBERG 846 MISTLETOE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL R JOHNSON 841 MISTLETOE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
HARVEY J FEINMAN 3790 SKYLINE RD CARLSBAD CA 92008
DOROTHY J BATES 843 MISTLETOE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
BARBARA Y GORISHEK 839 MISTLETOE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
HELEN M PFARMAN 835 MISTLETOE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
BAREARASANDS 377 SUNSET DR ENCINITAS CA 92024
DAVID & STEPHANIE KOONS STEVEN B DORSCH TOM F & KATHLEEN TORRBS 831 MISTLETOE LN PO BOX 8234 11910 STEEPLECHASE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 RANCH0 SANTA FE C 92067 MORENO VALLEY CA 92555
RONALD W RAMSEY HICKS JAISOHN & CAROLYN CHUNN 837 BROWN DR 6851 CARNATION DR 1708 AVBNIDA SALVADOR BURBANK CA 91504 CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN CLBMENTE CA 92672
RICHARD B BRAY 1069 POWELL DR PLACENTIA CA 92670
DENNIS A CARES10 HOSBIN T AFSHAR 3202 HACIENDA DR 4525 SUNNYHILL ST DUARTB CA 91010 THOUSAND OAKS CA 91362
DAVID A & BRUCE HOWE SAMIR A Ei SANDRA HAKOOZ HOSBIN AFSHAR 6863 CARNATION DR 104 PRINCE ALBERT LN 4525 SUNNYHILL ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARY NC 27511 THOUSAND OAKS CA 91362
EARL J & PATRICIA SMITH EDWARD GROSVENOR NATSUKO MIZUNO 6869 CARNATION DR 6871 CARNATION DR 6873 CARNATION DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARKHAN A GATES 721 WINDEMBRB CT SAN DIEGO CA 92109
ADAM N WHEELER 1525 LAUREL RD OCEANSIDE CA 92054
WILLIE D & KAY ANDBRS PO BOX 772 YACHATS OR 97498
VIRGINIA R LANE 6881 CARNATION DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT J DEMARCO PO BOX 95696 LAS VEGAS NV 89193
JAMBS B BROWN 6885 CARNATION DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAUL D & JANET STEVENS 6887 CARNATION DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
EUGENE W SWACKBR 1333 OLIVE AVE 13 VISTA CA 92083
DONALD D & ELLEN MARTIN PO BOX 849 CARLSBAD CA 92018
LAURENCE J MISCALL GILLBTT NOLLY BROOKS 1051 SAN PATRICIO DR 6897 CARNATION DR 862 MARIGOLD CT SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
KEVIN ‘M RANKINS DANIEL H & M JENSEN - DONALD P SC SONDRA AVE 864 MARIGOLD CT 40022 BLUEBIRD LN 868 MARIGOLD CT CAkLSBAD CA 92009 PALMDALB CA 93551 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHARLES B KINSBY 872 MARIGOLD CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
CAROL A RUEBRTI 878 MARIGOLD CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
MAXINE L NELSON 873 MARIGOLD CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
PETER I & ANNA LIO 2610 EL AGUILA LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
LINDA K WHITE ROBERT L JORDAN 3660 AQUA LN 2515 MONTGOMERY AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 CARDIFF BY THE SE 92007
CARL & ANNE MOSHBR PAMELA KUHN 2986 N GOLDEN WAY B 875 MARIGOLD CT PRESCOTT VALLEY A 86314 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GLEGHORN JOHN W & FAYE BEAVER 871 MARIGOLD CT 867 MARIGOLD CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
KENNETH C SCHMITT ROBERT F HAINES 863 MARIGOLD CT 7527 NAVIGATOR CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CBRVIN SAUNDERS JOEY L CRAWFORD 13065 VIA BSPERIA 1639 VIA ALEGRB 866 HOLLYHOCK CT DEL MAR CA 92014 SAN DIMAS CA 91773 CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMAS W ROSS0 CARL W MBISTERLIN JAMES A HAWKINS 868 HOLLYHOCK CT 4199 S ANASTACIA CT 1532 VALLBDA LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 GREEN VALLEY AZ 85614 ENCINITAS CA 92024
SANDRA BLAKBLY MAUREEN T MCCORMACK DAVID & THERESA COHEN 876 HOLLYHOCK CT 878 HOLLYHOCK CT 877 HOLLYHOCK CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN I CLBMENTS MICHAEL D & JORDAN HAY JAMBS R WILLIAMS 1381 VIA DBL LOS GRANDE 873 HOLLYHOCK CT 871 HOLLYHOCK CT SAN JOSE CA 95120 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARZINOTTO 867 HOLLYHOCK CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL P FLANAGAN 865 HOLLYHOCK CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
JACK S MCCAIN 863 HOLLYHOCK CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
I s
HANSEN 1992 LYNN R DICK - RICHiiRD B & FIONA DAY ,861 HOLLYHOCK CT 862 GINGER AVB 2885 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008
GEORGE & GAYLB KILAVOS DENNIS J DUFAN JAMES G BAUER 866 GINGER AVB 426 B BLITHEDALE AVB 44 SPRING VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 MILL VALLEY CA 94941 MONTVALB NJ 07645
KELVIN W MCQUBBN THOMAS M & LINDA OHLSBN DAWN I 6: EVELYN HICKS 872 GINGER AVE 874 GINGER AVE 12619 CALLB DE LA SIENA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN DIEGO CA 92130
RANDEE S ANDERSON DONALD A & JOAN WOLFE GLORIA M MCINTOSH 5914 S LB DOUX RD 911 BEGONIA CT 884 GINGER AVB LOS ANGELES CA 90056 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
FLORENCE PETERS H G MCSORLBY MICHAEL A RESTIVO 886 GINGER AVB 2500 W AVENUE 33 890 GINGER AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 LOS ANGELES CA 90065 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JEAN-MARIE HASKBLL BEVERLY LANING SHIRLEY G PROBBRT 509 CARNATION AVE 894 GINGER AVB 879 GINGER AVB CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
PETER W & MARY MOJAS DENNIS A & LINDA BECK RONALD W RAMSEY 10051 VALLEY CIRCLE BLV 883 GINGER AVB 837 BROWN DR CHATSWORTH CA 91311 CARLSBAD CA 92009 BURBANK CA 91504
GEORGE J FISCHER VINCENT B MODZBLBSKI SUSAN A BBRGDAHL 887 GINGER AVE 1618 JAMES DR 891 GINGER AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN A RICHMAN SEASCAPE APTS INC PO BOX 2265 1764 SAN DIEGO AVB CARLSBAD CA 92018 SAN DIBGO CA 92110
CARES10 2207 CALLE CIDRA SAN CLBMBNTB CA 92673
DENNIS A CARES10 KENT A & DANA WHITSON JUNE M & HENRY MATSON 3202 HACIENDA DR 5051 SHORE DR 6725 HYACINTH CIR DUARTB CA 91010 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92009
THE&k B'STOTTS 6727 HYACINTH CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHNSON PEARL E 6733 HYACINTH CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM N HOSHOR 4102 AVENIDA SEVILLA CYPRESS CA 90630
CHESTER A ANDERSON PO BOX 763 CARLSBAD CA 92018
MICHAEL J CLARKE 6705 CLOVER CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
DALE B BBEN JR 6711 CLOVER CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
VIRGINIA L BOYES 6717 CLOVER CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
STOUTENBOROUGH 6723 CLOVER CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
KLOSE 417TH BSB UNIT 26124 BOX 34 09031
DORIS V KOBLSCH 1142 CALLB VISTA DR BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210
- HBBBR - JkNE(AKAADRtJMM 9402 CENTRAL AVB 6731 HYACINTH CIR GARDEN GROVE CA 92644 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALFRED V & RAMONA HAISB MARGARET B GARD 6735 HYACINTH CIR 233 COLOMBO DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CASSBLBBRRY FL 32707
LORRAINE V LARSON TOM C & M HAGBMAN 6709 HYACINTH CIR 2606 ARGONAUTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ARTURO GONZALEZ HAZEL M POWERS 770 SYCAMORE AVB 5240 6717 HYACINTH CIR VISTA CA 92083 CARLSBAD CA 92009
SIMS MIRIAM V 6707 CLOVER CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM L ZIEGLER 1836 CAMPBSINO PL OCEANSIDE CA 92054
FRED P SPECTOR 6755 RUSSBLIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
HUBERT S SCHAUNIG 6709 CLOVER CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
JERRY V & MARCIA LASHER 6715 CLOVER CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHARON M CAMPBELL 6721 CLOVER CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
MADELYN D SHEETS CLARENCE M ANDERSON 6725 CLOVER CT 6727 CLOVER CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RAYMOND C & BETTY BOLES TERRY M ERICKSON 5200 S LAKESHORE DR 239 6191 RADIO DR TEMPE AZ 85283 SAN DIEGO CA 92114
CHARLES R JONES LAUREN M DAVIS 1170 CHINQUAPIN AVB 6712 CLOVER CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MOdTiN ' 367 W WALNUT ST PASADENA CA 91103
ALTAMIRA UNIT NO 4 HOME PO BOX 1068 OCEANSIDE CA 92051
JANICE L DBARDURFF 3162 KITTRICK DR LOS ALAMITOS CA 90720
MILTON & LOIS SCHMIDT 1010 LA CASA DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069
EUGENE W SWACKBR 1333 OLIVE AVB 13 VISTA CA 92083
JAMBS L & BARBARA BAKER 6745 HEATH CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
MACDONALD 6749 NEPETA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009
HILL 1726 FOREST AVB CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARY B HOFMBISTBR PO BOX 1608 SANIBEL FL 33957
RICHARD B OUDBRKIRK 6747 MONTIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
.-- ROGER ROTH 6708 CLOVER CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
GABLE H R 6739 NEPBTA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN E & MARY SCHWERY PO BOX 610 BSTBS PARK CO 80517
FRANCIS D BEWLBY 27647 HIGHWIBW AVB BARSTOW CA 92311
- BARBARA J BEEBY 6033 JOUST LN ALEXANDRIA VA 22315
NEWELL M Ei RUTH AYERS 6741 NEPETA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009
DONALD G & JANET ORR 4025 CHAPMAN PL RIVERSIDE CA 92506
GEORG BUBHRIB 7049 ALMADEN LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROSE M MOLENDA PAUL R SARRAFFE 1437 VIA CHRISTINA 6743 HEATH CT VISTA CA 92084 CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM E MCDONALD MORONG 6745 NBPBTA WAY 6747 NBPBTA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARIE K DENNY TIM C MATTHEWS 6751 NBPBTA WAY 1118 ATWATBR AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 RIVERSIDE CA 92506
ESTHR M SINGER AMELIA R IRVINE 1601 S PACIFIC ST A6 6759 NBPBTA WAY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM G DAVIS RICHARD B BATON 3227 CLAY ST 4216 KNOLLVIEW DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 DANVILLE CA 94506
DARRELL E HOLT 15 LAKE HELIX DR LA MESA CA 91941
CHARLES F & MARY JEAN 6751 MONTIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMBS‘S BRASHER _- ROBERT B NBESON BEATRICE J ARNTSON ‘6753 MONTIA CT 6755 MONTIA CT 6757 MONTIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
TRUMAN B & JOAN CLARK WALTER D MCCORMICK 6759 MONTIA CT 6785 HEATH CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
FRANCES B RUSSELL PO BOX 11322 CARLSBAD CA 92111
RALPH & JOHANNA RIVBRA JOSEF & ZILPA LACKRITZ RAYMOND J SHAVER 2851 COPA DE OR0 DR ' 7031 SNAPDRAGON DR 6777 HEATH CT LOS ALAMITOS CA 90720 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
DENIS DAVIS RUDOLF J DOMENIB DOLORES S CLARKE 47 MADISON ST 80010 5552 RAY0 DEL SOL B 6771 HEATH CT INDIO CA 92201 LAGUNA HILLS CA 92653 CARLSBAD CA 92009
SURVIVORS TWBS GUIDO'TTI WILLIAM G & ROSLYN KATZ 6769 HEATH CT 6767 HEATH CT 6765 HEATH CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES D RIGGINS PRICE TRUDBLLB CHARLES S & CONNIE AXEN 6763 HEATH CT 9458 WORKMAN AVB 31701 GRAND CANYON DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 TEMPLE CITY CA 91780 LAGUNA NIGUBL CA 92677
THOMAS F FORD 6757 HEATH CT CMLSBAD CA 92009
CLBM FAMILY 108 B SOUTH AVB RBDLANDS CA 92373
EUGENE P & GAIL RICHTER 1924 ALAQUA DR LONGWOOD FL 32779
CHERYL A BENSON JESSE B & JOAN ANDERSON DENNIS A CARES10 19172 FLORIDA ST B 6749 HBATH CT 3202 HACIENDA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92648 CARLSBAD CA 92009 DUARTE CA 91010
THOMAS C BBALS PO BOX 358 UNICOI TN 37692
M L HOWARD CLAUDIANUTMAN 922 FUCHSIA LN 924 FUCHSIA LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
TED & SANDRA GOLDBERG LINDLBY L WILLIAMSON ERNEST C & JUNE PRUBTT PO BOX 9545 928 FUCHSIA LN 929 FUCHSIA LN RANCH0 SANTA FE C 92067 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
;l‘iXAN J ANSEL 927 FUCHSIA LN 'CARLSBAD CA 92009
CAROL LYNAH -
26565 EL TOBOSO MISSION VIBJO CA 92691
JOSEPH A CEREONB PO BOX 634 MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94042
LILLIAN L KINDERMANN 921 FUCHSIA LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALTAMIRA UNIT NO 4 HOME 6992 EL CAMINO REAL 105 CARLSBAD CA 92009
WARREN T & ANNE LARSON 6836 WATERCOURSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN M & RITA MCGRATH 769 MASTERS DR OCEANSIDE CA 92057
KENT M & LISA HOUSTON 6828 WATERCOURSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
NORMAN D DORION 6824 WATERCOURSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
JULIO & DORA PONCE 2659 IVAN HILL TBR LOS ANGELES CA 90039
JOHN L BERGSTROM 6816 WATERCOURSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
MACKLER 6812 WATERCOURSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
DONN W & N HOPKINS 6808 WATERCOURSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANDREW J & KUMIKO LEE 6804 WATERCOURSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
THEODORE T COHEN 6800 WATERCOURSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
HARIBERT FBNGLBR 6801 WATERCOURSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
VYTO & OLYMPIA MITTSKUS 6805 WATERCOURSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHARON I LACY 1648 SUMMIT AVB CARDIFF CA 92007
SHERWOOD KINGSBURY 532 HUBBARDSTON RD C PRINCETON MA 01541
HAROLD & RUBY HUMPHRIBS 6817 WATERCOURSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAUL W WESTON 6821 WATERCOURSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
HARBOR POINTE HOMEOWNER 7720 EL CAMINO REAL 2A CARLSBAD CA 92009
ELDON L & CYNTHIA FRY 6841 ALDERWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
ERIC C & DAWN LARSEN 6839 ALDERWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
RBTHY V B 6837 ALDERWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
BOOTH PO BOX 3512 ORANGE CA 92665
CHRISTOPHER W SCHARF 6833 ALDERWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
DOROTHY M PETERSON 6831 ALDERWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
MCNATT ROBERT F 6827 ALDERWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
AUDREY L DONNELLY 985 BSCONDIDO AVE 110 VISTA CA 92083
JO& T ;.$+ii;ST JULIE RITTBR -
f68t23 ALDERWOOD DR 6821 ALDERWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ELTON 0 & NELLIE WATSON 6817 ALDERWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHARLES N SOPBR 6809 ALDERWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
CLAIRE B FITZPATRICK 7511 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
CATHRYN H TROUP 6813 ALDERWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
RBNB J &MARIANCAMOU 6807 ALDERWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAS PLAYAS HOMEOWNERS A PO BOX 1186 CARLSBAD CA 92018
CAROL A SCHNBIDBR 4 VALLEY CIR MILL VALLEY CA 94941
CAROL S CONNBLLY 6811 ALDERWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
HOPE M MITCHBM 6805 ALDERWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAS PLAYAS HOMEOWNERS A PO BOX 1186 CARLSBAD CA 92018
LAS PLAYAS HOMEOWNERS A LAS PLAYAS HOMEOWNERS A JAMBS E FANBLL PO BOX 1186 PO BOX 1186 903 HAWTHORNE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92018 CARLSBAD CA 92018 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JACALYN P WOOD 905 HAWTHORNE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL F GANNON TIMOTHY M HUTTBR 907 HAWTHORNE AVE 939 BEGONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
TONY POWELL 913 HAWTHORNE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009
VALERIE & SIMON JUDE MARTA RIVBRA 915 HAWTHORNE AVB 917 HAWTHORNE AVB CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARONCINO JOSEPH C 919 HAWTHORNE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMBS J & BERRY URICK SHARON L BOKBMPBR 1023 LEXINGTON DR 119 ARMSLEY SQ ALIQUIPPA PA 15001 ONTARIO CA 91762
MARK 6: JOANN HAYDEN RODNEY L & DIANA HEYNEN JACQUBLYN R ALKHAS 927 HAWTHORNE AVE 929 HAWTHORNBAVE 4747 BRYCE CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008
LAS PLAYAS HOMEOWNERS A LAS PLAYAS HOMEOWNERS A CAMILLE J CAVE PO BOX 1186 PO BOX 1186 6835 PBAR TREE DR CARLSBAD CA 92018 CARLSBAD CA 92018 CARLSBAD CA 92009
.
PETER J VANEGMOND DAVID A & JULIA ROMAINF- ,6823 PEAR TREE DR 6831 PEAR TREE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEVEN J MOLINA 6827 PEAR TREE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHARLOTTE L HUNTER 6821 PEAR TREE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
JONES 3007 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT T STRAWBRIDGE 902 HAWTHORNE AVB CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL ARNSTEIN 907 HICKORY CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
NORMA E ORNELAS 913 HICKORY CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAS PLAYAS HOMEOWNERS A PO BOX 1186 CARLSBAD CA 92018
JOHN J & BRBINING BOYCE REGIONAL OFFICE LOAN GU 11000 WILSHIRE BL 90024
CYNTHIA S BURTON 6825 PBAR TREE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALICE C OUDERKIRK 912 HAWTHORNE AVB CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEONARD W IRBDALE 6762 WORSHAM DR WHITTIER CA 90602
GEORGE J BCKBLS 903 HICKORY CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
HELEN SEBBSTYBN 6829 PEAR TREE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMAS B SCHULZ 6823 PEAR TREE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
LUIS REYBS 910 HAWTHORNE AVB CARLSBAD CA 92009
BARBARA SUMNBR 1286 RUE SAINT MARTIN SAN MARCOS CA 92069
MELANIE P MAH 905 HICKORY CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
PHILIP H COHEN 909 HICKORY CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
NORBBRT DISANTO 911 HICKORY CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
DIANNE M'& JANET MATKO ROSAURA SANCHEZ 6830 ALDERWOOD DR 6832 ALDERWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
PETER F & MARY TAYLOR BART J ORTBGA 930 HAWTHORNE AVE 928 HAWTHORNE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
HBRVOLD C WATTNBR 924 HAWTHORNE AVB CARLSBAD CA 92009
DORIS M WILLIAMS 6830 PEAR TREE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
*** 387 Printed ***
A notice !I:,:. otien mailed to all property owners/occupants isted herein.
Date IZ- Irs -f. (‘. pp. I
Signatu?