HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-26; City Council; 13575; Rancho VerdeC-Y OF CARLSBAD - AGE-A BILL .’
RANCH0 VERDE-SDP 95-07 - REVIEW OF
ARCHITECTURE WHICH MAY INCLUDE SECOND
DWELLING UNITS
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 56 - 105 APPROVING a Site Development
Plan for floorplans that include optional second dwelling units which could result in a project
component of more than 50 affordable units.
ITEM EXPLANATION
Typically Site Development Plans for the review of architecture and “affordable housing” are the
purview of the Planning Commission. However, this Site Development Plan has been forwarded
to the City Council because 1) there is a chance that more than 50 second dwelling units could
be built in the subdivision [21.53.120(b)]; and 2) if more than 87 second dwelling units were
’
built, the total number of units would exceed the density of 1.5 units per acre allowed by the
General Plan. Increases above the maximum densities allowed by the General Plan may be
~
permitted by Site Development Plan [LAND USE ELEMENT - RESIDENTIAL; C. IMPLEMENTING
POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS; C.21.
The applicant, Centex Homes, has proposed 5 floorplans, ranging is size from 3,000 square feet
to 4,700 square feet, 3 of which include optional second dwelling units. The second dwelling
units have been designed to be completely integrated within the structures to include separate
exterior entrances and individual kitchenettes. The sizes of the optional second dwelling units
I range from 440 to 532 square feet. Each second dwelling unit will be subject to the same
restrictions required by the second dwelling unit administrative permit which includes a deed
restriction on the amount of rent that could be charged.
Allowing more than 87 second dwelling units within the Ranch0 Verde subdivision will still be
within the dwelling unit cap established by the zone plan, because the Zone 1 I Local Facilities
Management Plan projected a higher number of units to be built within the zone than the actual
number of units being built.
P
9 0
%
%
The Encinitas Union Elementary School District submitted a letter to the Planning Commission
protesting the approval of the second dwelling units. The District claims that the Zone 11 Local
Facilities Management Plan is inadequate and can therefore not be used in the assessment of
public facilities for all projects within Zone 11.
Approval of the Site Development Plan, as a quasi-judicial action, is appropriately addressed by
the Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan and the impacts to school facilities will be
appropriately mitigated through the statutory payment of school impact fees, currently $1.84 per
square foot.
5 I ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
6 The Tentative Map was approved by the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The development proposed by the Site
d Development Plan does not significantly change the impacts identified in the Tentative Map
5
analysis. Therefore, a notice of prior compliance has been issued.
0
e PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 31; 535
FA FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the Site Development Plan and construction of the project with second dwelling units
will not incur direct costs to the City. Inclusion of the second dwelling units may add assessed
value to the homes which in turn would result in greater property tax revenue.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS
Facilities Zone 11
Local Facilities Management Plan 11
Growth Control Point 1 .O du/ac
Net Density 1 .O du/ac - 2.0 du/ac *
Special Facilities CFD No. 1
* Two units per acre could be the maximum potential if each approved unit was developed with
a second dwelling unit.
EXHIBITS
1. City Council Resolution No. ‘?6 - /OS (SDP 95-07)
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3895
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated February 7, 1998
5. Excerpt from Planning Commission minutes dated February 7, 1996
6. Correspondence submitted to the Planning Commission.
. RESOLUTION NO. 96-105
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOME
FLOOR PLANS WITH OPTIONAL SECOND DWELLING
UNITS.
CASE NAME: RANCH0 VERDE
CASE NO: SDP 95-07
WHEREAS, on February 7, 1996, the Carlsbad Planning Commission
held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Site Development Plan SDP 95-07
and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 3895 recommending to the City
Council that SDP 95-07 be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 26th
day of March , 1996 held a public hearing to consider the recommendations and
heard all persons interested in or opposed to the Site Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared for the prior subdivision of the
subject property and was considered to be adequate for the analysis of the proposed
SDP; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Prior Compliance was issued; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad this day 26th , of
March , 1996, held a public hearing to consider Site Development Plan SDP
95-07 and the comments of all persons wishing to be heard on the matter.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California that:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the
approval of the Site Development Plan, SDP 95-07 is approved
and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission
-
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
contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3895, on file
with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference are the
findings and conditions of the City Council.
3. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the
City Council. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, “Time limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT’
“The time limit 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 the Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking
judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court no later than the
ninetieth 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 proceedings accompanied by the required deposit
in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost for the preparation
of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in the
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 or record, if he has one. A 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.”
. . . .
. . . .
. ..I
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 26th day of March ,
1996.
AYES: Council Members Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila and Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Lewis
ABSTAIN: None
u R. lcc?xL&J
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Cl
3
RANCH0 VERDE
SDP 9507
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3895
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. SDP 95-07 FOR
ARCHITECTURAL FLOORPLANS AND ELEVATIONS
WHICH MAY INCLUDE SECOND DWELLING UNITS
WITHIN AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION, CT 89-18, ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE CITY ADJACENT
TO THE CITY OF ENCINITAS.
CASE NAME: RANCH0 VERDE
CASE NO: SDP 95-07
WHEREAS, Centex Homes has filed a verified application with the City of
Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site
Development Plan as provided by Chapter 21.06 and Section 21.53.120 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on the 7th day of February 1996, consider said request on property
described as:
Portions of lots 8, 9, and 15 of the subdivision of Ranch0 Las
Encinitas in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to map thereof No. 848, filed in the
offke of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 27,
1898.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to SDP 9507.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
‘I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
- A
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Site Development Plan, SDP 95-07, based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
1. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and
environmental settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the
General Plan, will not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted
in the area in which the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact
the site, surroundings or traffic circulation, in that the project is the review of
architecture for single family homes within a single family residentially zoned
property within a tract of land that has been approved for subdivision;
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
use, in that the individual lots were established with the approval of CT 89-18 which
subdivided the property into 174 single family lots, all of which are at least 25,000
square feet;
3. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to
adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will
be provided and maintained, in that the lots created by CT 89-18 are large enough
to accommodate each of the proposed single family homes without the need for
adjustments or variances;
4. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all
traffic generated by the proposed use, in that each of the streets within the approved
subdivision is designed to meet all City standards;
5. That:
a> the project is a residential project consistent with zoning;
b) the project is consistent with the R-1-25,000 and Planned Community Zoning;
c> there was a Mitigated Negative Declaration approved in connection with the
prior approval of the subdivision;
d) the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as
significant in the prior Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
e> none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163 exist.
6. That the project, as conditioned herein for SDP 95-07, is in conformance with the
Housing Element of the City’s General Plan, based on the following:
PC RESO NO. 3895 8 -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
- -
That the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the Developer has been conditioned to pay the
required Housing Impact Fee or enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to
provide and deed restrict second dwelling units as affordable to lower-income
households and/or pay a prorated impact fee for each market rate unit built;
7. That the project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan in that
the inclusion of second units which qualify as affordable units will increase the
density of the project above the Growth Management Control Point and that the
Residential Implementing Policy and Action Program C.2 of the Land Use Element
allows for the increase of density through the approval of a Site Development Plan
if the additional units qualify as affordable.
8. That the project will provide sufficient public facilities for the density in excess of
the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s public facilities plans will
not be adversely impacted.
9. That there have been sufftcient developments approved in the quadrant at densities
below the growth control point to cover the units in the project above the control
point so that the approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit.
10. That all necessary public facilities required by Chapter 21.90 will be constructed
concurrently with the need for them created by this development and in compliance
with the adopted City standards.
Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Site Development
Plan for the Project entitled “Ranch0 Verde” as shown on and within Exhibits “Al”-
“I-I” on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference, dated
February 7, 1996, subject to the conditions herein set forth. Staff is authorized and
directed to make or require the Developer to make all corrections and modifications
to the Site Development Plan 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. Development shall be defined as the construction of a single family
detached home on a vacant lot.
2. 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.
PC RESO NO. 3895 9 -3-
.
N 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
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Prior to the issuance of building permits the Developer shall submit to the City a
Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors
in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Site Development Plan by
Resolution No. 3895 on the real property owned by the developer. Said Notice of
Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing
complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or
restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning
Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which
modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the developer
or successor in interest.
The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance
with the City’s Landscape Manual. The plans shall be submitted to and approval
obtained from the Planning Director prior to the approval of building permits. The
Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans,
and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds,
trash, and debris.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new buildings so as to
be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or
addresses shall contrast to their background color.
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 display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales office
at all times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the
Site Plan as approved by the City. The Site Plan shall reflect the conditions of
approval by the City. The Plan copy shall be submitted to the City Engineer and
approved prior to the issuance of building permits. Setbacks consistent with the R-l
zone (Chapter 21.10 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) shall be shown on the
required site plan for each residential lot.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the Developer shall
pay the required Housing Impact Fee per lot or shall enter into an Affordable
Housing Agreement with the City to provide and deed restrict second dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households for the useful life of the dwelling units
and/or pay a prorated impact fee per market rate unit built, in accordance with the
requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director
not later than 30 days of approval of this Site Development Plan. The recorded
Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors
in interest.
PC RESO NO. 3895 -4-
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10. Additions, alterations and/or modifications to individual residential structures and
the construction of detached accessory structures subsequent to the completed
construction of a single family home as approved by this SDP, are permitted and do
not require an amendment to this Site Development Plan. Said additions,
alterations and/or modifications and/or detached accessory structures shall be
subject to the R-l standards as found in Chapter 21.10 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code.
11. All development and future development shall adhere to the development standards
of the R-l zone (Chapter 21.10 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code).
EngineerinP Conditions:
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction
site within this project, the applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the
City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The applicant shall comply with all
conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the
hauling operation.
Prior to issuance of a building permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the
property owner shall pay a one-time special development tax in accordance with City
Council Resolution No. 91-39.
Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall pay all current fees and deposits
required.
Prior to approval of building permits, the owner of the subject property shall execute
an agreement holding the City harmless regarding drainage across the adjacent
property.
Drainage outfall and treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road
for maintenance purposes is not provided, shall be designed and incorporated into
the grading/improvement plans for the project. These end treatments shall be
designed so as to prevent vegetation growth from obstructing the pipe outfall.
Designs could consist of a modified outlet headwall consisting of an extended
concrete spillway section with longitudinal curbing and/or radially designed rip-rap,
or other means deemed appropriate, as a method of preventing vegetation growth
directly in front of the pipe outlet, to the satisfaction of the Community Services
Director and the City Engineer.
This project is subject to all original conditions of approval for CT 89-18 as they
apply to this project.
General:
18. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right
PC RESO NO. 3895 -5- ,/
-
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
19.
20.
21.
-
to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance
of all future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and
prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages
for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in
interest by the City’s approval of this Resolution.
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.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits for the model complex
are not issued for this project within 18 months from the date of project approval.
AI1 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.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of February,
1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble,
Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATI’EST:
MICHAEL JxOLmILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3895 -6-
EXHBlT 4
A lM!Mi i!iii?ii%%i COMMISSION @
Item No. 3 0
P.C. AGENDA OF: February 7, 1996
Application complete date: December 8, 1995
Project Planner: Christer Westman
Project Engineer: Ken Quon
SUBJECT: SDP 95-07 - RANCH0 VERDE - Request for a recommendation of approval
of a Site Development Plan approving architectural elevations and floor plans
which include the possibility of second dwelling units for a previously
approved 174 residential lot subdivision on property generally located at the
southeasterly comer of the City of Carlsbad adjacent to the City of Encinitas
in Local Facilities Management Zone 11.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3895,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Site Development Plan SDP 95-07 based on the findings
and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The Ranch0 Verde subdivision (CT 89-18) was approved by the Planning Commission and
City Council in August of 1990. Because no architecture or floor plans were submitted for
approval with CT 89-18, a condition was placed on the map that a Site Development Plan
would be processed to review the project product prior to the issuance of building permits.
A Site Development Plan is also required to allow for the possibility of “affordable housing”
second dwelling units within some of the homes. The subdivision is subject to the payment
of an inclusionary housing impact fee for each lot developed with a residential unit. As an
option to the payment of that fee, the applicant has proposed the possible construction of
second units. As an option to the home buyer, three of the five floor plans include an
optional second dwelling unit. If the optional second dwelling units are popular with the
home buyers, there could potentially be more than 50 second dwelling units included within
the subdivision. Projects with an affordable component that has more than 50 units, must
be reviewed by the City Council.
HI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project is the review of architecture for a previously approved subdivision. Five (5)
plans have been proposed ranging in size from approximately 3034 square feet to
approximately 4629 square feet. All of the floor plans have been designed to accommodate
consumer options such as an additional garage, and three of the five floor plans have been
designed to accommodate an optional second dwelling unit.
SDP 95-07 - RANCH0 VERDE
February 7, 1996
Page 2
Plan one is a single story floor plan with a three car garage and the option of a second floor
bedroom/lounge of up to 594 square feet. The architectural styles offered are Prairie, Early
California, and Bungalow.
Plan two is a single story floor plan with a three car garage and the option of a five car
garage. The architectural styles offered are Spanish Hacienda, American Farmhouse, and
European Country.
Plan three is a two story floor plan with a three car garage and a variety of options which
include a 440 square foot second unit. The architectural styles offered are Monterey,
French Country, and American Farmhouse.
Plan four is a two story floor plan with a four car garage and a variety of options which
include a 532 square foot second unit. The architectural styles offered are Italian Villa,
Hampton and Spanish Villa.
Plan five is a two story floor plan with a four car garage and a variety of options which
include a 523 square foot second unit. The architectural styles offered are Bungalow, Early
California, and Prairie.
Iv. ANALYSIS
A. Architecture and Plotting
The applicant has designed homes specifically for this development and has proposed a
variety of options which when implemented will create an exceptionally diverse streetscape.
The home designs proposed by the applicant are not typical of production single family
subdivisions. A variety of facade materials are proposed which include stucco, wood, brick
and stone as well as a variety’ of architectural styles.
To minimize the potential of having the same floor plan, options and architectural styles
adjacent to or in immediate proximity to each other, the applicant established lot restrictions
(Exhibit D). Also included within the exhibit is a matrix which identifies which floor-plans
will fit on each lot. These restrictions will be administered by the applicant and verified by
staff through the plan check process and will help maintain the semi-custom presentation
of the development at buildout.
Building heights vary from 21 feet to 33 feet. The maximum height allowed within an R-l
zone for lots greater than 20,000 square feet is 35 feet. The lots within the Ranch0 Verde
subdivision are 25,000 square feet or greater. Each proposed architectural style will result
in a variation of overall building heights, however, in no case will the height of any proposed
building exceed the maximum of 35 feet.
For the benefit of example, the applicant prepared a “preferred” plotting of floorplans for
the entire subdivision. The plotting is also the applicant’s preferred mix of floorplans for
the project. As shown on Exhibits “Al” through “A14”, the applicant’s plotting illustrates
-
SDP 95-07 - RANCH0 v&RDE
February 7, 1996
Page 3
that the lots are of adequate dimensions to accommodate all typical R-l setbacks. Those
building setbacks are determined by the lot width. Side yard setbacks are required to be
10% of the lot width, rear yards are required to be 20% of the lot width and front yard
setbacks must be a minimum of 20 feet. The applicant’s preferred plotting typically exceeds
the mihimum. Setbacks for floor plans other than those shown as the applicant’s preferred
plotting will be verified as being in compliance with the R-l setback standards through the
plan check process.
B. Optional Second Units
Because second units will be built as they are purchased as an option, a specific number of
units and their locations have not been established. There are sufficient “banked” units in
the quadrant to allow the entire development to buildout with second units, however, that
is unlikely. For the project to build out with second units, no models one or two would be
chosen by home buyers. Additional discussion related to the process allowing affordable units above the growth control point and the southeast quadrant unit cap follows:
1. General Plan
The site was approved with 174 lots on 174 unconstrained acres. Therefore the
number of lots within the subdivision was at the growth control point for Residential
Low, 1 du/ac. The inclusion of any second units will subsequently raise the density
within the subdivision above the growth control point. However, as stated in the
General Plan, a Site Development Plan may be approved to allow an increase in
density.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan, (RESIDENTIAL, C.
IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACIION PROGRAMS; C.2) states that density
increases above the maximum densities permitted by the General Plan may be
increased for the provision of affordable housing through the processing of a Site
Development Plan (SDP). The SDP shall be evaluated relative to: (a) the proposal’s
compatibility with adjacent land uses; (b) the adequacy of public facilities; and (c) the
project site being located in proximity to a minimum of one of the following: a
freeway or major roadway, a commercial center, employment opportunities, a City
park or open space, or a commuter rail or transit center. Following is a discussion
of how the project is in compliance with each of the criteria.
(a) Because the second units are proposed to be incorporated within the
individual homes and each home may have a second unit, there will
not be an issue of compatibility.
(b) Public facilities will be provided through the construction of the
subdivision infrastructure. Throughout Zone 11, the second units
would not overburden facilities because the total number of units
within the Zone will still be below the quadrant cap.
SDP 95-07 - RANCH0 VERDE
February 7, 1996
Page 4
(c) The subdivision has been designed to provide a great amount of open
space. In addition the La Costa Valley High School and Stagecoach
park are in close proximity.
2. Quadrant Unit Caps
Allowing second units within the Ranch0 Verde subdivision will not exceed the
southeast quadrant unit cap. Recent additions to the excess dwelling unit bank by
the applicant total 145 units in the southeast quadrant through the Sonata
development (43 units) and the Rice Property (102 units) development. Additional
units have been added to the bank through the Ranch0 Carrillo development and
others, which in total are close to one thousand. Because there is such a surplus of
. units in the southeast quadrant there is no danger of this project breaking the “bank.”
3. Proposed Affordable Housing Agreement
The subdivision was approved prior to the adoption of the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance. Therefore, to satisfy the requirements of the Ordinance, the applicant
is obligated to pay the impact fee of $2,925.00 per residential lot as established by City Council Ordinance NS-232. Affordable housing onsite is not required and if
provided would be over and above the Ordinance requirement. However, through
a proposed affordable housing agreement, the applicant has requested the option to
provide either affordable housing onsite in the form of second units or pay the fee.
The second unit ordinance restricts the size of second units to 640 square feet and
the proposed optional second units range in size from 440 square feet to 532 square
feet.
Approval of the Site Development Plan will allow the opportunity for an Affordable
Housing Agreement to be considered which provides second units onsite in lieu of
the payment of an impact fee.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Ranch0 Verde subdivision was approved with the issuance of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, therefore a notice of prior compliance was issued.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2.
3.
4.
5. 6.
7.
8.
9.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3895
Location Map
Notice of Prior Compliance dated January 12, 1996 Environmental Impact Assessment Part II dated December 20, 1995
Background Data Sheet Disclosure Statement
Exhibits Al through Al4 (Preferred Plotting Plan)
Exhibits B1.l through B1.5 (Plan One)
Exhibits B2.1 through B2.5 (Plan Two)
C-
SDP 95-07 - RANCI-W v dRDE
February 7, 1996
Page 5
10. Exhibits B3.1 through B3.4 (Plan Three)
11. Exhibits B4.1 through B4.5 (Plan Four)
12. Exhibits B5.1 through B5.5 (Plan Five)
13. Exhibits Cl through C3 (Conceptual Landscape and Fence Plan)
14. Exhibit D (Lot Restrictions).
CW:kr
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Please Take Notice:
The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project
described below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified
environmental documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be
required and a notice of determination will be filed.
Project Title: Ranch0 Verde
Project Location: Southeasterly corner of the City adjacent to the City of Encinitas.
Project Description: Architectural review for floor plans which include the possibility for
an existing subdivision of Second Dwelling units.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community
Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
ten (10) days of date of publication.
DATED:
CASE NO:
JANUARY 12,1996
SDP 95-07 Planning Director
CASE NAME: RANCH0 VERDE
PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 12, 1996
CW:kr
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 l (619) 438-l 161 @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. SDP 95-07
DATE: DECEMBER 20. 1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: RANCH0 VERDE
2. APPLICANT: CENTEX HOMES
7 -. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5962 La Place Court. Suite 250 Carlsbad. CA.
92008
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMlTTED: DECEMBER 08.1995
5 - . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Architectural review of a nreviouslv aDDrOVed subdivision.
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
- Water
- A i r Quality
- Hazards - Cultural Resources
- Noise - Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 3128195 I 3
DETERMINATION.
h
(To be completed by the L..ead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
t find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared. cl
J 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. 0
J find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. cl
J 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 0
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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have
been 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. El
h*h ._ December 20, 1995
Planner Signature Date
Phnning Director Signhhre Date
Rev. 3/28/95 2 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Jmpact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration,
or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately
supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact”
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when
there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact
is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant
Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but fl 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 pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances
requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare
an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been
made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project
or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 3/28/95 d 1
- -
.- If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate
“Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration may be prepared.
. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited
to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or
mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to
mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed
mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part
II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to
below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DTSCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
Rev. 3128195 aa
-
‘Is.sucs (and Supporting Information !hrces):
-
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
UbSS
Mitigation
lncmporatd
LessThan
Significant No
impact lmpac t
a)
b)
cl
4
e>
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s):(Mitigated Negative Declaration for
CT 89-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (Mitigated Negative Declaration for
CT 89-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT
89-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-l 8)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-18)
IT. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-l 8)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Mitigated Negative Declaration
for CT 89-18)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT
89-18)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
IJT. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
5 Rev. 3/28/95 a--;
.
1.ssuc.s (and Supporting Information Sources):
a>
b)
c>
d)
s)
Jl>
8
Fault rupture? (Mitigated Negative Declaration for
CT 89-18)
Seismic ground shaking? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-18)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Mitigated
Negative Declaration for Cl” 89-18)
Landslides or mudflows? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-18)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
Subsidence of the land? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-18)
Expansive soils? (Mitigated Negative Declaration
for CT 89-18)
Unique geologic or physical features? (Mitigated
Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
TV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Mitigated
Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-18)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity) ? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-18)
6
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
UllkSS
Mitigation
Imorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rev. 3128195 at’
-.
~ksws (and Supporting Information Sources);
4
‘e)
Potentially
Significant
impact
Potentially
Significant
UlllesS
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan Significant No
Impact lmpac t
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (Mitigated Negative Declaration for
CT 89-18)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
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? (Mitigated Negative Declaration for
CT 89-18)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (Mitigated
Negative Declaration for CT 8948)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
4
b)
c>
4
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-l 8)
-
-
-
-
Create objectionable odors? (Mitigated Negative .
Declaration for CT 89-18)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rev. 3/28/95
ad/
issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal
result in:
a>
b)
c)
4
d
9
s)
VII.
a>
b)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-18)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-
18)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT
89-18)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Mitigated
Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-18)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
-.
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
UIllesS Mitigation
Incorporated
Lasnan Significant
impact
No
impact
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rev. 3128195
.2-4
issues (and Supporting Information SOUI-WS):
c>
d)
e>
VTIJ.
4
b)
cl
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-18)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-
18)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-18)
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?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
UnlesS Mitigation
Incorporated
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Mitigated
Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? (Mitigated Negative Declaration for
CT 89-18)
L.essTbm
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rev. 3128195
27
A -
isws (and Supporting Information Sources):
* Potentially
Significant
impact
Potentially
Significant
UlllesS
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (Mitigated Negative Declaration
for CT 89-18)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (Mitigated Negative Declaration
for CT 89-l 8)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Mitigated
Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
XT. 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)
b)
cl
4
Fire protection? (Mitigated Negative Declaration
for CT 89-18)
Police protection? (Mitigated Negative Declaration
for CT 89-18)
Schools? (Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT
89-18)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
Other governmental services? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-18)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-18)
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Inipac t
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
10 Rev. 3/28/95
26
-Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
b)
c>
4
e>
9
6)
Potentially
Significant
impact
Communications systems? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-18)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT
89-18)
Sewer or septic tanks? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-l 8)
Storm water drainage? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-18)
Solid waste disposal? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-l 8)
Local or regional water supplies? (Mitigated
Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
XTTJ. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18) -
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18) -
c) Create light or glare? (Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
XJV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Mitigated
Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Mitigated
Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
c) Affect historical resources? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-18)
Potentially
Significant
UIlkS Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
impact
No
Impact
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
11 Rev. 3/28/95
29
-
. Jsucs (and Supporting Information Sources):
d)
d
Potentially
Significant
impact
Potentially
Significant
UllkSS
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan Significant No
Impact Impact
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? (Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 89-18)
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 89-18)
x
x
x
x
12 Rev. 3/28/95
30
-
Iswcs (and Supporting Information Sources):
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
UXlkSS
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan Significant No
Impact lmpac t
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)
x
x
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
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:
a) A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted for the subdivision of the property, CT 89-18.
b) The scope of the Environmental Impacts Assessment for CT 89-18 was extensive and included all of
the topics listed above. No significant impacts were identified which would be a direct result of the
construction of the single family residences.
c) The measures which were incorporated into the approval of the subdivision were mitigation related
primarily to the physical disturbance of the land through grading. No mitigation measures were required
or are applicable to this phase of the project.
13 Rev. 3128195 31
-
-DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
-
_ AIR QUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan
will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result
in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and
suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San
Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are
considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated
General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation
measures are recommended in the Final Master ElR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection
improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the
implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative
modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site
design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project
or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-
attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project
is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification
of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding
Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental
review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
ClRC ULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan
will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic;
however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the
City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections
along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation
measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of
circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as
trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in
regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
14 Rev. 3/28/95 3 2
- -.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections
at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Tnitial Study” checklist is marked
. “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an
ETR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No.
94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including
this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
SUMMARY
The project is the approval of architectural elevations for single family homes that will be built on previously
approved and graded lots. Therefore this project relies on its compliance with a previous analysis.
15 Rev. 3/28/95 7 3 d/3
BACKGROUND DATA SHEE -
CASE NO: SDP 95-07
CASE NAME: Ranch0 Verde
APPLICANT: Centex Homes
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for approval of architectural elevations and floorplans which
include the possibilitv of second dwelling units for 171 residential lots at the southeasterlv corner of the
Citv adiacent to the Citv of Encinitas ,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portions of lots 8.9 and 15 of the subdivision of Ranch0 Las Encinitas in the
Citv of Carlsbad, Countv of San Dieno. State of California, according to map thereof No. 848, filed in the
office of the Countv Recorder of San Diego Countv, June 27, 1898.
APN: 255-031-17; 264-010-21, 22, 23, 25; 264-220-71
(Assessor’s Parcel Number)
Acres 214 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 171
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation Residential Low and Open Space
Density Allowed 1.0 dulac Density Proposed l-2 du/ac
Existing Zone PC/R-l-25.000 Proposed Zone same
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site PC/R-l-2,5OO/OS Vacant
North PC La Coasta Valley
High School (under
construction)
South Encinitas Residential
East Encinitas Vacant/Residential
West K-l-lO,OOO/OS Vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Encinitas Union Elementary and San Dieguito High Water District Olivenhain Municipal
Sewer District Lecuadia Countv
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 171
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated June 12, 1989
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
- Negative Declaration, issued
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, Prior Compliance (Mitigated Negative Declaration issued 3/29/90)
34
DISCLOSL’RE ST.4nMENT
AVI,ICAWS fTA’EVE%T :F ::SCt’3SME OF CEWAlN OWNERSHIP NTEPESTS ON ALL APP!JCAT:CNS *rlc+, NILL a,zzL,p~ =~SCa-ICNAaY ACTCN CN -‘-E JART CF WE C.W CCLNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED BOAR0 CCk&,+fSSlON 3~ CCMM~EE
Pease Pnnf)
The followlng information must be disclosed:
1. Aoolicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application,
(zu7-la flpuF<
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names ana
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnersmp
interest in the partnership.
ti \A
4. If any person identbd pursuurt to (1) or (2) abovm is a non-piofIt orgurization or a trust, list the names and
addresses of any person son&g aa of&or or director of the nonprofit org8niration or as trustee or beneficiary
of the trust.
FR.Mm13 8/90
2075 La8 Palmr8 Drive - Carlrbrd. California 920094859 l (819) 438-l 161 35.
.
DisctosurO Statement
.
.‘Over)
Page 2
5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, 3carzr Commrsslons, CommIttees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No J If yes, please indicate person(s)
oerwn IO dofinod U: ‘Any nndwaduab firm. copuVwrh~p. ~omtvmturr. a~s~ci~on. SOCIJ club, ffaem& orgwt~~M~on. corporation. l stwo cast. -. I rocw4sr. syndlcato. tkm ana my 0th~ county. cly and county. cny mun~cwhty. d1atnc1 of 0th~ poln~cai sbdwtr~on. or my omr poco or
comomatlon l ctrng as l wt.’
h additional pages as necessary.)
c-c tLo% SW n&Lo Vk&bJ
ta# RoHaiCIL Print or type name of owner
SAAJI~
Signature of applicantMate
Print of vpo name of apphnt
FRMooo13 w90
C ExHBrr5
3. SDP 95-07 - RANCH0 VERDE - Request for a recommendation of approval of a Site Development
Plan approving architectural elevations and floor plans which include the possibility of second
dwelling units for a previously approved 174 residential lot subdivision on property generally located
at the southeasterly comer of the City of Carlsbad adjacent to the City of Encinitas in Local
Facilities Management Zone 11.
Chairman Compas advised the public that if the Planning Commission recommends approval, the
application will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration.
Christer Westman, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the Ranch0
Verde project was originally approved in August 1990. That subdivision approval included conceptual
grading and landscape plans only. A condition was placed on the project for it to return to the Commission
with architecture and floor plans, hence this Site Development Plan. The applicant, Centex Homes, has
proposed five different floor plans ranging in size from 3,000 s.f. to 4,700 s.f. There is a variety of styles
which the applicant will discuss. The floor plans and elevations being proposed are within the building
height limits for the R-l zone and the preferred plotting shows that the units will fit on the property and meet
all of the required setbacks. A unique feature of this subdivision is the option for a second dwelling unit for
MINUTES 3 7
February 7,1996
three of the five floor-plans. The applicant has expressed an intention to satisfy their inclusionary housing
requirement through this optional second unit. When the project was originally approved, it was prior to the
adoption of the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance. Therefore. its minimum requirement is to pay an impact
fee which is $2,925 per lot. The applicant proposes an affordable housing agreement which makes it
possible to provide second dwelling units, should they be desired by potential homebuyers, as credit against
the impact fee due to the City. The site development plan is also required because there may be more
than 50 second dwelling units within the project area.
Mr. Westman stated that there is a Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance which allows second dwelling units to
be added to existing homes. The inclusion of second dwelling units as affordable units is consistent with the
general plan and also acts as an incentive to provide affordable housing. The environmental analysis was
conducted with the Tract Map and was approved under a mitigated negative declaration. When staff
reviewed the site development plan it was found to be significantly the same as the original approval in
1990 since the only change is the addition of second dwelling units.
Mr. Westman reviewed staff memo dated February 6, 1996, which describes a minor change to Condition
#lo, Resolution No. 3895, replacing the word “development” with “the completed construction of a single
family home as approved by this SDP.” Staff also received a letter of opposition from the Encinitas Union
School District.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if the project would have to go to the City Council if the applicant agreed to
only build 49 second dwelling units. Mr. Westman replied that it would not have to go if the number of
second dwelling units is less than SO.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired how many potential second dwelling units could be built on the site. Mr.
Westman deferred response to the applicant.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that Plan #l has a second floor bedroom lounge of 594 s.f.; he inquired if
that could be used as a second dwelling unit. Mr. Westman replied no.
Chairman Compas invited the applicant to speak.
Mark Rohrlich, Vice President of Development for Centex Homes, 5962 La Place Court, Suite 250,
Carisbad, addressed the Commission and stated that Ranch0 Verde is a very unique project. It is located in
an area with protected open space and there will be conservation easements established in the area. The
project is approved with 174 single family dwelling units. The homes will be semi-custom in nature and
very large. The granny flat is incorporated into the design so it is difficult to discern that it is a second
dwelling unit. Not only will the second dwelling unit provide affordable housing, it will be an excellent
opportunity for a homeowner to house parents, children, or domestic help.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the property backs up to the City of Encinitas. Mr. Rohrlich replied yes.
Commissioner Welshons inquired how close the project is to Lone Jack Road. Mr. Rohrlich replied about a
mile and a half.
Commissioner Welshons inquired what will be built on the other side of the property. Mr. Rohrlich replied
that he believes the adjoining property is custom home sites,
Commissioner Nielsen inquired how many affordable units he anticipates producing. Mr. Rohrlich replied
that the homes will be built to suit. It depends on what the homebuyer would like to have included. If the amendment to the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance, just discussed, had been passed, he seriously doubts if
anyone would be interested in buying a home with a second dwelling unit. His plans anticipated
MINUTES 3 8
PLANNING COMMISSION February 7,1996
construction of approximately 58 second dwelling units but he will commit to limiting availability to only 49
units if that means he can dispense with going to the City Council.
Chairman Compas opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
6onnie Wren, 3342 Camino Coronado, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she lives in
the first phase of Summer-walk Homes which is across the street from the Centex Development, called
Sonata. It is unclear to her which schools the children from Ranch0 Verde will attend. Mission Estancia is
severely overcrowded as is Olivenhain Pioneer Elementary. She hopes the Planning Commission will take
the responsibility that there is not adequate school facilities available for this development. These Carlsbad
residents will be sending their children to Encinitas schools so nobody seems to be bothered about the lack
of facilities.
Ray O’Toole, 3330 Calle Barcelona, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is the principal
of Mission Estancia Elementary. It is totally beyond capacity and they even have portable units on the
school site. There is a much higher density of children in this area and there are safety issues to consider
as well as the stress on restroom facilities. He doesn’t know what they will do with more children. Mr.
O’Toole stated that he thinks the City of Carlsbad has a responsibility to help mitigate the schools issue. He
requested the Planning Commission to delay their decision on Ranch0 Verde so that the Encinitas Union
School District would have an opportunity to talk with Centex in an attempt to alleviate potential problems.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if Encinitas schools are year around. Mr. O’Tooie replied no; they went off
year around about a year ago.
Commissioner Erwin stated that his kids attended La Costa Elementary on a year around program. He
thought it was great. Mr. O’Toole replied that the year around program is not popular with most parents.
Commissioner Erwin inquired what he wants from the developer. Mr. O’Toole replied that he would like to
see some financing for permanent facilities.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if he is questioning the second dwelling units. Mr. O’Toole replied that he
only found out about the second dwelling units last Thursday evening. He understands that the original
plans were approved six years ago. He is not sure if anything can be done about the project at this late
date.
Sharon South, Chief Financial Officer, Encinitas Union School District, 101 So. Ranch0 Santa Fe Road,
Encinitas, addressed the Commission and stated that she sent a letter to the Commission dated February 6,
1996 opposing the Ranch0 Verde project due to the impacts that the second dwelling units will have on
school facilities. She stated that Carlsbad’s general plan requires that adequate public facilities must be
available to support additional residential units. Although the Encinitas school district indicated in 1988 that
they would have school facilities to meet the student demand generated by Zone 11, that is not the case
today. In 1988, it was anticipated that state revenues would provide additional school facilities, which is no
longer the case. There is a bond issue on the March ballot which, if approved, would generate $2 million for
school facilities, however there is a need for $7 million. The Encinitas school district is very concerned
about the quality of education which will be provided to the children of the Ranch0 Verde project. The
elementary school closest to the project is Olivenhain Pioneer. When that school opened a year and a half
ago, it was anticipated that the school capacity would be 450 students. There are currently 670 students at
Olivenhain Pioneer, There is only space on the school site to add two additional portable units. It may
become necessary to bus students to other schools if there is no capacity available. A copy of Ms. South’s
letter is on file in the Planning Department.
MINUTES 3 9
- A
PLANNING COMMISSION February 7,1996 Page 10
Ms. South responded to Commissioner Erwin’s inquiry regarding year around school and stated that
Encinitas Union School District is on a modified year around calendar, however it is not multi-track. The
multi-track calendar was eliminated at the request of the school board and parents. In 1991, the citizens of
Encrnitas agreed to pay an additional tax to build the Olivenhain Pioneer School if the multi-track system
was curtailed. The school is situated within the boundaries of Carlsbad but the students who attend it all
live in the City of Encinitas. There are no Carlsbad children there.
Commissioner Noble commented that the general plan projects the number of residents. Budgets and
facilities are based on those projections. He cannot understand why there are insufficient facilities when
every project that has been approved since he has been on the Planning Commission has resulted in a
lesser number of homes than what was projected in the general plan. Ms. South replied that when the
Encinitas school district stated that it could take care of the future students, they anticipated that a third
school would be built. It did not happen.
Commissioner Noble finds it difficult to understand that the school district anticipated and said they could
provide schools for 40,000 homes. However, now we are only building 25,000 homes and now you have
come forward stating that there are inadequate school facilities. Ms. South replied that she was not
responsible for that statement.
Commissioner Noble is also concerned that all this is coming forward at the last minute when it should have
come forward months ago. Ms. South replied that she first heard about this project a few days ago in the
local newspaper. She immediately called the Planning Department to get more information. It took her a
few days to create her response because she had to work out the details with her school board.
Commissioner Monroy stated that this is the second time Encinitas has come before the Planning
Commission. Last time it was on the Green Valley project. He inquired if she has discussed her problems
with the City Council. Ms. South replied that she appeared on the Green Valley project and supported it
because the developer had agreed to mitigation.
Commissioner Welshons inquired what mitigation was negotiated in 1987. Ms. south replied that when
LFMP Zone 11 was presented, Encinitas felt they could handle the students being projected. There were
three school sites and they anticipated state school funds to build three schools.
Sui-Jean Ross, 7942 Las Mientes, Cartsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she lives in the
Ranch0 Ponderosa development. She has a child in the Mission Estancia school. At the time she moved
here from Michigan, she was told that a new school would be built on the Fieldstone property in the near
future. Mission Estancia is very overcrowded. She is a parent volunteer at Mission Estancia. ‘There are 47
children in one kindergarten room. They are in a portable unit with no restroom facilities. It is necessary to
escort the children to the bathroom. The school has to rely on parent volunteers to escort the children.
When Sonata and Summerwalk were built, those children had to attend already overcrowded schools and it
creates resentment with other parents. She is very concerned that children are going to end up being bused
to a school outside their own neighbortrood. She requested the Commission to continue this item to allow
the developer and school district to work out some type of mitigation.
Marshall. 6. Krupp, Community Systems Associates, 730 El Camino Way, Tustin, addressed the
Commission and stated that he is a consultant to the Encinitas Union School District. He understands that
the Ranch0 Verde project was approved in 1988. Part of the site is subject to the La Costa Master Plan.
The remainder is part of LFMP Zone 11. There was an agreement for three schools. The LFMP provided
for the dedication of the three sites and the state was supposed to finance the construction of the school.
The LFMP is out of date and no longer represents the district. The municipal code states that when a LFMP
is proved to be inadequate, all construction will cease and the LFMP will be revised. One of the tests is that
there are inadequate school facilities. That reason alone should allow the Commission to deny the project,
PLANNING COMMISSION February 7,1996 Page 11
He requested that the decision be continued to allow the school district and the developer to sit down and
work out some mitigation. He would like to see a compromise which would allow the project to move
forward.
Chairman Compas inquired why he is so concerned about the second dwelling units. Mr. Krupp replied that
it would be nice if the homes were deed restricted and could only be used by senior citizens. However, that
will not happen. There could be senior citizens, divorced parents with children, domestics with children, etc.
He is objecting to the second dwelling units because that is the only legal basis he has at this point in time.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if he has counted the number of units planned for the easterly parcel. Mr.
Krupp replied that there are 56 units in the smaller parcel and 118 units in the larger parcel. Although the
developer has stated there will only be 50 units, there is a potential for 171 second dwelling units since the
homes will be built to suit. Even if the developer accepts a conaftion for a maximum of 49 units, there will
still be an impact to the Encinitas school district.
The applicant was given an opportunity to respond.
Mark Rohrlich, Vice President of Development for Centex Homes, 5962 La Place Court, Suite 250,
Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is sympathetic to the need for schools. He noted
that a portion of this project will pay state fees for school facilities. The second dwelling units will also pay a
pro rata share of school fees. He is not here to discuss the merits of the project, only to discuss the second
dwelling units. The school district stated that they only found out about this project a week ago. He would
like the Commission to know that he just received notice today that the school district was going to
challenge his project tonight. He does not feel that is a very business-friendly approach.
Commissioner Erwin stated that this is not an unusual situation. It happens every time a project comes
forward and it is caused by some changes that were made at the state level. What usually happens is that
the developer sits down with the school district and the City and works something out which is acceptable to
all parties. He inquired if Centex would be willing to sit down with the City and work something out. Mr.
Rohrlich replied that this is not a legislative action item. This is an approval of architecture for second
dwelling units. He would be willing to talk to them but not as a condition of approval for this particular item.
He has told the school district that he would be willing to sit down and talk with them.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, advised the applicant that as far as staff is concerned, the only
way any of the homes can have two kitchens is to have a second dwelling unit. He asked if he understands
that. Mr. Rohrlich had not been aware of that requirement but understands it now. The space is probably of
more concern than the second kitchen.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, stated that this is very important. If Mr. Rohrlich’s plans allow for an
option of a non-legally designated second dwelling unit to be a large second floor room (540 s.f.) with a full
kitchen, you have created a legal second unit and staff needs to know about it. Mr. Rohrlich replied that he
is requesting a legal second dwelling unit. If they choose not to build the second dwelling units, they would
meet whatever standard is in effect for non-second dwelling units.
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.
Mr. Rudolf advised the Commission that with regard to the schools issue, Resolution No. 3895, Finding #5
on page 2, is a standard finding. The most significant finding is S(d) which states that the project has no
new significant environmental effect not analyzed as significant in the prior Mitigated Negative Declaration.
If the prior project came forward stating that there was an insignificant impact to schools, the Commission
could not make Finding S(d). As he indicated to the Commissioners at the recent workshop, SOPS are
PLANNING COMMISSION February 7,1996
consider a quasi-judicial action. Case law states that the City has no discretion or flexibility no matter how
sympathetic you are to the view or position of the school district. There is nothing legally that you can do to
help them.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if this means that the Encinitas school district will do what the Carlsbad school
district has done, sue us and the City. Mr. Rudolf replied that anyone can sue over anything, and they
frequently do, but he hoped that we would not encourage the District to sue.
Commissioner Erwin stated that we do have a moral responsibility to provide school facilities. How do we
address that. Mr. Rudolf replied that the Commission does not have that legal responsibility. It was taken
away from the City by the state legislature. Unless there is a legislative action before you, as happened in
the case of Green Valley, you do not have that ability to require mitigation to a level of insignificance.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that when this was mitigated before, there were no second dwelling units. Mr.
Wayne replied that there is only one thing available for mitigation and that is statutory fees. As the
applicant stated, those fees are rolled in on the second dwelling units. The statutory fees are based on
square footage. It doesn’t matter if there are 50 units or 100 units, they both pay fees which are based on
square footage. Mr. Rudolf added that if the previous approval stated that it was significant and it has
become more significant, your hands are still tied. If it was previously insignificant and it becomes
significant, then the door might be open if it is in the context of a legislative act.
Commissioner Welshons would like the Commission to consider adding a possible condition that the
developer prepare and distribute a brochure or pamphlet about what a second dwelling unit is and what it
involves, i.e. legal requirements, etc. She would like the developer to work in consultation with staff to
prepare the brochure.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the brochure would be provided to the individual at the time of purchase.
Mr. Rudolf stated that he would like to hear a response from the applicant.
Mark Rohrlich, Vice President of Development for Centex Homes, stated that he would be willing to create
and distribute such a brochure. He would also like to offer a second dwelling unit cap at 49 units.
Mr. Rudolf inquired if the offer is being made in the attempt to have tonight’s meeting converted from a
recommendation by the Planning Commission to a final action by the Planning Commission. Mr. Rohrlich
replied yes.
Mr. Rudolf commented that the public notice and the staff report all characterize this as a recommendation
to the City Council. There may be people who did not show up and who are waiting for this when it gets to
the City Council. They would have been deprived of giving their public testimony. He would not
recommend converting the nature of the hearing.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if it could be continued and wme back with that modification. Mr. Rudolf
replied that it would require renoticing in order to be reconsidered.
Commissioner Welshons stated that this is an interesting project and the City Council would probably like to
see it. It is possible that they would accept the cap.
Commissioner Erwin agrees that lt should go to City Council.
Chairman Compas asked the applicant if he would like to have it continued or let it go on to Council. Mr.
Rohrlich replied that he was trying to appease the school district by offering a cap of 49 units. They may
-
PUNNING COMMISSION February 7,1996 Page 13
still be willing to do that at the Council level.
have it continued.
He would prefer to go ahead to the City Council rather than
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3895 recommending approval of Site Development Plan
SDP 95-07 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein,
including the errata sheet and a new condition requiring the developer to prepare a
brochure for homebuyers which describes second dwelling units.
7-o
Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Welshons
None
None
For the record, Commissioner Erwin would like to see staff notify the school districts a little earlier so that
they have advance notice of projects which will affect them. Mr. Wayne replied that there are procedures to
receive advance notice. All the school district has to do is provide stamped self-addressed envelopes to
staff and they will receive early notice. This school district is always late on every project, regardless of
whether or not they receive early notice.
43
UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
. ..High Performance Learning in a Nurturing Environment..
February 6, 1996
Chairman and Members
of the Planning Commission
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
SUBJECT: SDP 95-07 - Ranch0 Verde
Public Hearing Testimony of the
Encinitas Union School District
February 7,1996 Public Hearing
i Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission:
The Encinitas Union School District (“District”) does hereby oppose and object to the
approval of SDP 95-07 - Ranch0 Verde (“Project”) for the approval of architectural
elevations and floor plans, which includes the possibility of second dwelling units for a
previously approved 174 lot subdivision on property generally located at the southeasterly
corner of the City of Carlsbad adjacent to the City of Encinitas in Local Facilities
Management Zone 11. The District is aware that the Ranch0 Verde subdivision (CT 89-
18/PUD 89-23/HDP 89-3WSUP 90-5) (“Approved Project”) was approved by the City
Council in August 1990. The Approved Project was defined as 174 residential units on
216.1 gross acres in the R-l 25,000 and PC zones. 1
The Approved Project is within the District. In addition, it is within Local Facilities
Management Zone II. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11 is dated
January 20, 1988, and was prepared pursuant to Section 21.90 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Carlsbad and the Provisions of Proposition E adopted by the citizens of Carlsbad
on November 4, 1986.
The northern portion of the Project which consists of 67 acres and extends north of a line
which would be the easterly extension of Olivenhain Road is within the La Costa Master
Plan. The La Costa, Master Plan designates this particular area as RL - Low Density O-l .5
dwelling units per acre, with a projection of 100 dwelling units.
Board of Trustees
Tracy Casey Shannon Kuder
William Parker Cathy Regan
Carol SkIllan
Superintendent
Patricia Clark Whtte. EG. 0.
Assistant Superintendents
Bonlta Drolet. Ed.0. Douglas P DeVore. Ed.D.
Educattonal Services Admlnistratwe Sewces
Y4 70: S F;T.SW Santa FE 90s~ Ex:n~tas. CA 9202-t
?hc:‘f? lC.19, ‘,7.L-J700 FAX 1619) 942-709-I
Chairman and Members
of the Planning Commission
CITY OF CARLSBAD
February 6,1996
Page 2
The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11 identifies the General Plan designation
for the entire Project as RL - Low Density (O-l .5 dwelling units per acre), and the Land Use
Zoning for the portion not within the La Costa Master Plan as R-1-25, or one family
residential 25,000 square foot lots. The Local Facilities Management Plan identifies a
base residential buildout projection of 168 residential units.
The Approved Project provided for 6 residential units in excess of the buildout projection.
Although the Report to the Planning Commission (“Report”) states that there could be
potentially 50 optional second units, the approval of the Project could result in one optional
second unit per lot, or 174, depending on the models chosen by the home buyers.
Therefore, the District must consider the worst case scenario of impact of the Project.
At the time the Approved Project was approved, a Conditional (Mitigated) Negative
Declaration dated March 29, 1990 was approved. The Conditional Negative Declaration .
found that the Approved Project would substantially affect schools. The discussion in the
Conditional Negative Declaration set forth the following:
“Public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services can be .---
provided by the independent agencies under the current services level capabilities.
Verifications of service available are on file with the City of Carlsbad.”
The discussion further set forth the following:
“Through implementation of Local Facilities and Management Plan: Zone 11,
potential cumulative impacts to services and circulation will be mitigated.”
The environmental review of the proposed Project concludes that a noke of prior
compliance is issued due to the fact that the Rancho Verde subdivision was approved-with
the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Therefore, there is “no impact,” and no
further analysis of the impacts on the District is required. The District would suggest that
the additional or optional second homes alone, will have an impact on the District. In
addition, the current condition of the District in terms of the present available capacity of
the District to address increased enrollments, have changed since the Approved Project
was considered six years ago. As such, a new environmental analysis should have been
prepared and processed on the Project.
Chairman and Members
of the Planning Commission
CITY OF CARLSBAD
February 6,1996
Page 3
The Local Facilities Management Plan concludes that:
“The Encinitas Union Elementary School has capacity to meet the existing and build
out demand generated from Zone 1 l..”
This is an incorrect statement and represents the condition of the District eight years ago.
It does not present a factually correct statement as to the current condition of the District
to address enrollments today or in the future.
In addition, the Management Plan states as mitigation, the following:
“No special conditions apply to Zone 11 regarding school facilities that would require
any mitigation at this time. Encinitas Union Elementary School District has indicated
that existing and future school facilities will meet the student demand generated by .
Zone 11.”
I Again, this statement is factually incorrect and does not represent the current condition of
the District, or its ability to address future enrollment growth resulting from development
within Zone 11.
Finally, the Mitigation Plan states with regards to financing, the following:
“Financing for both the Ranch0 Santa Fe School and School #3 will be from state
revenue through the mechanisms provided under the Leroy Greene Lease-Purchase
Law. The sites for both schools will be dedicated by La Costa Ranch Company per
the terms of the existing agreement between Encinitas Union School District and the
La Costa Ranch Company. 8
The estimated cost of construction for the Ranch0 Santa Fe School is approximately
$3,500,000. One hundred percent of the financing will be provided by Encinitas
Union School District through the Leroy Greene Lease Purchase Law and school
fees collected concurrent with development.”
These statements and conclusions are based upon a letter dated November 24, 1987, by
then Superintendent Donald E. Lindstrom. It is important to note that the Management
Plan was prepared January 20, 1988, and does not represent the current conditions or
position of the District today. The District’s cost of the construction of school facilities is
significantly higher than the estimates provided to the City in 1988. Additionally, as will be
explained further in the letter, the District cannot expect that the State’s financing programs
will be capable of funding the construction of school facilities.
-
. Chairman and Members
of the Planning Commission
CITY OF CARLSBAD
February 6,1996
Page 4
The District would suggest that a portion of the Project located within the La Costa Master
Plan area map be subject to the Agreement for Financial Assistance for School Facilities
dated February 26, 1974 between the La Costa Land Company and the Encinitas Union
School District. However, in lieu of school impact development fees, the agreement
provided for the provision of school sites within the La Costa Master Plan area, but not for
the financing of construction. It appears that the land area of the Approved Project is
approximately 25% within the La Costa Master Plan area. Based upon the site plan for CT
89-18/PUD 89-23, it appears that of the 174 proposed residential units, 56 residential units
are within the La Costa Master Plan area.
The 118 residential units outside the La Costa Master Plan area would be subject to the
provisions of the Local Facilities Master Plan which does not suggest any other mitigation
that would be provided by State law. At this time, the statutory development fees permitted
by State law would be $1.84 per square foot of residential building area. However, the ’
District only receives 45.93% of the fee, or $0.8451 per square foot. The remaining portion
of the statutory development fees is directed to the San Dieguito High School District.
Assuming an average unit size of primary homes at 3,500 square feet, the projected
statutory fees the District could receive would be $2,957.89 per residential unit.
Additionally, assuming an average unit size of the second units of 500 square feet, the
projected statutory fees the District could receive would be $422.55 per second home unit.
The Approved Project will generate approximately 60 students using a single family student
generation rate of .3270 students per primary residential unit within the Project. The
optional second residential units will generate approximately 13 students using the District’s
multi-family student generation rate of -0750 students per second unit. The District has
used the multi-family student generation rate due to the type of occupants that may reside
in these second units. As the primary residential units are intended to be “estate” type
residences, it is expected that the second units would be used as “granny flats” or senior
citizen units, and/or servant quarters. Although senior citizen units do not generate
students, servant quarters many times have students generated due to single parent
families.
The addition of 60 to 73 students to the District would have physical impacts that can be
measured in terms of financial costs to the District. Of particular importance to the District
is that additional capital facilities in terms of classrooms, support facilities, administrative
offices, maintenance facilities, and other physical structures would have to be incorporated
Chairman and Members
of the Planning Commission
CITY OF CARLSBAD
February 6,1996
Page 5
into the physical plant of the District. These facilities would utilize school property which
is presently needed for outdoor recreational and open spaces. In addition, the District may
need to acquire property in order to construct new schools to accommodate these
enrollments. This construction program would impact existing and future neighborhood as
a result of the injection of these facilities within the community.
If the facilities were not provided, the District would have to initiate programs which would
impact the operations and administration of the District, resulting in the over-utilization and
inefficient use of the District’s properties and facilities. These physical effects would been
seen in terms of extended hours of operation, multiple use of facilities, increased energy
and utility services, over-crowding resulting in unsafe and unhealthy working conditions,
and other physical effects to the facilities and environment in which the employees and
students conduct business.
A more thorough analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Project and
other projects within the District would delineate other physical impacts which would have I adverse consequences on the District, the environment, and the community. The failure
of the current environmental analysis to address the second units, and the deficiencies in
the Approved Project environmental analysis, and the inadequacies and deficiencies in the
Local Facilities Management Plan, represents a flaw in the evaluation of the Project.
As previously indicated, the physical environmental impacts of the Project can be measured
in financial terms. Based upon the District’s 1996 cost per student of $29,718.31 to acquire
property and construct school facilities, it is estimated that the primary residential units
would generate a financial impact to the District of approximately $1,690,912, and the
optional second units would have an impact of $387,823, for a total impact of $2,078,736.
The fees generated from the Project, assuming 118 units, excluding the La Costa Master
Plan units, paid the statutory impact development fees, would be approximately $428,810.
The net impact to the District would be $1,649,927.
The District’s present total capacity is 5,085 student spaces. This is made up of permanent
facilities which have a capacity of 4,389 student spaces, and portable or temporary facilities
which have a capacity of 696 student spaces. The District’s present enrollment is 5,006
students. As a result, the District is at 98.45% of total capacity and 114.06% of permanent
capacity. The students generated from the Project would attend the Olivenhain Pioneer
School located at 8000 Calle Acervo. This school opened in August1995, and has a
permanent capacity of 641 student spaces, and a portable capacity of 29 students. The
School’s present enrollment is 669 students, or a permanent capacity utilization of
104.37%, and a total capacity utilization of 99.85%. Clearly, the District can substantiate
that it is unable to provide the capacity for any additional students at this school.
-
Chairman and Members
of the Planning Commission
CITY OF CARLSBAD
February 6,1996
Page 6
The provision of school sites through the La Costa Master Plan does not provide school
facilities. Additionally, the State’s financing program is depleted. Even with the possible
success of the March 26, 1996 State-wide bond election which would provide for a $3
billion school bond authorization, of which $2.025 billion would be allocated for expenditure
under the State School Building Lease-Purchase Fund, these funds will be inadequate to
service the present back log of $7 billion in already filed applications.
Additionally, the District is presently pursuing a $29,500,000 general obligation bond issue
within the District, also scheduled for the March 26, 1996 local election. However, these
funds are to be used for the modemization and upgrade of the District’s present facilities
and may not be adequate to expand or construct new facilities within the District to
accommodate future growth.
As previously indicated, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11 is out of date .
and does not present the current conditions of the District in terms of the District’s ability
to accommodate growth within Zone 11. Section 21.90.130 (b) of the City of Carlsbad : Municipal Code acknowledges that the local facilities management plan process is part of
the ongoing planning efforts of the City, and that the City Council may initiate amendments
to such plans at any time if, in its discretion, it determines that an amendment is necessary
to ensure adequate facilities and improvements. There are other provisions within Chapter
21.90 which provide that within an affected ,zone which cannot provide adequate facilities,
development shall cease until an amendment to the applicable management plan to
address the deficiency is approved by the City Council, and the performance standard is
met.
The District would suggest that there is ample evidence to suggest that the Local Facilities
Management Plan is deficient, and that school facilities are not addressed in a manner
which considers the current and future condition of the District. Therefore, the
Management Plan should be amended and corrected, and all development within Zone 11
should cease until such amendment is adopted by the City and the new performance
standard is met.
Finally, the Report sets forth the provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element which
would be the basis to approve the density increase for the Project, through the process of
a Site Development Plan (SDP). The Report states that the second units will raise the
density within the subdivision above the growth control point. In approving such a density
bonus, it appears that one of the tests of the General Plan is the evaluation of the
adequacy of public facilities.
The District has provided evidence to substantiate that the District in general, and the
49
Chairman and Members . of the Planning Commission
CITY OF CARLSBAD
February 6, 1996
Page 7
Mission Estancia School in particular, does not have adequate public school facilities to
accommodate the enrollments generated from the Project or the Approved Project.
Although the Report concludes that the second units would not overburden facilities
because the total number of units within the Zone will still be below the quadrant cap, there
is no evaluation or substantiation of this conclusion. Furthermore, even if the units will not
exceed the quadrant cap, the District has provided ample evidence which shows that the
Local Facilities Management Plan does not provide that development within Zone 11 can
be accommodated adequately by the District, based upon the current conditions of the
District. Therefore, the District would suggest that the increased density cannot be found
to comply with the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
Based upon the District’s review of the SDP 95-07 - Ranch0 Verde and the Ranch0 Verde
subdivision (CT 89-18/PUD 89-23/HDP 89-35/SUP 90-5) the District would suggest the
following:
1) The environmental evaluation of the Project is inadequate, in that it is based upon
a prior inadequate environmental evaluation conducted in 1990, which did not
contemplate second--unit occupancies.
2) The mitigation measures contained within the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated
March 29, 1990 and as attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 3022 does
not mitigate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the District of the
Approved Project or the Project to a level of insignificance, based upon the current
conditions of the District, which were unknown at the time that the Mitigated
Negative Declaration was approved.
3) The mitigation measures as set forth in the Local Facilities Management Plan for
Zone 11 does not provide adequate mitigation of the impacts of the development
contemplated within Zone 11, in that the Local Facilities Management Plan was
prepared in 1988 and does not address the current conditions of the District’s
facilities and enrollments.
4) The contents of the Local Facilities Management Plan is not based on the current
conditions and facilities within the District, but rather is based upon information
which is over 8 years old.
5) The District does not have adequate capacity with the District’s facilities, or the
availability of financing mechanisms which are adequate to ensure that school
facilities are or will be available to accommodate the students generated from the
Chairman and Members
of the Planning Commission
CITY OF CARLSBAD
February 6, 1996
Page 8
6)
7)
8)
1 9)
Approved Project and the Project, and that statutory development fees only fund a
portion of the physical impacts on the District.
The impacts of the Project and the Approved Project will result in increased student
enrollments which wilt have physical effects on the District’s present and future
facilities, programs, operations, and administration.
The addition of second residential units has the potential to exacerbate an
unmitigated condition caused by the Approved Project, without any additional
environmental analysis to determine the magnitude of the impacts and the required
mitigation measures.
Without appropriate mitigation, the Approved Project and the Project would not be
in compliance with Chapter 21.90 of the Municipal Code of the City of Carlsbad, and .
Proposition E.
The approval of a density increase does not comply with the Land Use Element of
the General Plan and the tests in the evaluation of a Site Development Plan in terms
of the adequacy of school public facilities.
Based upon the review of the Project; the Approved Project, the Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 11, and the various environmental information documentation,
the District would suggest and recommend that the Planning Commission consider the
following options:
1) Option 1 - Approve the Project with the condition that the City adopt an ,amendment
to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11, which provides for the
mitigation of school impacts in accordance with the current and projected conditions
of the District, and in accordance with Section 21.90 of the Municipal Code of the
City of Carlsbad, and Proposition E adopted by the citizens of Carlsbad on
November 4, 1986, and that the mitigation and performance standard provided for
in the amended Local Facilities Management Plan be applied to the Project and the
Approved Project.
2) Option 2 - Continue the public hearing on the Project to allow the City staff,
applicant, and District to agree on the most appropriate actions that should be taken
to address the concerns raised by the District, including, but not limited to, the
preparation and processing of environmental documentation in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, and the CEQA Guidelines.
-
. Chairman and Members
of the Planning Commission
CITY OF CARLSBAD
February 6,1996
Page 9
This letter is introduced into the public hearing record of the Planning Commission in order
to protect and preserve the administrative and legal remedies of the District, The District
appreciates the Planning Commission’s consideration of this letter.
If you have any questions or require additional information, the District would be pleased
to respond to your inquiries.
Thank you for your assistance and consideration.
Sincerely,
ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
i
Director of Business Services
MBK:dd
encusd\l183B\ranchopcmbk
cc: Dr. Patricia Clark White
Encinitas Union School District
Mr. Marshall B. Krupp
Community Systems Associates, Inc.
-
TABLE A
Encinitas Union School District
Impact of Ran&o Verde Speck Plan
-
Operation Variable Value Source
= Single Family Detached Residentiil Units 174
* Average Students Per Household 0.3270 EUSD
= Students 88.9
* Cost per Student $ 29,718.31 EUSD and CSA, Inc.
= Sub Total lmoact s 1690.912
= Optional Second Residential Units 174
* Average Students Per Household 0.0750 EUSD
X Students 13.1
* Cost per Student $ 29,718.31 EUSD and CSA, Inc.
= Sub Total lmoact 0 387.824
= I Total Impact s 2,078,738
Projected Residential Fees s 428,810
= Net Impact After Fees
Single Family Detached Residential Units 118
l Average Sq.Ft. per Housing Unit 3wfJ District and CSA, Inc.
l Residential Fee per Sq.Ft. $ 0.88 State Law and Distkt Agreement = Projected Residential Fee t 378,948
Optional Second Residential Units 118
l Average Sq.Ft. per Housing Untt 500 Dktrkt and CSA, Inc.
l Residential Fee per Sq.Ft. s 0.88 State Law and District Agreement
s Projected Residential Fee $ 49.862
Total Fee Collection
d-3 VERDEXLS3482f7/9S9:38 AM Page 1
.._
omrowrcmoo
i? lcC91TONWOO~
3 ‘2 WWWWWWWWN
ti
1-“9
mr-mwwbmwm
Q,E N-N.-.-OWTN 8?
B ‘3 -7 Y w
E Q .a 5% Ii $ p”O
E EQ $E gg
W
~WNWOJO-WF
%;f rmOm*uJ~ WWWWWWN
O)aONUJbQDrOb)
8% wwobmmo B WWWW~WN 0
w-
__._ L-L..--. . . _ .
;...,~-,--.~-C-~~-~Y.rro” .“T . . - -. - -.-
_ _,. . . . . . . ._ .._ _.. .___ _._. .,- . ,.. _...-. ~-^.--‘...d.
- :.
. )v
-, ,__ - . . ‘.... __.... .,_._ -.---. . . . , .,- J’ l 1
.’
/
-
SiTE PLAN
. .
-_---.-- ._._
L
. . _ --.. _--__.I
0 44 nE -7n 7CI-t-r z-.lAr. 3--T-
ZO ‘d P68U8F.17 ‘ON XVzl
MN?-26-1996 17: 01 CITY CLERK, OCEANSIDE CA 619 966 8724 P.01
4 /-- ce;r,
March 26, 1996
Mayor and Councilmembers Carlsbad City Council
Relative to the public hearing on SDP 95-7 (Rancho Verde) to be held on Tuesday, March 26, 1996, we strongly oppose the application for a second dwelling unit for this project.
A second dwelling unit could open the possibility for the property owner to rent the second unit to another party, rather than a family member. This could have the effect of doubling the density for the project, which is unacceptable to the surrounding neighborhood.
The second dwelling unit could also affect the parking regulations in that the persons occupying the second unit would have vehicles that would have to be left in the driveways or on the street.
If Council even considers apprwing this application, there should be conditions imposed on the project that the units could only be rented to family members and that only a limited number of units could be utilized for the second dwelling unit.
Although much of this area is surrounded by property that is not part of the City of Carlsbad, the Carlsbad City Council should consider that the adjacent area will develop at a much lower density, i.e. minimum half-acre lots. Centex Homes should try to be a good neighbor and let the area develop as it was initially approved, not a project that gives the developer a higher density for their own profit.
Thanks for your consideration to this request.
*a- Floyd ani Becky Sheets 1350 Desert Rose Way Olivenhain, CA 92024
TOTAL P.O1
MAR-26-1996 16: 49 FROM ENCINITAS UNION SCH DIST TO 7209461 P.
uy 10 N SCHOOL DISTRICT
. ..Hdgb Performance learning in a Nurturhg Envim~.,
March 26, 1936
Mayor Bud Lewis and Members of the City Council
City Of Carlsbad
1 ZOO Elm Avenue
Cartsbad, CA 92008
RE: SDP35-W~Ranch0 Verde
Dear’Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council:
I am kiting to you on behalf of the Encinit%Union School District with respect to
SDP95-97 (Ranch0 Verde) on your agenda for tonights meeting.’
Over the past few days, Centex t-tomes and the staff of the District have worked out a
tentative resolution of the District’s concerns regarding the impact’ of this project on
the Distrids educational facilities. Late yesterday and today, the District received
letters from Centex Homes confirming Centetis willingness to enter into a mitigation
agreement. While that mitigation agreement has not yet been prepared or approved
by the District’s Board of Trustees, the District staff is optimistic that such an
agreement will soon be finalized and the District will then be in a position to express its
support for the project The District will notify the City as soon as the mitigation
agreement has been approved and executed.
I Thank you for your consideration of the District’s position in this matter.
Sincerety, I
!
i ENCI!NITAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 p&Y&)d&EdD , . .
I Supeiintendent
I PCW:nlm
Shannon Kuder
Carol Skitjan
I
, I
101 S. Ramho Santa Fe Road, Enchitab. CA 92024 Phone (619) 944-4300 FAX (619) 942-7094
Supcrintmtent Patricia Clark White, Ed. 0.
Assistant Supertntandmh
Bonita Dr&t. Ed.D. Douglas P. Devote. Ed.D. Educational Services Administr;rtive Services
TOTAL P.82
April 8, 1996
Attention: Mr. Mark Rohrlick Vice President Centex Homes 5962 La Place Court, Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Ranch0 Verde - SDP 95-7 - Second Dwelling Units
The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of March 26, 1996, adopted Resolution No. 96-105, approving a Site Development Plan for floorplans that include optional second dwelling units which could result in a project component of more than 50 affordable units.
As a courtesy, enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 96-105 for your records.
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, CMC' City Clerk
ALR:ijp
Enclosure
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2809
-
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 8l2011 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: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal derk 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
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Ti
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blat’ j
and case number 172171 (The Times,
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside
Solana Beach and the North County J
District; that the notice of which the ar
printed copy (set in type not smaller tt-
nonpareil), has been published in eat
entire issue of said newspaper and nc
supplement thereof on the following di
NOtiCk IS HERESY GIVEN that the CltyCo~nCil of the Cb’ ot CWkbd @t+ . public hearing,at thn’City Courkil Chambers, 1200 Cadsbftd VIJI~ Rdvb CWfW CWbmii at 6:OO P.W, on Tuesday, March 26, 1ssB. to cowider an.appticsBOn for. Site l&&,menl Plan to ‘approve archbtuml elevations and floor @nS Whbh indude* p98dby” .of mncj dwelling units for a prevbusly approved 174 residential lat &dMsibn. on pf0Wy genecaR locatedBtthe southeasterly comer of the Cii of Wabad, adipceni to the ptyof Encinitaq, h+a Facifities tjan8gemeM Zone 11, and mom prtktkdy described a~:
p& of lo& 8, $3, and 15 of the subdM8ion of Ranch0 t6&tkin(tas, iii the dvty of w, County of San bio. State ai t%!fOn% acEordin0 to .,,. ~mapthemofN0.846,filedifizhe~dthe~tY
i.4 f@+r.& of Sen Diego Cwnty, JUIM 27,lW.
March 156, 1996
I certify (or declare) under penalty of p
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at California, this 15th
of March, 1996
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public HEarinfg --------------------m-m---
--------------------------
Tlcg OF pyBUCIJEARINO : ’ , ;. ., SDP wm -RANCH0 vER= ,
1% you h&any t,$s&w#~~ng ti m plti &ail Mm &&4%$1&l I cliflstef west+& In tha -,.---I “‘W ~.y”.*.a” .-- ..-.,
kt. 4448.
If you chaqmge the sic tkw&pmentPkfnlnbourt,you -May be llmbd to raising Only th0S6 iSWeB raised by yck or someone else at the public hearing desaim ic this F-B w in mm com)&ol\delff~ dellVer@d to the City Of Carbbd Ci Clerk’s OflIce at, or prior to, the PutiC *flWl.
ApPLlcAHT: CXntexHomea I cAf%SBkD ClTYCqNClL .
‘. I
.:.,.,, 9,:
Legal 46165 M&h 151996
FtAlemO:~:RDE
J \ ~,+pmJ$m ‘. (a3 :
day * -
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SDP 95-7 - RANCH0 VERDE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Car&bad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, March 26, 1996, to consider an application for a Site Development Plan to approve architectural elevations and floor plans which include the possibility of second dwelling units for a previously approved 174 residential lot subdivision, on property generally located at the southeasterly corner of the City of Carlsbad, adjacent to the City of Encinitas, in Local Facilities Management Zone 11, and more particularly described as:
Portions of lots 8, 9, and 15 of the subdivision of Ranch0 Las Encinitas, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 848, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 27, 1898.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Christer Westman, in the Planning Department, at 438-1161, ext. 4448.
If you challenge the Site Development Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: Centex Homes PUBLISH: March 15, 1996
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
i-.-.-.
CITY OF ENCINITAS
-RANCH0 VERDE
SDP 95-07
- -
NOTlCE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 7, 1996, to consider a request for
approval of a Site Development Plan approving architectural elevations and floor plans
which include the possibility of second dwelling units for a previously approved 174
residential lot subdivision on property generally located at the southeasterly comer of the
City of Carlsbad adjacent to the City of Encinitas in Local Facilities Management Zone
11 and more particularly described as: .
Portions of lots 8, 9, and 15 of the subdivision of Rancho Las Encinitas in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof No. 848, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, June 27, 1898. . .
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 February 1, 1996. If you
have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (619)
488-l 161, ext. 4448.
If you challenge the Site Development Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice
or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Car&bad at or prior to the public
hearing.
CASE FILE: SDP 96-07
CASE NAME: RANCH0 VERDE
PUBLISH: JANUARY 251996
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
CW:kr
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-l 576 - (819) 438-l 161 @
TOI
FROM:
RE:
(For.m A)
C1T.Y CLERK’S OFFICE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
SDP 95-07 - Ranch0 Verde
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of yIIcLc&
.
Please do not schedule prior to March 19, 1996. Thank you.
Thank you.
February 28, 1996
Date
.
FACILITIES FOR CITY CLERK
SDP 95-07 - RANCH0 VERDE
ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER
DIST 701 ENCINITAS BLVD DIST
10 1 SO RANCH0 SANTA FE ENCINITAS CA ,92024 1960 LA COSTA AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92009
OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLANNING
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD 5201 RUFFIN RD STE “B”
ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CITY OF ENCINITAS CALIF DEFT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BD
505 S WLCAN AVE 330 GOLDENSHORE #50 STE B
ENCINITAS CA 92024 LONG BEACH CA 90802 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
SANDAG
STE 800
400 ‘B’ ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LAFCO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DIST
1600 PACIFIC HWY 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
JULIA RUSSELL
3294 AVENJDA ANACAPA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DONALD R & MARSHA GARCZEWSKJ
3284 AVENJDA ANACAPA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARD R & JANELLE RICE
3275 AVENJDA ANACAPA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BURTON & PI-JYLLJS MAZER
3283 CORTE VERA CRUZ
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DONALD R & GAYLE BEASLEY
3289 CORTE VERA CRUZ
CARLSBAD CA 92009
~Nff~ s &NISI-IA rATEi,
3333 CAMJNO COJIONADO
CARLSf3AD CA 92009
GARY C & CYf’fTHIA FJLJPS
3298 AVI:NIf)A ANACAJ’A
CARLSBAJ) CA 92009
JI:f~I~Rl3Y C & BARBARA 13RAMAN
3328 AVI:NIDA ANACAJ’A
CARI.SI~AI~ CA 92009
DANJIX (; XL KA’I‘J Il,f’liN GJORDANO
3334 AVI:.NII)A ANACAJ’A
C:AI~I,SBAI) CA 92009
ROBERT A & PENNY MCBRIDE
3290 AVENJDA ANACAPA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TIMOTHY J & DELIA DELIJCA
21 SAN ANGELO
RCJ-JO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
MARSHA I, LUKAVSKY
3279 AVENJDA ANACAPA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT E & KATHRYN ROBERTS
3285 CORTE VERA CRUZ
CARLSBAD CA 92009
IdA CRESTA AT C
3152 RED IfILL AVE 100
COSTA MESA CA 92626
POLO F & LYNN RECUAY
3335 CAMINO CORONADO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
f,A CRESTA AT C
5075 SHOREHAM PL I60
SAN DJEGO CA 92 122
JAMES & PATRICIA MILLER
3286 AVENJDA ANACAPA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
G M & JULIE STff,L
3276 AVENJDA ANACAPA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CffRfSTOPffER J & CAROLYN KEMPST
328 I CORTE VERA CRUZ
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RJCARDO W & BJRGJT MENDOZA
3287 CORTE VERA CRUZ
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CALfFORNfA PACIFIC JfOMES JNC
9191 TOWNE CENTRE DR 1,101
SAN DJEGO CA 92122
GARY & DARJAN HANSEN
3296 AVENIDA ANACAPA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PATRICK I. & JACQfJELlNE CONNOf,LY J’AUJ, W & JUffE MAFFUJJ~
3324 AVENIDA ANACAJ’A 3326 AVENIf1A ANACAPA
CARlSf3AD CA 92009 CARISBAD CA 92009
DAVIJ) N & ROf31N I’EGG GREGORY A M’Xf,ROY
3330 AVJ’NIDA ANACAPA 3332 AVENIDA ANACAI’A
CARLSBAI) CA 92009 CARI.Sf3AD CA 92009
SANI)f<A .I SIJ’I-I‘ON C’AI.II~Ol~NIA PACIFIC: IIOMI:S JNC
7920 VIA I:.NSliNAI)A 0191 ‘I‘OWNI:, CIJN’I‘RI: DR 1,101
(‘ARI.SI3AI) CA 02009 SAN DII:(iO CA 92122
-. SHAlLlNl VAIDYA
- 7916VIAENSENADA
- CARLSBADCA92009
JOSEPHT&COLLEENERGASTOLO
7914VIAENSENADA
CARLSBADCA92009
JEFFREYL&LlNDAHILLER
7912 VIA ENSENADA
CARLSBADCA92009
DONNPBROOKS
7910VIA ENSENADA
CARLSBADCA92009
BRUCERkMARYPlLEGGI
7913 VIA ENSENADA
CARLSBADCA92009
JAMESW&DONNAGRUNDBERG
7915 VIA ENSENADA
CARLSBADCA92009
KENNETHW&JENNIFERGENSLER
7917VIAENSENADA
CARLSBADCA92009
EDWARDA&ARLENEBENDER
7919VIAENSENADA
CARLSBADCA92009
WILLIAMJTATE
7921 VIAENSENADA
CARLSBADCA92009
DANF&ANNEGIDDENS
7923 VIA ENSENADA
CARLSBADCA92009
NICHOLAS&ZORICHDRACOPOLl
7925VIAENSENADA
CARLSBADCA92009
GREGORYA&JEANNEJOHNSON
3330CALLESANBLAS
CARLSBADCA92009
JEFFREYH&PAMELAGREENBERG
332XCALLESANBLAS
CARLSBADCA92009
DENNISF&KATIlLEENREESE
3326CALLESANBLAS
CARLSBADCA92009
13mrwr~8~ DIANEMURRAY
3324CALLESANBLAS
CARISBAD CA 92009
CRRlSTOPHER&BARTMANFULLER
3322CALLESANBLAS
CARLSBADCA92009
BRUCE&MARIEHARVEY
3320CALLESAN BLAS
CARLSBADCA92009
MARKM&LORRAINENERMAN
33lXCALLESANBLAS
CARLSBADCA92009
TAMERAJSNELL
3316CALLESANBLAS
CARLSBADCA92009
RANDYS&MITZILEA
3314CALLESAN BLAS
CARLSBADCA92009
JOIIN R & BECKY I3RUCK
3312 CALLE SAN BIAS
CARISL3AD CA 92009
LAURALSECREST
33lOCALLE SAN BLAS
CARLSBADCA92009
MICHAEL J & ERIN MCGONIGLE
3308 CALL13 SAN BLAS
CARLSBADCA92009
MICHAISI, D & I,ESLIC QIJARANTA
3301 CAI,I,F SAN BI,AS
CARI.SBAI> CA 92009
GREGGORY Rr MICIII:,LE GREENE
3306 CAI,I,E SAN BIdAS
CARI,SI3AI) CA 92009
GARY A&ANN IIERBERT
3304 CAI,LE SAN 13LAS
CARISBAD CA 92009
VINCENT M KL ANTOINE'l"fI: 'I‘liSI‘ER
3295 AVI:NII)A ANACAPA
CARI,SBAI) ('A 92009
RICIIARD M XL SANDRA YAROS
3297 AVI:NII)A ANACAI'A
CARI,SI3AD CA 92009
I,AIJRIII, I:RICKSON
3299 AVI:.NII)A ANACAI'A
C'ARI,SI3AI> C'A 92009
MICHAEL E ARME
- 3301 AVENJDA ANACAPA
. CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALAN V & JULIE EDMUNDS
3303 AVENJDA ANACAPA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DENNJSM & SUSAN LANCJ
3305 AVENJDA ANACAPA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THE GJLLENWATERS FAMILY ROBERT T & ANNA KAO
3307 AVENJDA ANACAPA 3309 AVENJDA ANACAPA
CAJUSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN C & KAREN ROBERTS MARY J BACKENSTO
3313 AVENJDA ANACAPA 33 15 AVENJDA ANACAPA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RONALD C & ROBIN CHAMBERLAIN CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES JNC
33 19 AVENJDA ANACAPA 9191 TOWNE CENTRE DR LlOl
CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN DJEGO CA 92 122
CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORP
5962 LA PJ,ACE CT 250
CARLSBAD CA 9200X
TJJE CARMEL FAMILY
PO BOX 596
DEL MAR CA 92014
DAN G & JUJ,JE GRAB01
I3 I4 DESERT ROSJ’, WAY
ENCINII’AS CA 92024
MICHAEL C & I,AURJE WESELOJ-I
1 X64 LAUREL RD
OCEANSIDJ~ CA 92054
WII,LJAM C ROBER’J-S
2907 WISI JI\ONJ: WAY
ENCJNITAS CA 92024
DONAJ,D ‘I‘ Xc MAICY MI:AGJJJIJ<
291 I WISIJJ3ONI~ WAY
J~NCJNI’I’AS CA 02024
CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORP
5962 J>A PLACE CT 250
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FLOYD A & REBECCA SHEETS
1350 DESERT ROSE WAY
ENCJNJTAS CA 92024
THE BROWN FAMILY
14064 RUE D ANTJBES
DEL MAR CA 92014
DOUGLAS A & ESTJ-IER COX
14043 CAMP0 RD
JAMUL CA 91935
TI~JI’ ‘J-ORRE-BIJENO FAMILY
5680 lX)ROTl JY WAY
SAN J>JEGO CA 92 I I5
S’I‘I:VI:N ‘I‘ 8r GI:RJ JONES
PO 130X 3029
C:ARI.SI%AI) CA 92009
DAVID W & SUZANNE MITCHELL
33 1 I AVENJDA ANACAPA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROSARJO M JORGENSON
33 I7 AVENJDA ANACAPA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORP
5962 LA PLACE CT 250
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORP
5962 LA PLACE CT 250
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FRANK & FJ,ORENCE ESPARZA
1330 DESERT ROSE WAY
ENCJNJTAS CA 92024
WILLIAM E & YVONNE BOTJl
352X LONE JACK RD
ENCJNITAS CA 92024
DOROTHY C WILKINSON
14000 SJ IORT I JJLJ, C’J
SARATOGA CA 95070
GARY 1) & LINDA ROSS
2906 WISI JBONC WAY
I:NCINJ~J‘AS CA 92024
‘1‘1 II: J~I’I‘TMANN I:AMII,Y
I’0 130x OX62
RAN(:I IO SANTA I:I: CA 92067
MAURICE E & CONSTANCE BRJDGMAN HARRY & NANETTE BLACK
521 S CHARVERS AVE 12 RIDGECREST TER
WEST COVINA CA 9 179 I SAN MATE0 CA 94402
THE HANDLER FAMILY
3303 RUFFJN RD A
SAN DJEGO CA 92123
PHILIP L & DEBBIE BERRY THE MCDOUGALL FAMILY
1984 SPANISH OAK WAY 3615 FORTUNA RANCJJ RD
VISTA CA 92083 ENCJNJTAS CA 92024
JOAN M ANDERSON
PO BOX 1723
RANCJJO SANTA FE CA 92067
CHRISTOPHER S LLOYD
36 15 FORTUNA RANCH RD
ENCJNJTAS CA 92024
BRUNO & BEATRICE DELBJANCO
3015 RANCH0 DEL SOL
ESCONDJDO CA 92025
THE MCDOUGALL FAMILY
1005 FOXGLOVE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THE KING FAMILY
3615 FORTUNA RANCJ-I RD
ENCJNJTAS CA 92024
SAN DIEGUITO HS DIST
710 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024