HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-01; City Council; 13830; Sambi Seaside Heightsi- - - 4s ! 0 /O
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGtdDA BILL & j,@
LB# r~.sso TITLE: \ DEPT. HD.
SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS - CT 92-02(A)/
MTG. 10/l/96 PUD 92-03(A)ISDP 92-06(A)IHDP 92-03(A) CITY ATTY. ?‘eG
1 DEPT. PLN w CITY MGRa
~ RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT City Council Resolution No. 4 6 -3a 1, APPROVING CT 92-
02(A), PUD 92-03(A), SDP 92-06(A), and HDP 92-03(A), as recommended for approval by
i the Planning Commission.
’ ITEM EXPLANATION:
1 On August 21, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Sambi
Seaside Heights project. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Vesting
Tentative Map Revision, Planned Development Permit Amendment, Site Development Plan
Amendment, and Hillside Development Permit Amendment. The commission’s vote on all the
project actions was 7-O and no citizens gave public testimony at the hearing.
The Planning Commission praised the Developer for proposing the required affordable
housing within a quality, home “ownership” townhome neighborhood that would be located
onsite and directly adjacent to a market rate twinhome development (Area “A”). The two
neighboring developments would share vehicular access, central recreational facilities, and a
recreational vehicle storage area, and have the same Homeowners Association. The 42
townhomes affordable to lower-income households would be located adjacent to Aviara
Parkway and within l-2 miles of the City’s centralized industrial parks. The Developer is also
proposing to construct 30 three-bedroom units that contain 1,208 square feet to
accommodate larger families.
On September 12, 1996, the Housing Commission reviewed the affordable housing
component of the project and recommended approval. The details of the project’s affordable
housing financial requests and the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Housing Commission, will be contained and summarized in a separate agenda bill.
The original project, Sambi - CT 92-02, was approved by the City Council in March 1994.
Subsequently, and during the Coastal Commission’s review of the project, it was significantly
redesigned. These changes to the project have resulted in the need for the project to be re-
evaluated by the City and once again approved by the City Council. The redesigned project
meets all City policies and standards and there are no outstanding issues of concern as
discussed in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report.
In summary, the changes to the project would include:
A. A minor realignment of future Cherry Blossom Road between Aviara Parkway and
Hidden Valley Road, and relocation of the driveway access from Aviara Parkway to
Planning Area “A”.
B. Minor regrading of building pads for the redesigned multi-family, single family, and
community facility planning areas;
C. Elimination of the project’s request for an 11.8% (36.83 dwelling units) affordable
housing density bonus;
PAGE 2 OF AGEhiDA BILL NO. /3,8 3 0
D. 140 multi-family units (80 units less than the City approved Sambi - CT 92-02;
E. 137 standard single-family lots (8 single-family lots more than the approved project);
F. 1.8 acre community facility site located across the street from Poinsettia Community
Park along Hidden Valley Road;
G. 1.46 acres of additional open space
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Because the proposed project would result in 72 fewer residential dwelling units, less community
facility land use acreage, and more natural open space, the revised project design would further
reduce environmental impacts and be considered a more environmentally sensitive and preferred
project. Fewer residential dwelling units and more open space equates to more natural habitat
protection, less air pollution and water quality impacts, less traffic generation, less demand on public
facilities, and less aesthetic impact. Because the project site has already been graded and only
minor regrading of the large multifamily building pads would be necessary to accommodate the
redesigned project, the Master EIR for the General Plan Update 1994, the Certified Final EIR 90-03
for Specific Plan 203, and the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT92-02/Sambi, all
provide adequate environmental analysis and mitigation to cover the proposed revised project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
As discussed in the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan, all necessary major capital facilities
will be provided concurrent with development and funded by the Developer of the project. A
financing plan that comprehensively addresses the provisions of public facilities within the facility
zone has been approved by the City Council.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
Local Facilities Management Plan
Growth Control Point
Net Density
Special Facilities
20
3.2 & 6 DWACRE
3.09 & 4.36
C.F.D. NO. 1
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution 96 -?&I
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3977, 3978, 3979, and 3980
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 21, 1996
5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated August 21, 1996.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 96-321
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP REVISION, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AMENDMENT, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT, AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVIDE A 68.5 ACRE PROPERTY INTO
137 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, 98 TWINHOMES ON SMALL
LOTS, 42 OWNERSHIP POSTAGE STAMP LOT TOWNHOMES
AFFORDABLE TO LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AND
ONE COMMUNITY FACILITY SITE, ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE,
NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS, SOUTH OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS
CASE NO.: CT92-02(A)/PUD92-03(A)/SDP92-06(A)/
HDP92-03(A)
WHEREAS, on August 21, 1996, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider a Vesting Tentative Map Revision (CT 92-02(A)), Planned
Development Permit Amendment (PUD 92-03(A)), Site Development Plan Amendment (SDP
92-06(A)), and Hillside Development Permit Amendment (HDP 92-03(A)) for project
development on 68.5 acres of land and adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3977,
3978,3979, and 3980 respectively, recommending approval to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 1st
day of October , 1996, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
recommendations and heard all persons interested in or opposed to CT 92-02(A), PUD 92-03(A),
SDP 92-06(A), and HDP 92-03(A); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the
Vesting Tentative Map Revision (CT 92-02(A)) is approved and that the findings
and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in 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
2.
3.
4.
5.
Resolution No. 3977, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the
Planned Development Permit Amendment (PUD 92-03(A)) is approved and that the
findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3978, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated
herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the Site
Development Plant Amendment (SDP 92-06(A)) is approved and that the findings
and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3979, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the
Hillside Development Permit Amendment (HDP 92-03(A)) is approved and that the
findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3980, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated
herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The
provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for
Judicial Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be
sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6,
which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking
judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than
the nineteenth day following the date on which this decision
becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision
becomes final a request for the record of the deposit in an amount
sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such record,
the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended
to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the
record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his
attorney of record, if he has one. A 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.”
. . .
. . .
-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 1st day of October , 1996, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Hall and Finnila
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAU
-3-
EXHIBIT 2
SITE%
SAMBI
CT 92=02(A)/PUD 92=03(A)/
SDP 92906(A)/HDP 92=03(A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3977
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A REVISION TO A VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 68.5 ACRE PARCEL INTO
137 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, 98 TOWNHOMES ON SMALL
LOTS, 42 OWNERSHIP POSTAGE STAMP LOT
TOWNHOMES AFFORDABLE TO LOWER INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS, AND ONE FUTURE COMMUNITY
FACILITY SITE, ALL ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE, NORTH OF
CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS, SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE
20.
CASE NAME: SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS
CASE NO.: CT 92-02(A)
WHEREAS, Sambi Seaside Heights LLC has filed a verified application for
certain property to wit:
The South Half of the Southeast Quarter and the South 60 acres
of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 21,
Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
United States Government Survey, approved October 25, 1875,
according to the Official Plat thereof
with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Vesting
Tentative Tract Map Revision to subdivide a 68.5 acre parcel into 137 standard single-family
lots, subdivide and construct 98 townhomes on small lots, construct 42 “ownership” postage
stamp lot townhomes designated as affordable to lower income households, and designate 1
future community facility site along Hidden Valley Road, all on property generally located
east of Paseo de1 Norte, north of Camino de las Ondas, and south of Palomar Airport Road,
1 in the RD-M-Q Zone and R-1-10,000-Q Zone in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20,
as shown on Exhibits “A’‘-“RR”, dated August 21, 1996, on file in the Planning
7 Department and incorporated by this reference (“Vesting Tentative Map Revision for
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
Sambi Seaside Heights” CT 92-02(A)) as provided by Section 20.12.120 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 21st day of August 1996,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Vesting Tentative Tract Map Revision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A)
W
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Carlsbad Vesting Tentative Tract Map
Revision, CT 92-02(A), based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission finds that:
a. the project is a subsequent residential development within an approved
Specific Plan (SP 203) pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines;
b. the project is consistent with Specific Plan 203;
C. there was a Final EIR certified in connection with the prior approved Specific
Plan 203 (EIR 9303), the General Plan Update (MEIR 93-Ol), and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration approved for CT 92-02;
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as significant
in the prior EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 162 or 15 163 exist.
PC RESO NO. 3977
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
2. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the certified Final EIR 93-03 (SP 203), the General Plan
Update (MEIR 93-06), and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 92-02 which
are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent
Project.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for CT 92-02(A)
is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the following:
a.
b.
C.
d.
. . .
Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the
proposed density of 4.36 du/acre is within the density range of 4 to 8 du/acre for
the RM portion of the site and 3.09 du/acre is within the density range of 0 to 4
du/acre for the RLM portion of the site, as indicated on the Land Use Element
of the General Plan, and is at or below the growth control point of 6 du/acre and
3.2 du/acre respectively. When the 42 affordable townhomes are added to the
density in the RLM portion of the site the density results in 5.14 dwelling units
per net acre. The General Plan allows a density increase above the high end of
the density range when it is for the provision of affordable housing. The
project is approximately 35 dwelling units below the growth management
dwelling unit allowance of 312 dwelling units for the entire property;
Circulation - The local private streets within the multi-family planning areas
would have 30 feet to 40 feet of paving, in addition to sidewalks on at least
one side of the street. All the public local, collector, and major streets within
the site would be constructed to full public street width standards, and have
curb, gutters, sidewalks, -and underground utilities. The proposed street
system would be adequate to handle the project’s pedestrian and vehicular
traffk and accommodate emergency vehicles;
Noise - The project would provide noise attenuation walls and building
sound attenuation where applicable per the recommendations of the project’s
updated noise study on file in the Planning Department;
Housing Element - The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the
General Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance since the Developer
has been conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement prior to
Final Map. All residential development within Specific Plan 203 is required to
include a percentage of housing units affordable to persons and families of
lower income. Consistent with the policies and programs of the Housing
Element and subsequent to the affordable housing requirements of the Specific
Plan 203, the project would provide 15% or 42 “ownership” postage stamp lot
townhomes available and affordable to lower-income households. In addition,
and consistent with Housing Element Policy 3.2 the project would provide at
least 10% of the lower income units with three or more bedrooms;
9
PC RESO NO. 3977 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e. Open Space and Conservation - There are no changes to the project that
negatively impact the approved project’s open space or the site’s natural
resources. The amended project has an additional 1.46 acres of open space.
f.
g.
Parks and Recreation - The project amendment does not negatively impact
Poinsettia Community Park and the Developer is required to pay Park-in-
lieu fees; and
Public Safety - The proposed project is required to provide bike lanes,
pedestrian access to the future school site, sidewalks, street lights, and fire
hydrants, as shown on the revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map, or included
as conditions of approval.
4. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the final map will not be approved
unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve the project.
In addition, the project is conditioned such that a note shall be placed on the final
map that building permits may not be issued for the project unless the District
Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur
within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the District
Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the
General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project;
b. Prior to final map approval the Developer is conditioned to enter into an
agreement with the appropriate school district to ensure that adequate school
facilities are available to serve the project;
C. Park-in-lieu fees are required;
d. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval; and
e. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
5. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
. . .
PC RESO NO. 3977
P
-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 90-384.
That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as
conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any
applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State
Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the
proposed project is required to provide sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants, as
shown on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, or included as conditions of approval.
The local streets have adequate public right-of-way and connect to Hidden Valley
Road which is a non-loaded collector street and Alga Road (Aviara Parkway), which
is a major street. All the local, collector, and major streets within the site would be
constructed to full public street width standards, and have curb, gutters, sidewalks,
and underground utilities. The proposed street system is adequate to handle the
project’s pedestrian and vehicular traffic and accommodate emergency vehicles.
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses in the
General Plan, in that the project is developed at densities consistent with the General
Plan and the proposed residential land uses are compatible in scale, architecture, and
building materials with the existing and planned single-family and multi-family
residential development to the south and north. Public street improvements would be
provided to accommodate traffic generated by the project and the project must
comply with all the circulation and public facility requirements of Local Facilities
Management Plan Zone 20. The future community facility site is adequately buffered
from the surrounding residential property by open space, slopes, and roadways, and is
located adjacent to Hidden Valley Road, in close proximity to Poinsettia Community
Park.
That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density
proposed, in that the residential development complies with all City land use policies
and standards, including zoning, without the need for variances from development
standards.
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in
that the project has been designed and structured such that there are no conflicts
with any easements.
That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
I1 PC RESO NO. 3977 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
-
That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that the 7,500 to 10,000
square foot lot sixes allow for a variety of building placement alternatives, including
the adequate placement and separation of the homes, in combination with the
proposed variety of floor plans and the dominant westerly wind/solar radiation
patterns, will allow utilization of natural heating and cooling opportunities.
That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed
by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs
against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental
resources.
That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that all feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
the certified Final EIR 93-03 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 92-02
which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the project and no
significant impacts to fish, wildlife or their respective habitats will occur.
That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the drainage
requirements of Specific Plan 203, City ordinances, and Mello II have been
considered and appropriate drainage facilities have been designed and secured. In
addition to City Engineering Standards and compliance with the City’s Master
Drainage Plan, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
standards will be satisfied to prevent any discharge violations.
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
Planning:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend APPROVAL of the Vesting
Tentative Tract Map Revision for CT 92-02(A) entitled “Sambi Seaside Heights” as
shown on Exhibits “A” - “KK” on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by
this reference, dated August 21, 1996, subject to the conditions herein set forth. All
other conditions and approvals of said prior permit as amended to date and not
amended by this action remain in full force and effect. Exhibits “A” - “KK”, dated
August 21, 1996 replace Exhibits “A”- “YYY” dated December 15, 1993. Staff is
authorized and directed to make or require the Developer to make all corrections and
modifications to the exhibits and/or documents, as necessary to make them internally
consistent and conform to City Council’s final action on the project. Development shall
PC RESO NO. 3977 -6- /a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development
substantially different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the
Vesting Tentative Tract Map as approved by the final decision making body. The
Tentative Map shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The Map copy shall
be submitted to the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or
improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
The final map shall not be approved unless the City Council finds as of the time of such
approval that sewer service is available to serve the subdivision.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the
District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application
for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. A note
to this effect shall be placed on the final map.
Prior to approval of a final map or the issuance/approval of a building permit, which ever
occurs first, the Developer shall submit evidence to the Planning Director that impacts to
school facilities have been mitigated in conformance with the City’s Growth Management
Plan to the extent permitted by applicable state law. If the mitigation involves a
financing scheme such as a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District which is
inconsistent with the City’s Growth Management Plan including City Council Policy
Statement No. 38, the Developer shall disclose to future owners in the project, to the
maximum extent possible, the existence of the tax and that the school district is the taxing
agency responsible for the financing district.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this residential
housing project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in
Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this
approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the
condition complies with all requirements of law.
Approval of CT 92-02(A) is granted subject to the approval of PUD 92-03(A), SDP 92-
06(A), and HDP 92-03(A). CT 92-02(A) is subject to all conditions contained in
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3978,3979 and 3980 for PUD 92-03(A), SDP
92-06(A), and HDP 92-03(A).
I? PC RESO NO. 3977 -7- , H
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
-
The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with
the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The plans
shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director prior to the
approval of the final map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first. The
Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and
maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and
debris.
The first submittal of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
All building pad and street areas that are graded and remain vacant or undeveloped
for a period of more than 6 months after the grading operation is completed shall be
seeded and adequately irrigated to reduce erosion and visual impacts. If grading is
phased, the six month time period shall start at the completion of each individual
grading phase, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director.
Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall receive approval of a Coastal
Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission that substantially
conforms to this approval. A signed copy of the Coastal Development Permit must be
submitted to the Planning Director. If the approval is substantially different, a revision to
the Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall be required.
Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, or where a map is
not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units., the
Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide
and deed restrict 42 dwelling units (including: Units l-42 on Lot 138) as affordable to
lower-income households for the useful life of the dwelling units, in accordance with
the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code. A signed Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning
Director not later than (10) days prior to final map approval. The recorded
Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in
interest.
The Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the
project’s market rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the City
and the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate
schedule for development.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the approved Final EIR 90-03 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration CT
92-02, as contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3591 and 3590.
The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to final map approval. The CC&Rs shall include provisions
PC RESO NO. 3977 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
-
specifying Homeowner’s Association maintenance responsibility for all natural open
space, and slope maintenance and landscape easements, as shown on the approved
Vesting Tentative Tract Map and landscape plans, on file in the Planning
Department, or as conditioned by this resolution.
Prior to approval of the final map the Developer shall establish slope maintenance
and landscape easements along the slopes facing Alga Road, Hidden Valley Road,
Sweet Woodruff Road, Snowdrop Way, and Cherry Blossom Road, including Lots
1, 7,11,12-22,28,29,56,57,78,79,90,100,112,119,120,137,140 and 141.
Prior to approval of the final map the developer shall dedicate Open Space Lots No.
142-144 to the Homeowner’s Association and dedicate a perpetual open space
easement over Open Space Lot Nos. 142-144 to the City of Carlsbad.
Removal of native vegetation and development of Open Space Lots No. 142-144,
including but not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas,
stairways, and landscaping, other than that approved as part of the Vesting
Tentative Tract Map for drainage facilities as shown on Exhibit “A”-“ I”, is
specifically prohibited, except upon written order of the Carlsbad Fire Department
for fire prevention purposes, or upon written approval of the Planning Director, and
(California Coastal Commission if in Coastal Zone), based upon a request from the
Homeowners Association accompanied by a report from a qualified
arborist/botanist indicating the need to remove specified trees and/or plants because
of disease or impending danger to adjacent habitable dwelling units. For areas
containing native vegetation the report required to accompany the request shall be
prepared by a qualified biologist;
Prior to approval of a final map the Developer shall establish an open space
easement, as shown on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and deed restriction along
the rear of Lots 138,139, and 140 for purposes of native habitat protection and fire
suppression as shown on the tentative map. No development shall be permitted in
this buffer/open space easement, including; future regrading of the building pad
and manufactured slopes, the construction of habitable and non-habitable accessory
structures, patio covers, pool rooms, solariums, and second-story decks and
balconies, wooden decks and spas 42 inches above grade, and any other structures
that require a building permit. Screen walls/fences, parking areas, driveways,
landscaping in accordance with the approved fire suppression plan for the project,
hardscape features such as brick or cement walkways and patios, pool equipment,
and grade level pools and spas shall be permitted. In addition, the CC&Rs for the
project shall stipulate the above mentioned restrictions.
Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first, the Developer shall notify, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, all
owners, users and tenants of this project that a future school site is located adjacent
to this project to the south.
PC RJZSO NO. 3977 -9- I-’
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23.
24.
25.
Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of a building permit, whichever
occurs first, the Developer shall, at a minimum reserve Lot No. 140 as a community
facility site for a period of at least five (5) years. A note stating this shall be placed
on the Final Map. If after five years (5) the lot is not developed with a community
facility land use, it may be developed according to the underlying General Plan.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a community facility land use on Lot
140, the developer shall receive approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall provide an irrevocable offer
of dedication to the City of Carlsbad for a trail easement for trail(s) shown on the
(i.e. tentative map) within Open Space Lots 143. If the City of Carlsbad accepts
dedication of the trail easement, the trail shall be constructed as a public frail and
maintenance and liability will be the responsibility of the City of Carlsbad. If the
City of Carlsbad does not accept dedication of the trail easement, the trail shall still
be constructed but it shall be constructed as a private trail and maintenance and
liability shall be the responsibility of the (i.e. Master Homeowners Association).
Engineering:
Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions, upon the
approval of this proposed major subdivision, must be met prior to approval of a final map.
26. The project must comply with all of the prior Engineering Conditions of Approval
for CT 92-02; SDP 92-06 and PUD 92-03 and HDP 92-03 (City Council Resolution
No. 94-87/Planning Commission Resolution No. 3591), except for the following
revisions:
A. Prior Engineering Condition of Approval, PC RESO. NO. 3591, number 103
“C” (under section-“With the First Final Map #l”) is hereby revised to read:
Cherry Blossom Road shall be constructed to full e&e&or
local street standards from Aviara Parkway (formerly Alga
Road) to Hidden Valley Road including all drainage, sewer
and utility improvements.
B. Prior Engineering Conditions of Approval, PC RESO. NO. 3591, number
103 “A and B” (under section-“With the First Final Map #l”) are hereby
revised to read:
A. Aviara Parkway (formerly Alga Road) on-site and-e&
&e from Cherry Blossom Road (including north of
Cherry Blossom Road) to e
stations 42+44.31 (west side) and 43+1X85 (east side), of
City Improvement Drawing 327-90, shall be improved to
full Major Arterial standards, including all necessary
PC RESO NO. 3977 -lO- Jb
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
-
drainage and subsurface utilities.
B. Aviara Parkway (formerly Alga Road) of&&e from
P,,.,, stations 42+44.31 (west side) and
43+1X85 (east side), of City Improvement Drawing 327-
90, to Poinsettia Lane shall be fully graded to Major . Arterial standards. v Median
concrete curbs and median asphalt concrete (A/C) dikes
(berms), two 444&t 18 foot wide traffic lanes on either
side of the median, all necessary drainage facilities and
any subsurface utility lines that may be required a++&+ . w shall be installed in accordance with City
Improvement Drawing 32 7-90.
C. Prior Engineering Condition of Approval, PC RESO. NO. 3591, number 103
“A” (under section-“Area A”) is hereby deleted and changed to read:
A. Full design to Cherry Blossom Road east of Aviara
Parkway (formerly Alga Road) shall be completed. The
south side of Cherry Blossom Road, east of Aviara
Parkway, shall be fully improved at one-half street plus
12 feet. The developer shall bond for ,with appropriate
security, the remainder of Cherry Blossom Road, east of
Aviara Parkway, (i.e., the north half of the street.)
D. Prior Engineering Condition of Approval, PC RESO. NO. 3591, number 103
“B” (under section-“Area A”) is hereby deleted. (Due to Coastal
Commission action, this condition is no longer applicable.)
E. Prior Engineering Condition of Approval, PC RESO. NO. 3591, number 103
“C” (under section-“Area A”) is hereby deleted. (Due to a new gravity sewer
design, this condition is no longer applicable.)
F. Prior Engineering Condition of Approval, PC RESO. NO. 3591, number 101
is hereby deleted and changed to read:
67. The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best
management practices as referenced in the “California
Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook” to
reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to
discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements
shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said plans shall
include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners
and tenants of the following:
PC RESO NO. 3977 -ll-
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
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish
or work with established disposal programs to remove and
properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste products.
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as
gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint
thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not
be discharged into any street, public or private, or into
storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and
disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides,
fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed
in their respective containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or
reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the
landscaping and surface improvements.
D. An effective pollutant mitigation system shall be
designed to accept surface runoff from the southern
section of Area “A”, in conformance with the pollutant
mitigation note on sheet 5 of 9 of the tentative map. The
depollutant basin which is being shown at this location
is specifically not approved.
G. Prior Engineering Condition of Approval, PC RESO. NO. 3591, number 82
“a.” is hereby revised to read:
a. Hidden Valley Road, Cherry Blossom Road, Aviara . Parkway (formerly Alga Road) m
@M&W and all internal streets for Area’s “B and C. ”
H. Prior Engineering Condition of Approval, PC RESO. NO. 3591, number 103
“D” (under section-“Area A”) is hereby revised to read:
A. All on-site sewer, water, roadway and utility
improvements necessary to serve Area “A”.
I. Prior Engineering Condition of Approval, PC RESO. NO. 3591, number 103
“A” (under section-“Area B”) is hereby revised to read:
A. All on-site sewer, water, roadway and utility
improvements necessary to serve Area “B”.
PC RESO NO. 3977 -12- /g
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
Prior Engineering Condition of Approval, PC RESO. NO. 3591, number 103
“A” (under section-“Area C”) is hereby revised to read:
All on-site sewer, water, roadway and utility
improvements necessary to serve Area “C”.
Prior Engineering Condition of Approval, PC RESO. NO. 3591, number 103
“B” (under section-“Area D”) is hereby revised to read:
All on-site sewer, water, roadway and utility
improvements necessary to serve Area “D”.
Prior Engineering Condition of Approval, PC RESO. NO. 3591, number 103
“B” (under section-“Area C”) is hereby revised to read:
Public access trail from Antherium Drive to-Hi&k
+$%@ku& up to and through Area ‘D” connecting off-
site to Mariner’s Point and ultimately connecting to
Hidden Valley Road. (Also see Special Engineering
Condition No. ‘s 1, 2 and 3.)
Prior Engineering Condition of Approval, PC RESO. NO. 3591, number 103
“C” (under section-“Area D”) is ,hereby revised to read:
-Public access trail from m Area “C”
connecting off-site. to Mariner’s Point and ultimately
connecting to Hidden Valley Road. (Also see Special
Engineering Condition No. ‘s 1,2 and 3.)
Prior Engineering Condition of Approval, PC RESO. NO. 3591, number 107
is hereby deleted. (Due to an agreement with Mariner’s Point, that places
this section of the pedestrian trail on Mariner’s Point property, this condition
is no longer applicable.)
Prior Engineering Condition of Approval, PC RESO. NO. 3591, number 114
is hereby deleted. (Due to Coastal Commission action, this condition is no
longer applicable.)
Prior Engineering Condition of Approval, PC RESO. NO. 3591, number 88
is hereby deleted. (Since the update to the Master Drainage Plan is complete,
this condition is no longer applicable.)
Prior Engineering Condition of Approval, PC RESO. NO. 3591, number 76
is hereby revised to read:
PC FESO NO. 3977 ,13-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
76. Direct access rights for all lots abutting Hidden Valley
Road, C and
Aviara Parkway (formerly Alga Road) (except for the
shared access between Lot No.% 138 and 139)-shall be
waived on the final map.
Drainage outfall end 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.
The Developer shall provide for sight distance corridors at all street intersections in
accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement in the
project’s CC&Rs:
“NO structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches
above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the
area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City
Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying
property owner shall maintain this condition.”
The pedestrian trail located in Area “C” from Antherium Drive through Area “D”,
and ultimately to Hidden Valley Road shall be private. This trail shall be
maintained by the project’s Homeowners Association (HOA), or various HOAs. An
appropriately worded statement to this effect shall be placed in the Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of the project’s HOA, or various HOAs.
The portion of the pedestrian trail through Area’s “C and D”, located within the
boundaries of the Sambi subdivision, shall be constructed by the developer prior to
issuance of any building permits.
The “Private Trail Easement” (through Sambi Area’s “C and D” and along the
northerly property line of Mariner’s Point), between the Sambi/Mariner’s Point
property owner(s)/projects shall be recorded, and, the County Recorder’s
documentation number and easement information shall be indicated on the final
map, in accordance with the following:
“Private Trail Easement, Document No. 99 .
The northerly access to the Recreational Vehicle (RV) storage area for Area “D”
shall be widened to facilitate ingress of a vehicle having a 42’ turning radius
(Caltrans Standard 407E), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
a0 PC RESO NO. 3977 -14-
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
33.
34.
35.
Fire:
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
-
Hydraulic calculations and the proposed non-erosive flow designs (i.e., extensive rip
rap field in the north, and, an extensive rip rap field and proposed check dams in
the south) shall be reviewed and verified, and modified if required, for both the
north and south drainage outfalls for area “A”.
A funding mechanism for the full improvements for Poinsettia Lane and Aviara
Parkway (formerly Alga Road) must be approved or fees paid, in conformance with
the updated Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan funding program.
The approved mylar for the project shall state that the project is a Vesting Tentative
Tract Map.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall evaluate building plans
for conformance with applicable fire and life safety requirements of the state and local
Fire Codes.
For multi-family provide additional public fire hydrants at intervals of 300 feet along
public streets and private driveways. Hydrants should be located at street intersections
when possible, but should be positioned no closer than 100 feet from terminus of a street
or driveway.
For single family residences provide additional public fire hydrants at intervals of 500
feet along public streets and/or private driveways. Hydrants should be located at street
intersections when possible, but should be positioned no closer than 100 feet from
terminus of a street or driveway.
Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts
location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and tire hydrants. The
plan should include off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways and
traffic circulation for Fire Department approval.
An all weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles shall be
provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the Fire Chief, the
access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other reasons, he may,
in the interest of public safety, require that construction operations cease until the
condition is corrected.
All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational before
combustible building materials are located on the construction site.
PC RESO NO. 3977 -15-
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
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
Prior to final inspection, all security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be
equipped with a “Knox” key-operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall contact
the Fire Prevention Bureau for specifications and approvals prior to installation.
Prior to building occupancy, private roads and driveways which serve as required access
for emergency service vehicles shall be posted as tire lanes in accordance with the
requirements of section 17.04.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall obtain fire department
approval of a wildland fuel management plan. The plan shall clearly indicate methods
proposed to mitigate and manage fire risk associated with native vegetation growing
within 60 feet of structures. The plan shall reflect the standards presented in the fire
suppression element of the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual.
Prior to occupancy of buildings, all wildland fuel mitigation activities must be complete,
and the condition of all vegetation within 60 feet of structures found to be in conformance
with an approved wildland fuel management plan.
Landscape plans to be approved by the Fire Department prior to approval of building
plans.
All buildings have an aggregate floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet must be
protected by automatic fire sprinkler systems. Plans and specifications must be approved
by the Fire Department, and a permit obtained prior to installation.
Proposed multi-family residential buildings must be protected by fire alarm systems.
Plans and specifications must be approved, and a permit obtained prior to installation.
The applicant shall provide a street map which conforms to the following requirements:
A 400 scale photo-reduction mylar, depicting proposed improvements and at least two
existing intersections or streets. The map shall also clearly depict street centerlines,
hydrant locations and street names.
A monument sign shall be installed at the entrance to the driveway or private street
indicating the addresses of the buildings on-site.
Water:
52. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be
met.
53. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected before and/or. at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego
County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for
meter installation.
PC RESO NO. 3977 2% -16-
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
54. Sequentially, the Developer’s Engineer shall do the following:
A. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements.
Also obtain G.P.M. demand for domestic and irrigational needs from appropriate
parties.
B. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit it to the Planning
Department for processing and approval.
C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement plans, a
meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review, comment and
approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (i.e. GPM - EDU).
55. This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permit will not be
issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the
development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available at
the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to be
available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map.
General Condition:
56. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation
to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation.
Code Reminders:
57. If the disturbed area is five acres or more, prior to the issuance of a grading permit or
building permit, whichever occurs first, the developer shall submit proof that a Notice of
Intention has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.
58. Some improvements shown on the tentative map and/or required by these conditions are
located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient title or
interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or interest.
The applicant shall conform to Section 20.16.095 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
59. The Developer shall install street lights along all public and private street frontages in
conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards.
60. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to issuance of building
permits as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
PC RESO NO. 3977
23
-17-
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
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
. . .
The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The Developer shall provide the following note on the final map of the subdivision and
final mylar of this development submitted to the City:
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code establishes a Growth Management
Control Point for each General Plan land use designation. Development cannot exceed
the Growth Control Point except as provided by Chapter 2 1.90. The land use designation
for this development is Residential Medium (RM) and Residential Medium Low
(RLM). The Growth Control Point for this designation is 6 dwelling units per non-
constrained acre.
Parcels 1 -144 were used to calculate the intensity of development under the General Plan
and Chapter 21.90. Subsequent redevelopment or resubdivision of any one of these
parcels must also include parcels 1-144 under the General Plan and Chapter 21.90 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The following note shall be placed on the Final Map: “Prior to issuance of a building
permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the Developer shall pay a one-time
special development tax in accordance with the City Council Resolution No. 91-39”.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
The project shall comply with the latest residential disabled access requirements pursuant
to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Planning and Building.
The Developer shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name policy
subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval.
Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required
passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and
recreational facilities.
All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape
Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on tile in the Planning
Department.
PC RESO NO. 3977 N -18-
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
70. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning
Director prior to installation of such signs.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st of August 1996, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, Monroy,
Nielsen, Noble, Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairp&on
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
J MICHAEL J. HOLZ&LER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3977 -19-
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. 3978
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PLAN-NED
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CREATE 137 SINGLE-FAMILY
LOTS, 98 TOWNHOMES ON SMALL LOTS, 42 OWNERSHIP
POSTAGE STAMP LOT TOWNHOMES AFFORDABLE TO
LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AND ONE FUTURE
COMMUMTY FACILITY SITE, ALL ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE,
NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS, SOUTH OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD JN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
PLAN ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS
CASE NO.: PUD 92-03(A)
WHEREAS, Sambi Seaside Heights LLC has filed a verified application for
certain property to wit:
The South Half of the Southeast Quarter and the South 60 acres
of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 21,
Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
United States Government Survey, approved October 25, 1875,
according to the Official Plat thereof.
with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planned
Development Permit Amendment to create 137 standard single-family lots, subdivide and
construct 98 townhomes on small lots, construct 42 “ownership” postage stamp lot
townhomes designated as affordable to lower income households, and designate 1 future
community facility site along Hidden Valley Road, all on property generally located east of
Paseo de1 Norte, north of Camino de las Ondas, and south of Palomar Airport Road, in the
RD-M-Q Zone and R-1-10,000-Q Zone in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20, as
shown on Exhibits “A”-“ KK”, dated August 21, 1996, on file in the Planning Department
and incorporated by this reference (“Planned Development Permit Amendment for Sambi
%L
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
Seaside Heights” CT 92-02(A))
Code; and
WHEREAS, the PI
a duly noticed public hearing as p
WHEREAS, at saj
and arguments, if any, of all persc
relating to the Planned Developn
NOW, THEREFt
Commission as follows:
A) That the above ret:
B) That based on the
RECOMMENDS
PUD 92-03(A), b
conditions:
Findinps:
1. The Planning Commissia
a. the project is a
Specific Plan (SP
b. the project is consi
C. there was a Final
Plan 203 (EIR !
Mitigated Negativ
d. the project has no I
in the prior EIR al
e. none of the circa
CEQA Guidelines
. . .
PC RESO NO. 3978
3 provided by Section 21.45.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal
uring Commission did, on the 21st day of August 1996 hold
scribed by law to consider said request; and
public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
; desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
nt Permit Amendment.
!E, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
tions are true and correct.
evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
PPROVAL of Planned Development Permit Amendment,
:d on the following findings and subject to the following
finds that:
bsequent residential development within an approved
13) pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines;
:nt with Specific Plan 203;
[R certified in connection with the prior approved Specific
-03), the General Plan Update (MEIR 93-Ol), and a
Declaration approved for CT 92-02;
w significant environmental effect not analyzed as significant
Mitigated Negative Declaration;
stances requiring Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under
:ctions 15 162 or 15 163 exist.
-2- 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
2. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the certified Final EIR 93-03 (SP 203), the General Plan
Update (MEIR 93-Ol), and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 92-02 which
are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent
Project.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for PUD 92-
03(A) is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the
following:
a. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the
proposed density of 4.36 du/acre is within the density range of 4 to 8 du/acre for
the RM portion of the site and 3.09 du/acre is within the density range of 0 to 4
du/acre for the RLM portion of the site, as indicated on the Land Use Element
of the General Plan, and is at or below the growth control point of 6 du/acre and
3.2 du/acre respectively. When the 42 affordable townhomes are added to the
density in the RLM portion of the site the density results in 5.14 dwelling units
per net acre. The General Plan allows a density increase above the high end of
the density range when it is for the provision of affordable housing. The
project is approximately 35 dwelling units below the growth management
dwelling unit allowance of 312 dwelling units for the entire property;
b. Circulation - The local private streets within the multi-family planning areas
would have 30 feet to 40 feet of paving, in addition to sidewalks on at least
one side of the street. All the public local, collector, and major streets within
the site would be constructed to full public street width standards, and have
curb, gutters, sidewalks, and underground utilities. The proposed street
system is adequate to handle the project’s pedestrian and vehicular traffic
and accommodate emergency vehicles;
C. Noise - The project would provide noise attenuation walls and building
sound attenuation where applicable per the recommendations of the project’s
updated noise study on file in the Planning Department;
d. Housing Element - The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the
General Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance since the Developer
has been conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement prior to
Final Map. All residential development within Specific Plan 203 is required to
include a percentage of housing units affordable to persons and families of
lower income. Consistent with the policies and programs of the Housing
Element and subsequent to the affordable housing requirements of the Zone 20
Specific Plan, the project would provide 15% or 42 “ownership” townhomes
available and affordable to lower-income households. In addition, and
consistent with Housing Element Policy 3.2 the project would provide at least
10% of the lower income units with three or more bedrooms;
PC RESO NO. 3978 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-.
e. Open Space and Conservation - There are no changes to the project that
negatively impact the approved project’s open space or the site’s natural
resources. The amended project has an additional 1.46 acres of open space;
f. Parks and Recreation - The project amendment does not negatively impact
Poinsettia Community Park and the Developer is required to pay Park-in-
lieu fees; and
g* Public Safety - The proposed project is required to provide bike lanes,
pedestrian access to the future school site, sidewalks, street lights, and fire
hydrants, as shown on the revised vesting tentative tract map, or included as
conditions of approval.
4. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the final map will not be approved
unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve the project.
In addition, the project is conditioned such that a note shall be placed on the final
map that building permits may not be issued for the project unless the District
Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur
within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the District
Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the
General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project;
b. Prior to final map approval the Developer is conditioned to enter into an
agreement with the appropriate school district to ensure that adequate school
facilities are available to serve the project;
C. Park-in-lieu fees are required;
d. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval; and
e. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
5. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
PC RESO NO. 3978 37 -4-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
. . .
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 90-384.
The granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with
Chapter 21.45, Specific Plan 203, and all adopted plans of the City and other
governmental agencies.
The proposed use is necessary and desirable to provide a service or facility which will
contribute to the long-term general well-being of the neighborhood and the
community, in that the development of a future community facility site, single-family
lots, townhomes, and ownership postage stamp lot townhomes available to lower-
income households would provide a balance and mix of land uses within Specific Plan
203. A majority of the residential development planned for the specific plan area
would be standard single-family homes on 7,500 to 10,000 square foot lots. The
development of a future community facility site and higher density multi-family units
in close proximity to natural open space, Poinsettia Community Park, Hidden Valley
Road and future Alga Road, in addition to the provision of ownership townhomes
affordable to lower- income households would create a more diversified and balanced
community.
Such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity, because the project is designed to preserve the coastal sage scrub habitat
located along the eastern portion of Area “A” and the northern portion of Area “E”.
The open space in Area “A” would connect with the larger open space located in the
central canyon. Drainage facilities shall be provided concurrent with development of
the project to reduce erosion and flooding. All manufactured slopes shall be
landscaped to prevent erosion and to visually screen the slopes.
The proposed planned development meets all of the minimum development standards
set forth in Section 21.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.080, and has
been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design Guidelines
Manual for the following reasons:
a. The local streets in the single-family portion of the project shall have curb,
gutter, and sidewalks on both sides, and have 36 to 40 feet of paving. This
exceeds the 30 foot minimum private street width standard.
b. The project shall provide a mixture of one and two-story homes, and the multi-
family buildings would have varied roof lines, and a variety of front building
elevations and front yard setbacks.
PC RESO NO. 3978 -5-
30
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
C.
d.
e.
f.
h.
i.
Adequate recreational vehicle storage space shall be provided within the
individual projects and be sufficiently screened from the public right-of-way
and surrounding properties.
The single-family homes shall have, at a minimum two-car garages which
would meet the parking and storage requirements of the ordinance, and guest
parking would be provided on both sides of the streets. The townhomes all
have two-car garages and guest parking is dispersed along the internal private
streets and driveways.
A pedestrian access is provided between Lots 47 and 48 in Area “C” to provide
access to the future school site and Hidden Valley Road.
The project shall provide adequate onsite circulation to serve the needs of the
residents and their guests, and it would not impact the availability of offsite
street parking.
Sidewalks and drainage facilities shall be provided along the project’s street
frontages to serve the project.
The proposed 30 to 40 foot wide central private driveways shall be adequate to
provide safe and efficient traffic circulation, vehicle turn movements, and
emergency access.
An internal pedestrian circulation system that is separated from the driveways
within the multi-family projects shall be provided and allow sufficient and safe
access to the recreation facility and adjacent public streets.
Adequate access for emergency vehicles is provided by the central 30 to 40 foot
wide private driveways that service the multi-family projects. The project has
been reviewed and approved by the Fire Department.
12. The proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural
topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on
the site, because the project meets all the requirements of the Hillside Development
Regulations and Guidelines. The manufactured slopes shall be landscaped, and the
single-family lots shall terrace down the slope towards the west to conform with the
topography. The homes have roof lines that are varied and relate to the topography.
In addition, the northeastern and northwestern comers of the site shall be preserved
to protect the coastal sage habitat and to provide open space in the central canyon.
13. The project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with the
project and does not dominate the project the local streets in the project.
14. The proposed project’s design and the density of the developed portion of the site is
compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or
PC RESO NO. 3978 31 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
disruptive element to the neighborhood. The bulk and scale of the proposed two-story
townhouses shall be compatible with the existing and proposed residential
development in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed multi-family
townhomes shall provide an appropriate transition between the proposed single-
family land use directly to the east and Poinsettia Community Park to the west. The
design of the project shall assure a unique mix of residential development, and
enhance the aesthetic quality of the area:
15. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the e,xactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
PlanninP Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend APPROVAL of the Planned
Development Permit Amendment for PUD 92-03(A) entitled “Sambi Seaside Heights”
as shown on Exhibits “A” - “KK” on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by
this reference, dated August 21, 1996, subject to the conditions herein set forth. All
other conditions and approvals of said prior permit as amended to date and not
amended by this action remain in full force and effect. Exhibits “A” - “KK”, dated
August 21, 1996 replace Exhibits “A”- “YYY” dated December 15, 1993. Staff is
authorized and directed to make or require the Developer to make all corrections and
modifications to the exhibits and/or documents, as necessary to make them internally
consistent and conform to City Council’s final action on the project. Development shall
occur substantially as shown on -the approved exhibits. Any proposed development
substantially different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. Approval of PUD 92-03(A) is granted subject to the approval of CT 92-02(A), SDP 92-
06(A), and HDP 92-03(A). PUD 92-03(A) is subject to all conditions contained in
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3977, 3979 and 3980 for CT 92-02(A), SDP
92-06(A), and HDP 92-03(A).
. . .
. . .
..a
PC RESO NO. 3978 -7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
?
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st of August 1996, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, Monroy,
Nielsen, Noble, Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperk
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILfER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3978 -8- 33
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. 3979
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE AND TO
PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BY DEVELOPING 42
OWNERSHIP POSTAGE STAMP LOT TOWNHOMES
AFFORDABLE TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, ALL ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF PASEO DEL
NORTE, NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS, SOUTH OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS
CASE NO.: SDP 92-06(A)
WHEREAS, WHEREAS, Sambi Seaside Heights LLC has filed a verified
application for certain property to wit:
The South Half of the Southeast Quarter and the South 60 acres
of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 21,
Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
United States Government Survey, approved October 25, 1875,
according to the Official Plat thereof
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 Amendment to meet the requirements of the Qualified Development
Overlay Zone and to provide affordable housing by developing 42 “ownership” postage
stamp lot townhomes designated as affordable to lower income households, all on property
generally located east of Paseo del Norte, north of Camino de las Ondas, and south of
Palomar Airport Road, in the RD-M-Q Zone and R-1-10,000-Q Zone in Local Facilities
Management Plan Zone 20, a,s shown on Exhibits “A”-“ KK”, dated August 21,1996, on file
in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference (“Site Development Plan
34
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
Amendment” for Sambi Seaside Heights” SDP 92-06(A) as provided by Section 21.53.120 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 21st day of August 1996 hold
~ a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Site Development Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Site Development Plan Amendment, SDP
92-06(A), based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
1. The Planning Commission finds that:
a. the project is a subsequent residential development within an approved
Specific Plan (SP 203) pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines;
b. the project is consistent with Specific Plan 203;
C. there was a Final EIR certified in connection with the prior approved Specific
Plan 203 (EIR 93-03), the General Plan Update (MEIR 93-Ol), and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration approved for CT 92-02;
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as significant
in the prior EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 162 or 15 163 exist.
2. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the certified Final EIR 93-03 (SP 203), the General Plan
Update (MEIR 93-Ol), and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 92-02 which
PC RESO NO. 3979 -2- 33-
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
are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent
Project.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for SDP 92-
06(A) is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the
following:
a. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the
proposed density of 4.36 du/acre is within the density range of 4 to 8 du/acre for
the RM portion of the site and 3.09 du/acre is within the density range of 0 to 4
du/acre for the RLM portion of the site, as indicated on the Land Use Element
of the General Plan, and is at or below the growth control point of 6 du/acre and
3.2 du/acre respectively. When the 42 affordable townhomes are added to the
density in the RLM portion of the site the density results in 5.14 dwelling units
per net acre. The General Plan allows a density increase above the high end of
the density range when it is for the provision of affordable housing. The
project is approximately 35 dwelling units below the growth management
dwelling unit allowance of 312 dwelling units for the entire property;
b. Circulation - The local private streets within the multi-family planning areas
shall have 30 feet to 40 feet of paving, in addition to sidewalks on at least one
side of the street. All the public local, collector, and major streets within the
site shall be constructed to full public street width standards, and have curb,
gutters, sidewalks, and underground utilities. The proposed street system is
adequate to handle the project’s pedestrian and vehicular traffic and
accommodate emergency vehicles;
C. Noise - The project shall provide noise attenuation walls and building sound
attenuation where applicable per the recommendations of the project’s
updated noise study on file in the Planning Department;
d. Housing Element - The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the
General Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance since the Developer
has been conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement prior to
Final map. All residential development within Specific Plan 203 is required to
include a percentage of housing units affordable to persons and families of
lower income. Consistent with the policies and programs of the Housing
Element and subsequent to the affordable housing requirements of the Specific
Plan 203, the project shall provide 15% or 42 “ownership” townhomes
available and affordable to lower-income households. In addition, and
consistent with Housing Element Policy 3.2 the project shall provide at least
10% of the lower income units with three or more bedrooms;
e. Open Space and Conservation - There are no changes to the project that
negatively impact the approved project’s open space or the site’s natural
resources. The amended project has an additional 1.46 acres of open space;
PC RESO NO. 3979 3b -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
f. Parks and Recreation - The project amendment does not negatively impact
Poinsettia Community Park and the Developer is required to pay Park-in-
lieu fees; and
g* Public Safety - The proposed project is required to provide bike lanes,
pedestrian access to the future school site, sidewalks, street lights, and fire
hydrants, as shown on the revised vesting tentative tract map, or included as
conditions of approval.
4. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the final map will not be approved
unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve the project.
In addition, the project is conditioned such that a note shall be placed on the final
map that building permits may not be issued for the project unless the District
Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur
within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the District
Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the
General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project;
b. Prior to final map approval the Developer is conditioned to enter into an
agreement with the appropriate school district to ensure that adequate school
facilities are available to serve the project;
C. Park-in-lieu fees are required;
d. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval; and
e. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
5. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
6. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
I Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20.
/
37
PC RESO NO. 3979 -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
7. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 90-384.
8. The granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with
Chapter 21.45, Specific Plan 203, and all adopted plans of the City and other
governmental agencies.
9. The proposed use is necessary and desirable to provide a service or facility which will
contribute to the long-term general well-being of the neighborhood and the
community, in that the development of a future community facility site, single-family
lots, townhomes, and ownership postage stamp lot townhomes available to lower-
income households shall provide a balance and mix of land uses within Specific Plan
203. A majority of the residential development planned for the specific plan area shall
be standard single-family homes on 7,500 to 10,000 square foot lots. The development
of a future community facility site and higher density multi-family units in close
proximity to natural open space, Poinsettia Community Park’ Hidden Valley Road
and future Alga Road, in addition to the provision of ownership townhomes
affordable to lower- income household shall create a more diversified and balanced
community.
10. Such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity, because the project is designed to preserve the coastal sage scrub habitat
located along the eastern portion of Area “A” and the northern portion of Area “E”.
The open space in Area “A” shall connect with the larger open space located in the
central canyon. Drainage facilities shall be provided concurrent with development of
the project to reduce erosion and flooding. All manufactured slopes shall be
landscaped to prevent erosion and to visually screen the slopes.
11. The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the proposed project meets all of the minimum development standards set forth
in Section 21.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.080, and has been
designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design Guidelines Manual
for the following reasons:
a. The local streets in the single-family portion of the project shall have curb,
gutter, and sidewalks on both sides, and have 36 to 40 feet of paving. This
exceeds the 30 foot minimum private street width standard.
b. The project shall provide a mixture of one and two-story homes, and the multi-
family buildings shall have varied roof lines, and a variety of front building
elevations and front yard setbacks.
C. Adequate recreational vehicle storage space shall be provided within the
individual projects and be suffkiently screened from the public right-of-way
and surrounding properties.
38
PC RJZSO NO. 3979 -5:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d.
e.
f.
g*
h.
i.
j-
The single-family homes shall have, at a minimum two-car garages which shall
meet the parking and storage requirements of the ordinance, and guest
parking shall be provided on both sides of the streets. The townhomes all have
two-car garages and guest parking is dispersed along the internal private
streets and driveways.
A pedestrian access is provided between Lots 47 and 48 in Area “C” to provide
access to the future school site and Hidden Valley Road.
The project shall provide adequate onsite circulation to serve the needs of the
residents and their guests, and it shall not impact the availability of offsite
street parking.
Sidewalks and drainage facilities shall be provided along the project’s street
frontages to serve the project.
The proposed 30 to 40 foot wide central private driveways shall be adequate to
provide safe and efftcient trafftc circulation, vehicle turn movements, and
emergency access.
An internal pedestrian circulation system that is separated from the driveways
within the multi-family projects shall be provided and allow sufficient and safe
access to the recreation facility and adjacent public streets.
Adequate access for emergency vehicles is provided by the central 30 to 40 foot
wide private driveways that service the multi-family projects. The project has
been reviewed and approved by the Fire Department.
12. The proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural
topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on
the site, because the project meets all the requirements of the Hillside Development
Regulations and Guidelines. The manufactured slopes shall be landscaped, and the
single-family lots shall terrace down the slope towards the west to conform with the
topography. The homes have roof lines that are varied and relate to the topography.
In addition, the northeastern and northwestern comers of the site shall be preserved
to protect the coastal sage habitat and to provide open space in the central canyon.
13. The project’s circulation system is designed to be efftcient and well integrated with the
project and does not dominate the project the local streets in the project
14. The proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site is
compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or
disruptive element to the neighborhood. The bulk and scale of the proposed two-story
townhouses shall be compatible with the existing and proposed residential
development in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed multi-family
3?
PC RESO NO. 3979 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
townhomes shall provide an appropriate transition between the proposed single-
family land use directly to the east and the Poinsettia Community Park to the west.
The design of the project shall assure a unique mix of residential development, and
enhance the aesthetic quality of the area.
15. The 42 ownership condominium townhomes shall be restricted for lower-income
households in compliance with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, be located
adjacent to a major road (Alga Road) and within l-2 miles of the City’s centralized
industrial parks, and the site plan shall be compatible with the adjacent townhomes to
the south.
16. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
PlanninP Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend APPROVAL of the Site
Development Plan Amendment for SDP 92-06(A) entitled “Sambi Seaside Heights” as
shown on Exhibits “A” - “KK” on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by
this reference, dated August 21, 1996, subject to the conditions herein set forth. All
other conditions and approvals of said prior permit as amended to date and not
amended by this action remain in full force and effect. Exhibits “A” - “KK”, dated
August 21, 1996 replace Exhibits “A”- “YYY” dated December 15, 1993. Staff is
authorized and directed to make or require the Developer to make all corrections and
modifications to the exhibits and/or documents, as necessary to make them internally
consistent and conform to City Council’s final action on the project. Development shall
occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development
substantially different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. Approval of SDP 92-06(A) is granted subject to the approval of CT 92-02(A), PUD 92-
03(A), and HDP 92-03(A). SDP 92-06(A) is subject to all conditions contained in
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3977, 3978 and 3980 for CT 92-02(A), PUD
92-03(A), and HDP 92-03(A).
3. The future Site Development Plan for Areas “B” and “C” shall meet all the
development standards of the R-l Zone and Specific Plan 203, including but not
limited to; number of stories, building height, front, side and rear setbacks, lot
coverage, and parking. Unless otherwise approved through the future Site
Development Plan process, the lots shall not be sold for the purpose of developing
individual custom homes on each separate lot.
/ PC RESO NO. 3979 -7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st of August 1996, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, Monroy,
Nielsen, Noble, Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chair&son
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
\, b&&J)&& & v
MICHAEL J. HOI!ZMIdER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3979 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3980
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR GRADING TO ALLOW THE
DEVELOPMENT OF I37 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, 98
TOWNHOMES ON SMALL LOTS, 42 OWNERSHIP POSTAGE
STAMP LOT TOWNHOMES AFFORDABLE TO LOWER
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AND ONE FUTURE COMMUNITY
FACILITY SITE, ALL ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE, NORTH OF
CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS, SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE
20.
CASE NAME: SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS
CASE NO.: HDP 92-03(A)
WHEREAS, WHEREAS, Sambi Seaside Heights LLC has filed a verified
application for certain property to wit:
The South Half of the Southeast Quarter and the South 60 acres
of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 21,
Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
United States Government Survey, approved October 25, 1875,
according to the Offkial Plat thereof
with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside
Development Permit Amendment for grading to allow the development of 137 standard
single-family lots, subdivide and construct 98 townhomes on small lots, construct 42
“ownership” postage stamp lot townhomes designated as affordable to lower income
households, and designate 1 future community facility site along Hidden Valley Road, all on
property generally located east of Paseo de1 Norte, north of Camino de las Ondas, and south
of Palomar Airport Road, in the RD-M-Q Zone and R-1-10,000-Q Zone in Local Facilities
Management Plan Zone 20, as shown on Exhibits “A”-” KK”, dated August 21, 1996, on file
in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference (“Hillside Develop IiPh e t
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
Permit Amendment for Sambi Seaside Heights” HDP 92-03(A) as provided by Section
21.95.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 21st day of August 1996 hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Hillside Development Permit Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, of Hillside Development Permit Amendment
HDP 92-03(A), based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
Findinps:
1. The Planning Commission finds that:
a. the project is a subsequent residential development within an approved
Specific Plan (SP 203) pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines;
b. the project is consistent with Specific Plan 203;
C. there was a Final EIR certified in connection with the prior approved Specific
Plan 203 (EIR 93-03), the General Plan Update (MEIR 93-Ol), and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration approved for CT 92-02;
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as significant
in the prior EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163 exist.
2. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the certified Final EIR 93-03 (SP 203), the General Plan
PC RESO NO. 3980 CfJ -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
Update (MEIR 93-Ol), and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 92-02 which
are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent
Project.
3. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
4. The project site has been graded in substantial conformance. with the approved
Hillside Development Permit (HDP 92-03). The findings of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3594 for HDP 92-03 are still applicable to this permit amendment.
However, to accommodate the changes in the circulation and the residential site plans,
some additional grading of the larger rough graded pad areas is required. This
grading is considered minor in context to the overall grading of the site, it shall not
exceed the allowable grading volumes, and shall not encroach beyond the envelope of
the existing graded areas. The bulk of this remaining grading is for the relocation of
the access driveway along the east side of Alga Road and to provide terracing of the
building pads in Planning Area “A”. Additional large manufactured slopes shall not
be created and there shall be no significant impact to habitat and deed restricted open
space areas.
Planning Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend APPROVAL of the Hillside
Development Permit Amendment for HDP 92-03(A) entitled “Sambi Seaside
Heights” as shown on Exhibits “A” - “KK” on file in the Planning Department and
incorporated by this reference, dated August 21, 1996, subject to the conditions herein set
forth. All other conditions and approvals of said prior permit as amended to date
and not amended by this action remain in full force and effect. Exhibits “A” -
“KK”, dated August 21, 1996 replace Exhibits “A”- “YYY” dated December 15,
1993. Staff is authorized and directed to make or require the Developer to make all
corrections and modifications to the exhibits and/or documents, as necessary to make
them internally consistent and conform to City Council’s final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed
development substantially different from this approval, shall require an amendment to
this approval.
2. Approval of HDP 92-03(A) is granted subject to the approval of CT 92-02(A), SDP 92-
06(A), and PUD 92-03(A). HDP 92-03(A) is subject to all conditions contained in
~
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3977, 3978 and 3979 for CT 92-02(A), PUD
92-03(A) and SDP 92-06(A).
. . .
PC RESO NO. 3980 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st of August 1996, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, Monroy,
Nielsen, Noble, Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpe(son
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3980 -4-
‘me City of CARLSBAD Plaming Department EXHI~V’J 4
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION’-’
Item No. 6 0
Application complete date:
P.C. AGENDA OF: August 21, 1996 Project Planner: J. Gibson
Project Engineer: M. Shirey
SUBJECT: CT 92-02tAWUD 92-03(AYSDP 92-06tAYHDP 92-03(A) - SAMBI SEASIDE
HEIGHTS - Request for recommendation of approval for a revised Vesting
Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan and
Hillside Development Permit to subdivide 137 standard single-family lots,
subdivide and construct 98 townhomes on small lots, construct 42 “ownership”
postage stamp lot townhomes designated as affordable to lower-income households,
and designate 1 future community facility site along Hidden Valley Road, all on
property generally located east of Paseo de1 Norte, north of Camino de las Ondas,
and south of Palomar Airport Road, in the RD-M-Q Zone and R-l-1 0,000-Q Zone
in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3977,3978,3979,
and 3980 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of CT 92-02(A), PUD 92-03(A), SDP 92-06(A) and
HDP 92-03(A), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
This application is a request for a revised Vesting Tentative Map, and an amendment to a
Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit. The
original project, SambiKT 92-02, was approved by the City Council in March 1994. The
Coastal Commission approved the project in March 1995 with a condition requiring a redesign of
the project to avoid several steep slope areas. These changes to the project have resulted in the
need for the project to be re-evaluated by the City and once again approved by the Planning
Commission and the City Council. The redesigned project meets all City policies and standards
and there are no outstanding issues of concern.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The 68.56 acre property is located in the coastal zone and has a split zoning and General Plan Land
Use designation. The property is located in the Residential Density-Multiple Zone with the
Qualified Overlay Zone @D-M-Q) and in the One-Family Residential Zone with the Qualified
Overlay Zone (R-1-10,000-Q). The General Plan Land Use designation is Residential Medium
(RM) and Residential Medium Low (RLM). In addition, the project is subject to the requirements
of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 90-3, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for SambiKT 92-02, and the General Plan’s Master EIR.
CT 92-02(A)/PUD !%~J\A,/SDP 92-06(A)/HDP 92-03(A) - SAlvrBr SEASIDE HEIGHTS
AUGUST 21,1996
Sambi/CT 92-02 was approved by the Planning Commission in December 1993, approved by the
City Council in March 1994, and conditionally approved by the Coastal Commission in March
1995. The project site, and offsite Hidden Valley Road north to Palomar Airport Road and Alga
Road (Aviara Parkway) south to Poinsettia Lane, have all been graded in substantial
conformance with a combination of the City’s and the California Coastal Commission’s existing
project approvals for SambiKT 92-02. The City allowed the Developer to grade the site to: (1)
coordinate the grading with the construction and grading of Poinsettia Community Park and the
Greystone Homes, Inc. site (The Cove); and, (2) to facilitate regional circulation in the are? by
expediting the construction of Hidden Valley Road from Poinsettia Community Park north to
Palomar Airport Road and Alga Road (Aviara Parkway) south to existing Poinsettia Lane. This
northern segment of Hidden Valley Road will provide an important direct circulation connection
with the community park and Palomar Airport Road.
A slight change in the alignment of Cherry Blossom Road and the elimination of an access street
leading from future Camino De Las Ondas to Planning Area “A” was required as part of the
Coastal Commission’s modified approval of Sambi/CT 92-02. As a result of the Coastal
Commission’s actions, the project’s City-approved site plans for the single-family, multi-family
and community facility planning areas also now require revision. The Coastal Commission
required that SarnbilCT 92-02 be redesigned so that Cherry Blossom Road and the access driveway
from Camino De Las Ondas to Area “A” would not impact 25% slopes containing native habitat in
two portions of the site. The City approved the roadway and driveway alignments because they
provided superior project access and circulation, and under the findings that they were not subject
to Mello II development restrictions for steep slopes. However, the Coastal Commission disagreed
with the City’s findings and took a stricter interpretation of the slope standards. As a result, the
Coastal Commission approved the project with a condition stating that the project had to be
redesigned and re-approved by the City.
The amendment to this project is still subject to many of the findings and conditions of the
original staff report and the approved Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3590-3594,
therefore, for ease of reference and continuity, the appropriate documents are attached to this
report. It is important to note that all the conditions and approvals of SambiKT 92-02 as
amended to date and not amended by this action still remain in full force and effect.
The proposed amendment for the redesign of the project’s site plans would constitute the
following changes:
A. A minor realignment of future Cherry Blossom Road between future Alga Road (Aviara
Parkway) and Hidden Valley Road. Relocation of the driveway access from Camino De
Las Ondas to Planning Area “A”;
B. Some proposed minor regrading of building pads for the redesigned multi-family, single-
family and community facility planning areas;
C. Elimination of the request for an 11.8% (36.83 dwelling units) affordable housing density
bonus;
- -.
CT 92-02(A)/PUD 92-6~@,/sDP 92-06(A)/HDP 92-03(A) - SAWSI SEASIDE HEIGHTS
AUGUST 21,1996
PAGE 3
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
140 multi-family dwelling units (80 units less than the City approved Sambi/CT 92-02).
Area “A” would have 42 “ownership” townhomes designated as affordable to lower -
income households, all adjacent to 40 townhomes on small lots that would share
centralized recreational and RV storage facilities and have the same Homeowners
Association. Area “D” would contain the same approved townhomes, however, the
revised site plan would have 58 dwelling units as compared to the approved 76 units;
137 standard single-family lots (8 single-family lots more than the approved project) with
minimum lots sizes that still range from 7,500 square feet to 10,000 square feet;
1.8 acres of community facility land use to be consolidated into 1 area located across the
street from Poinsettia Community Park along Hidden Valley Road (.46 acres less than the
approved project);
Overall, the redesigned site plans would result in 277 residential units as compared to the
349 residential units for the City approved SambiKT 92-02 (72 fewer residential units);
and
In addition, the Coastal Commission’s modified approval of SarnbiKT 92-02 resulted in
the preservation of two small finger canyons containing disturbed habitat which created
1.46 acres of additional open space.
This proposed project is subject to the following land use plans and regulations:
A. Carlsbad General Plan;
B. Specific Plan 203;
C. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 2 1 (Zoning) including:
(1) Chapter 2 1.45 - Planned Development;
(2) Chapter 21.53 - Site Development Plan - “Affordable Housing” and Chapter 21.06 -
Qualified Overlay Zone;
(3) Chapter 2 1.85 - Inclusionary Housing; and
(4) Chapter 2 1.95 - Hillside Development Regulations;
D. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20 - Subdivision Ordinance;
E. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program;
F. Growth Management (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20); and
-
CT 92-02(A)/PUD 92-G.+,/SDP 92-06(A)/HDP 92-03(A) - SAlvrBr SEASIDE HEIGHTS
AUGUST 2 1,1996
PAGE 4
G. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 19 - Environmental Protection Procedures, and the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
IV. ANALYSIS
Staff is recommending approval of this project for the reasons stated in the staff report.
Consequently, this analysis section was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the
applicable plans, policies, regulations and standards listed above and presented through the use
of the following text and tables.
A. General Plan:
Land Use Element:
The property has a Residential Medium (RM) and Residential Medium Low (RLM) General Plan
Land Use Designation. The RM designation allows the development of single-family, low density
apartment, condominium, or townhome developments that range in density from 4 to 8 du/acre
with a 6 du/acre growth management control point. The net density in the RM portion of the site is
4.36 dwelling units per net acre. The RLM designation allows single-family homes and multi-
family units (with a Planned Development Permit) that range in density from 0 to 4 dwelling units
per acre with a 3.2 du/acre growth control point. The net density in the RLM portion of the project
site, exclusive of the 42 affordable townhomes, is 3.09 dwelling units per net acre. When the 42
affordable townhomes are added to the density in the RLM portion of the site, the density results in
5.14 dwelling units per net acre. The General Plan allows a density increase above the high end of
the density range when it is for the provision of affordable housing. It is important to note, that
the project is approximately 35 dwelling units below the growth management dwelling unit
allowance of 3 12 dwelling units for the entire 68.5 acre property.
Open Space And Conservation:
There are no changes to the project that negatively impact the approved project’s open space or the
site’s natural resources. The amended project has an additional 1.46 acres of open space. The
project is conditioned to provide an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City for Trail Segment
No. 30 located within the SDG&E transmission line easement. The trail easement is shown on the
revised tentative map.
Noise Element:
The Developer will provide 6 foot high noise attenuation walls along both sides of Alga Road
(Aviara Parkway) and building sound attenuation in Area “A” where applicable, per the
recommendations of the project’s updated noise study on file in the Planning Department.
Housing Element:
All residential development within Specific Plan 203 is required to include a percentage of housing
units affordable to persons and families of lower-income. Consistent with the policies and
--
CT 92-02(A)/PUD 92-6~(A)/sDP 92-06(A)/HDP 92-03(A) - SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS
AUGUST 2 1,1996
PAGE 5
programs of the Housing Element and subsequent to the affordable housing requirements of
Specific Plan 203, the project would provide 15% or 42 “ownership” townhomes available and
affordable to lower-income households. In addition, and consistent with Housing Element Policy
3.2 the project would provide at least 10% of the lower-income units with three or more bedrooms.
B. Specific Plan 203:
Specific Plan 203 provides a framework for the development of the vacant properties within Zone
20 to ensure the logical and efficient provision of public facilities and community amenities for the
future residents of the planning area. The project changes, including the minor circulation changes,
the redesign of the multi-family site plans (Area ‘A” and “D”) and the single-family areas (Area
“B” & “C”), and the relocation of the community facility site closer to Poinsettia Community Park,
all meet the goals and objectives of the specific plan for the following reasons:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Area “A” exceeds the RLM density range. When the 42 affordable townhomes are added to
the density in the RLM portion of the site the density results in 5.14 dwelling units per net
acre. The specific plan allows the transfer of project density to Planning Area “A” for the
provision of affordable housing;
As designed and conditioned, the project provides coordination between surrounding
developments through the provision of roadway connections with properties to the north,
east, south, and west;
The residential land uses are compatible with the existing and planned multi-family and
single-family residential land uses to the south and north, and the Poinsettia Community
Park to the west;
The project implements the objective of an integrated open space and trail system within the
planning area by providing pedestrian access to the future school site and an easement for
Trail Segment No. 30;
The project provides an attractive, well buffered, and landscaped circulation system that
safely and aesthetically provides for the needs of automobiles, cyclists, pedestrians and
adjacent land uses;
The provision of the following land uses creates a well planned, yet diversified community:
(1) single-family lots ranging in size from 7,500 to over 10,000 square feet; (2) higher
density multi-family townhomes and a future community facility site located near Poinsettia
Community Park and a non-loaded collector street (Hidden Valley Rd.); and, (3) higher
density affordable townhomes located adjacent to natural open space and a major
circulation element roadway (Alga Road/Aviara Parkway); and
The project provides a community facility site in close proximity to a major road (Hidden
Valley Road) and Poinsettia Community Park. The project will be conditioned to require a
Conditional Use Permit prior to issuance of a building permit for the facility.
CT 92-02(A)/PUD ~~-(JJ&/SDP 92-06(A)/HDP 92-03(A) - SAlvtBr SEASIDE HEIGHTS
AUGUST 21,1996
PAGE 6
The project is located in Planning Area “A” of Specific Plan 203 and complies with the required
“Special Design Criteria” as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)
C.
1.
A minimum 50 foot landscaped setback along both sides of Alga Road (Aviara Parkway)
would be provided;
Noise mitigation measures for the single-family homes and townhomes impacted by traffic
noise from Alga Road (Aviara Parkway) would be provided;
Enhanced landscaping would be provided along Hidden Valley Road and Alga Road
(Aviara Parkway), and on the manufactured slopes between the terraced building pads; and
The building elevations for the single-family homes and, townhomes would have a variety
of materials, architectural accent features, articulated wall and roof planes, varying roof
heights and building massing, and street setbacks. The various site plans would also have
curvilinear streets to follow the natural contours and to provided visual interest within the
project.
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21:
Planned Development Ordinance:
The utilization of the Planned Development Ordinance in conjunction with the Tentative Map for
this project allows for the following: (a) provides a method to approve separate ownership of the
affordable postage stamp lot townhomes located within the multiple-unit buildings in Area “A” and
the small lot townhomes located in Area “A” and “D”; (b) allows for the transfer of density from a
portion of Area “B” to Area “A” (RLM), and the transfer of density from Area “B” and “C” to Area
“D” (RM); and, (c) allows for the development of multi-family residential development in an R-l-
10,000 Zone in Area “A”. The redesign of the residential site plans for Planning Area “A” , “B”,
“C”, and “D” does not significantly change the land uses and results in a rearrangement of local
streets and driveways, parking spaces, recreational open space facilities, and residential
structures. All the proposed development is still located within the confines of the approved and
existing rough graded pad areas and there is no development encroachment beyond these graded
areas.
The development of the community facility site, single-family lots, and townhomes would provide
a balance and mix of land uses within Specific Plan 203. A majority of the residential development
planned for the 640 acre specific plan area would be standard single-family homes on 7,500 to
10,000 square foot lots. The development of higher density multi-family units in close proximity to
natural open space, Poinsettia Community Park, and Alga Road (Aviara Parkway), in addition to
the provision of townhomes affordable to lower-income households would create a more
diversified and balanced community.
The local streets in the single-family portion of the project would have curb, gutter, and sidewalks
on both sides, and have 36 to 40 feet of paving. This exceeds the 30 foot minimum private street
width standard. The project would provide a mixture of one and two-story homes, and the multi- j-1
CT 92-02(A)/PUD 92-Oj(A)/SDP 92-06(A)/HDP 92-03(A) - SAMBA SEASIDE HEIGHTS
AUGUST 21,1996
family buildings would have varied roof lines, and a variety of front building elevations and front
yard setbacks. Adequate recreational vehicle storage space would be provided within the individual
projects and be sufficiently screened from the public right-of-way and surrounding properties. The
single-family homes would have, at a minimum, two-car garages which would meet the parking
and storage requirements of the ordinance, and guest parking would be provided on both sides of
the streets. The townhomes all have two-car garages for residents and the guest parking is
dispersed along the internal private street and driveways.
The proposed residential land uses are compatible in scale, architecture, and building materials with
the multi-family residential development to the south and future Poinsettia Community Park to the
west. Public street improvements would be provided to accommodate traffic generated by the
project and the project must comply with all the circulation and public facility requirements of
Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20. The adjacent properties to the south and north have
either existing multi-family residential development or are planned for multi-family and single-
family residential development, therefore, the proposed multi-family and single-family residential
developments in this project would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Area “A” and “D” of the project comply with the Planned Development Ordinance as follows:
Guest:
RV Storage
Storage Space
43 guest spaces
2,800 square feet
480 cubic feet per unit
Recreation Space:
A. Common Active
B. Private Passive
14,000 square feet
private yards
PROPOSED
30 to 40 feet
5 to 20 feet
28to 31 feet
2-car garage per unit
49 guest spaces
4,960 square feet
480 cubic yds inside 2-
car garage
15,056 square feet
15’x15’ rear yards
2. Chapter 21.53 Site Development Plan - “Affordable Housing” and
Chapter 21.06, Qualified Overlay Zone:
The Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.53.120 requires a Site Development Plan for any
affordable housing project of any size. This project would have 277 residential units of which 42 of
those units must be designated as affordable to lower-income households. The project has been
amended to replace the approved affordable apartment units in Area “A” with 42 ownership
townhomes. The affordable housing portion of the project meets all development standards and the
Developer is withdrawing the original approved request for a density bonus and a slope height
standards wavier.
- -
CT 92-02(A)/PUD 92-02(AySDP 92-06(A)MDP 92-03(A) - SAMBA SEASIDE HEIGHTS
AUGUST 2 1,1996
PAGE 8
Qualified Development Overlay Zone (Q):
The zoning for the property includes the Qualified Development Overlay Zone (Q) which also
requires the processing of a Site Development Plan (SDP). At this point in time the Developer is
still not planning to construct single-family homes on the lots, therefore, the project condition
requiring an SDP to be approved by the Planning Director prior to building permits is still valid.
Area “B” and “C” - Single-family Residential:
The project will be conditioned such that all future single-family development must meet the
development standards of the R-l Zone, including building height, front, side and rear setbacks,
lot coverage, and parking. All the local, collector, and major streets within Area “B” and “C” of
this project would be constructed to City standards, have underground utilities, and contain public
sidewalks. A pedestrian access is provided between Lots 46 and 47 in Area “C” to provide access
to the future school site and Hidden Valley Road. As part of the approved project, the Developer is
already required to obtain a Site Development Plan, approved by the Planning Director, for any
subsequent development of the single-family lots. The future Site Development Plan will evaluate
compliance with the standards of the R-l Zone and Specific Plan 203, placement of the homes on
the lots, the architecture, and building materials.
Area “A”, “D”, and “E” - Multi-Family Residential And Community Facility Site:
The bulk and scale of the proposed two-story townhouses would be compatible with the existing
and proposed residential development in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed multi-
family townhomes in Area “D” would provide an appropriate transition between the proposed
single-family land uses directly to the east and the Poinsettia Community Park to the west.
Site planning and design elements include the following:
(a)
(W
(4
(e>
The front and street side yard building setbacks would be landscaped with a combination of
trees and shrubs to partially screen the residential structures from the public streets;
The building elevations would have textured stucco exteriors and tile and metal roofs,
varied roof lines, architectural accent features and building forms, and varied building
facades;
The project would provide adequate onsite parking and circulation to serve the needs of the
residents and their guests, and it would not impact the availability of offsite street parking;
Sidewalks and drainage facilities would be provided along the project’s street frontages to
serve the project;
The proposed 30 to 40 foot wide central private streets would be adequate to provide safe
and efficient traffic circulation, vehicle turn movements, and emergency access;
- -
CT 92-02(A)/PUD 92-0j(A,/SDP 92-06(A)/HDP 92-03(A) - SAMBl SEASIDE HEIGHTS
AUGUST 2 1,1996
Sidewalks along the private streets would provide an internal pedestrian circulation system
and allow sufficient and safe access to the recreation facility and adjacent public streets; and
(8) The project has been reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and determined that
adequate access for emergency vehicles is provided by the central 30 to 40 foot wide private
streets and driveways that service the multi-family projects.
5. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance:
The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance implements the inclusionary objectives of the Housing
Element (Objective 3.6). At a minimum, the project would be required to provide not less than
15% of all proposed 277 residential dwelling units as affordable to lower income households. The
Developer is proposing to meet this affordable housing requirement by providing 42 “ownership”
townhomes in Area “A” of the project. In addition, at least five (10% min.) of the affordable
townhomes must have three-bedroom units. The Developer is proposing to construct 30 three-
bedroom units that contain 1,208 square feet to accommodate larger families. The 42 ownership
townhomes would be: (a) located adjacent to a major road (Alga Road/Aviara Parkway) and open
space; (b) within 1-2 miles of the City’s centrahzed industrial parks; and, (c) the site plan would be
compatible with the adjacent townhomes located to the south.
Subsequent to the actions of the Planning Commission and prior to approval of the project by the
City Council, the project must be reviewed by the Housing Commission. The Developer is
withdrawing the request for a density bonus and a waiver of development standards, however,
there is a request for financial assistance from the City which must be reviewed and recommended
by the Housing Commission and approved by the City Council. In addition, the project would be
conditioned to require an Affordable Housing Agreement that would be submitted for review and
approval by the City prior to Final Map approval. The Affordable Housing Agreement is a legally
binding agreement between the applicant and the City which provides the specific details regarding
the implementation of the affordable housing requirements of Specific Plan 203 and subsequent
conformance with the City’s Housing Element.
4. Hillside Development Regulations:
The project site has been graded in substantial conformance with the approved Hillside
Development Permit (HDP 92-03). To accommodate the changes in the project’s circulation and
the residential site plans, some additional grading of the larger rough graded pad areas is required.
This grading is considered minor in context to the overall grading of the site and would not
encroach beyond the envelope of the existing graded areas. The bulk of this remaining grading is
for the relocation of the access driveway along the east side of Alga Road (Aviara Parkway) and to
provide terracing of the building pads in Planning Area “A”. Additional large manufactured slopes
would not be created, building setbacks from top of slopes would be maintained, grading volumes
would be within the acceptable range, and there would be no significant impact to habitat and deed
restricted open space areas.
- -
CT 92-02(A)/PUD 92-03(A)/SDP 92-06(A)/HDP 92-03(A) - SAMBl SEASIDE HEIGHTS
AUGUST 2 1,1996
D. Subdivision Ordinance -Title 20:
The proposed revisions to the approved Vesting Tentative Map include the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The realignment of future Cherry Blossom Road approximately 115 feet to the south. The
road would now intersect with the entrance to Poinsettia Community Park along Hidden
Valley Road and a new row of single-family lots would be provided between the roadway
and the northern property line;
The relocation of the future access driveway to Area “A” along Alga Road (Aviara
Parkway). The driveway has been moved approximately 450 feet north and is restricted to
right-in and right-out only;
Provisions for a future public street connection to the northern property between Lots 134
and 135;
Revisions to the townhome lots in Areas “A” and “D”, and an overall reduction in the
number of total residential units by 72 units;
The replacement of gate guarded private streets with public streets in Areas “B” and “C”
that meet all the City standards; and
Based on these revisions the proposed Tentative Map would still comply with all the requirements
of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20 and there are no additional requirements for public
roadway or sewer improvements.
E. Mello II Segment of Local Coastal Program:
The project is located in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and has been
graded in compliance with the project’s approved Coastal Development Permit The approved
project was conditioned to mitigate impacts to sensitive coastal resources, including riparian and
coastal sage scrub habitat. The Developer has already received approval of the following permits:
(1) Section 7 and Nationwide 404 Permit from the US Army Corp of Engineers under consultation
with the US Fish and Wildlife Service; and, (2) Streambed Alteration Agreement from the
California Department of Fish and Game. To mitigate coastal sage habitat impacts, the Developer
purchased mitigation credits from the Highlands Mitigation Bank and must revegetate several
onsite and offsite disturbed coastal sage areas in deed restricted open space.
Prior to grading of the site the Developer was required to pay the required “Agricultural Conversion
Mitigation Fee” to the California Coastal Conservancy. The developer paid mitigation fees for the
entire 68.5 acres of the site and is now requesting that the amount of the “net agricultural acreage”
that is subject to payment of the mitigation fee be reevaluated by the City and the Coastal
Commission. Lands considered not suitable for farming due to physical constraints such as
protected steep slopes, sensitive habitat, and other topographic features (i.e. major rock
outcroppings) are not subject to the fee. This project site has some of these constraint features,
CT 92-02(A)/PUD 92-03(A)/SDP 92-06(A)/HDP 92-03(A) - SAMBA SEASIDE HEIGHTS
AUGUST 2 1,1996
therefore, prior to Final Map approval, the City will evaluate the project acreage and determine a
more appropriate “net agricultural acreage”.
F. Growth Management:
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20 in the Southwest
Quadrant. The project’s amendments would result in 72 fewer dwelling units when compared to the
approved project Sambi/CT 92-02, and would significantly reduce public facility impacts. The
impacts on public facilities created by this amended project and compliance with the adopted
performance standards are summarized as follows:
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
1.92 Acres
N/A
3,342 ADT
Station # 4
9.03 Acres
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water Distribution System
CUSD
277 EDU
6 1,820 GPD
Yes
Yes
Yes
The proposed project’s 277 dwelling units would be below the allowable growth management
density of 3 12.17 dwelling units for the property and result in an excess of 35.17 dwelling units.
Surplus dwelling units that are not used by the Developer are placed into a City bank of excess
dwelling units. The City can allocate these dwelling units to residential projects that exceed the
growth control point, i.e. Density Bonus, in order to provide affordable housing.
G. Environmental Review/ CEQA & Title 19:
The project site is located within the boundaries of Specific Plan 203 which covers the 640 acre
Zone 20 Planning Area. The specific plan has a certified Final Program EIR that covers all
residential development located within the specific plan area. Since a Final Program EIR was
certified for Specific Plan 203 and the requested project amendments to CT 92-02 are consistent
with the specific plan, the CEQA Guidelines under Section 15182, “Residential Projects
Pursuant to a Specific Plan”, states that if a public agency has prepared an EIR for a specific plan
after January 1, 1980, no EIR or Negative Declaration need be prepared for a residential project
undertaken pursuant to and in conformity to that plan. The original Mitigated Negative
Declaration for Sambi/CT 92-02 was prepared to update and refine the biological analysis and to
analyze and evaluate environmental impacts created by offsite roadway and sewer line
extensions located outside of the specific plan area (Hidden Valley Road) that were not covered
under the Program EIR. Since the project site and offsite roadways, drainage basins, and sewer
-
CT 92-02(A)/PUD ~~-OJ(A)/SDP 92-06(A)/HDP 92-03(A) - SAMBi SEASIDE HEIGHTS
AUGUST 21,1996
PAGE 12
lines have all been graded, the required mitigation measures from the project’s EIR and
Mitigated Negative Declaration are currently being implemented as part of the project’s ongoing
grading operation. These measures include the biological mitigation required by the City, CA
Coastal Commission, CA Department of Fish and Game, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Because the revised site plans result in 72 fewer residential dwelling units, less community
facility land use acreage, and more natural open space, the revised project design would further
reduce environmental impacts and be considered a more environmentally sensitive and preferred
project. Fewer residential dwelling units and more open space equates to more natural habitat
protection, less air pollution and water quality impacts, less traffic generation, less demand on
public facilities, and less aesthetic impact. Because the project site has already been graded and
only minor regrading of the large multi-family building pads would be necessary to
accommodate the redesigned project, the Master EIR for the General Plan Update 1994, the
Certified Final EIR 90-03 for Specific Plan 203, and the approved Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT 92-02/Sambi, all provide adequate environmental analysis and mitigation to
cover the proposed project amendments. All the appropriate and applicable mitigation measures
from these environmental documents will be carried through and added as conditions to the
resolutions of approvals for CT 92-02(A)/Sambi Seaside Heights.
The Planning Director has issued a Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance based on the
project’s existing environmental documentation, the Environmental Impact Assessment Form -
Part II, an updated noise study on file in the Planning Department, and field visits to the project
site. During the public review period for the Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance, no
public comments were received.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3977
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3978
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3979
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3980
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Statement
Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance
Reduced Exhibits
Staff Report, dated December 15, 1993, with Planning Commission Resolutions No.
3590-3594.
12.
13.
Excerpt of Planning Commission minutes dated December 15, 1993.
City Council Agenda Bill, dated March 22, 1994 with City Council Resolution No. 94-
87.
14. Exhibit “A’‘-“I(X)‘, dated August 2 1, 1996.
JG:kr
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 92-02(A)/PUD 92-03(A)/SDP 92-06(A)/HDP 92-03(A)
CASE NAME Sambi Seaside Heights
APPLICANT: Sambi Seaside Heights L.L.C.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: A revised Tentative Tract Man, Planned Development Permit. Site
Develonment Plan, and Hillside Development Permit to subdivide 137 standard single-familv lots,
subdivide and construct 98 townhomes on small lots, construct 42 “ownershiu” nostage stamp lot
townhomes designated as affordable to lower income households. and designate 1 future communitv
facilitv site along Hidden Valley Road, all on uronertv generally located east of Paseo de1 Norte. north of
Camino de las Ondas, and south of Palomar Airport Road, in the RD-M-Q Zone and R- 1-10,000-Q Zone
in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The South Half of the Southeast Quarter and the South 60 acres of
the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 21, Townshiu 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Base and Meridian. Countv of San Diego, State of California. according to United States
Government Survey annroved October 25, 1875. according to the Official Plat thereof.
APN: 2 14- 140-07 Acres: 68.56 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 277 dwelling units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Residential Medium and Residential Medium Low
Density Allowed: 6 and 3.2 du/acre Density Proposed: 4.36 and (5.14 with affordable housing)
Existing Zone: RDM-O and Rl- 1 O-Q Proposed Zone: N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements)
Zoning
Site RD-M-Q/R 1 - 1 O-Q
North RD-M-Q/R 1 - 1 O-Q
South RD-M-Q/R1 - 1 O-Q
East LC
West PC
Land Use
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
City Park
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity):
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: Februarv 12. 1992
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
lxl Negative Declaration, issued Mitigated Negative Declaration August 5, 1993
ix1 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
III Other, Categorical Exemntion
-- -
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS - CT 92-02(A)/PUD 92-03(A)/SDP 92-
06(A)/HDP 92-03(A)
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 20 GENERAL PLAN: RM/RLM
ZONING: RD-M-Q/R- l-l 0,000-Q
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Sambi Seaside Heights
ADDRESS: 8641 Firestone Blvd., Downev. CA 90241
PHONE NO.: J213) 861-3808 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 214-140-07
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 68.56 acres/277 du
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: N/A
A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 963
B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = 5 13.6
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J:Sewer) 277
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = 1.92
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A
Identify Drainage Basin = N/A
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 3.342
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = No. 4
Open Space: Acreage Provided = 9.03
Schools: CUSD
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDUs 277
Identify Sub Basin = N/A
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD = 61.820
The project is 35.17 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
DISCLOSL'RESTATEMENT
A?%CANT’S fTA:EVENT 3 ?SC:O%J~E OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL =IE&,~E
:<SCRETICNAAY ACTION ON ThE PART OF THE C,W COL;NCIL OR ANY APPOINTED BOARD. COMMISSION OR CCb&+flEE
:P/ease Prinfj
The followlng information must be disclosed:
Amlicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Seizo H. Tovohara 8649 Firestone Blvd. Downey, Ca 90241
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Seizo H. Tovohara 8649 Firestone Blvd.
JJomey, CA 90241
3. V If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
4. If any person identffled pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organiratior! or as trustee or beneficiary
of the trust.
FRMom13 8/90
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Cartsbad. California 92009-4859 * (619) 438.ll61@
Disclosure Statement
Over)
Page 2
5 Have you had more than 3250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Scares
Commlssions. Commlttees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No x If yes, please indicate person(s)
I ,
w ~a dofinod u: ‘Any tndivldual. firm. coputnorrh~p. joint vanturr. uaociaUon. road club. fratomal organuatcon. corporrtlon. l rtata rr~st. I
WCOWW. ryndicato. thlo and my othw county. c+j and county, My muntclpakty. d~rtnct or other polnrcaI 8ubdivwon. or my otnor gro&~ 0, I
comomatlon rctmg U l unh’ I ,
{NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
ignature of Owner/date Kazuyuki Kawakita
President
Print of type name of owner
/Jl ,
rr Signature of ~plicant/date
Kazuyuki Kawakita
President
Print or type name of applicant
V
-
City of.
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: Sam bi Seaside Heights
Project Location: City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego; APN 214-140-07
Project Description: Revision of an approved tentative map, planned development
permit, site development plan, and hillside development permit, to
change the site plan layout and design of two multi-family planning
areas (Area “A” and “D”), and two single-family planning areas
(Area “B” and “C”). The proposed project would include the
following features: (1) 42 airspace multi-family townhouse units
designated as affordable to lower income households; (2) 98
market rate multi-family townhouse units; (3) 139 single-family
lots with a minimum lot size of 7,500 sq. ft. and 10,000 sq. ft,
and; (4) an 1.8 acre community facility site located along Hidden
Valley Road. The entire project site is located within Specific Plan
V 203. V
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: JULY 19, 1996
CASE NO: CT 92-02(A)/PUD 92-03(A)/SDP 92-06(A)/HDP 92-03(A)
,
CASE NAME: SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 19, 1996
Planning Director
3)-~/t-~ I .,!. I'.llll~;l!; III - C:;lrl!;tl;Irl. CA ~fxmI~-157f=i - (G19) 4:3tj 11ci I - f-/ix ((,l'J, .l:St{ OtI'J'l /$@?)
-. -
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 92-02(A)/ PUD 92-03(A)/SDP 92-06(A)/HDP 92-03(A)
DATE: JULY 9. 1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS
2. APPLICANT: SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS. L.L.C.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 8641 FIRESTONE BLVD., DOWNEY,
CA90241. (310) 861-3808
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: NOVEMBER 27.1995
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: REVISION OF AN APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT. TO CHANGE THE SITE PLAN LAYOUT AND DESIGN OF TWO MULTI-FAMILY
PLANNING AREAS (AREA “A“ AND “D”), AND TWO SINGLE-FAMILY PLANNING AREAS
(“B” AND “C”). THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING FEATURES:
(1) 42 AIRSPACE MULTI-FAMILY TOWNHOUSE UNITS DESIGNATED AS AFFORDABLE TO
LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS; (2) 98 MARKET RATE MULTI-FAMILY TOWNHOUSE
UNITS: (3) 139 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 7,500 SO. FT. AND
10,000 SO. FT, AND; (4) AN 1.8 ACRE COMMUNITY FACILITY SITE LOCATED ALONG
HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD. THE ENTIRE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN
203.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: L
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.
q Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources q Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
cl Water Cl Hazards cl Cultural Resources
q Air Quality Ix1 Noise cl Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96 f&3
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Cl
cl
cl
Cl
El
1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIRkNeg Dee
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
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 AND
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR AND MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been
prepared.
Date
Planning Directo&%gnat&e Date
2 Rev. 03128196 14
ENVIRONMENTAL h\&ACTS
-
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
l 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.
0 “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.
l “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.
l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
l Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but 4 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).
l 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.
l A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 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.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96 .!9b
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
4
b)
c)
4
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#I. Final EIR 90-03 & #2. Mitigated
Negative Declaration for CT 92-02)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (1 & 2)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(1 &a Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (1 & 2)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (1 & 2)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (1)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (1)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (1)
Ill. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or _ _
a>
s b)
cl
d)
e>
f)
Ia
h)
i>
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (1 & 2)
Seismic ground shaking? (1 & 2)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1 & 2)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1 & 2)
Landslides or mudflows? (1 & 2)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (1 & 2)
Subsidence of the land? (1 & 2)
Expansive soils? (I & 2)
Unique geologic or physical features? (I & 2)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff! (1 & 2)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (I & 2)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (I & 2)
-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
cl
0
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cl
0
0
cl
0
cl
Potentially
Signilicant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
cl 0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significan
t impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
5 Rev. 03/28/96 lo ’
Issues (and Supporting Info...lation Sources).
4
4
f)
Et>
h)
0
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (1 & 2)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (I & 2)
Changes 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? (I & 2)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1 &
2) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1 & 2)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (1 & 2)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (1~ 2 & 3)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1 & 2)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (1 &2)
d) Create objectionable odors? (1 &2)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a)
b)
# c)
4
e)
0
Ed
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1 & 2)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
4
b)
c)
4
e)
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (I & 2)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1 & 2)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1 & 2)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(1 a) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1 & 2)
Potential), Significant Impact
0
cl
q
cl
cl cl
Ix1
cl cl
cl
cl cl
Cl cl q cl
cl
cl
cl 0
q
cl
rotentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
El
cl
cl
cl
cl
q 0
cl cl cl cl
cl
El
cl cl
cl
cl
Less Than Signilicnn t Impact
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
0
cl
Cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
El
cl
Cl
cl
El
No Impact
q
IXI
Ix1
ixl
lx Ix1
cl
I23 (XI
El
IXI (XI
lxl 1x) lx IE3
lxl
El
El (xl
El
El
6 Rev. 03f28f96 b8
Issues (and Supporting Info. &ion Sources).
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (1)
c) 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? (1)
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)? (I & 2)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (1 & 2)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (1 & 2)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (1 & 2)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (1 6% 2)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1 & 2)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1 & 2)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need. for new or altered government
1 services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
X11.UTlLlTIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
a)
b)
C)
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (1)
Communications systems? (1)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (1)
4 Sewer or septic tanks? (1)
Cl Storm water drainage? (I & 2)
0 Solid waste disposal? (1)
6) Local or regional water supplies? (1)
-
Potential.- Significant
Impact
0
cl
cl
cl
Cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
I otentially Significant Unless Mitigation
incorporated
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
El
cl
cl
cl
lxl
cl
cl
El
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
Less Than
Signitican
t Impact
No
Impact
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
IXJ
Ix1
lx
1xI
Ix1
Ix1
El
lxl
lxl
cl
El
IE3
El
El
lxl
lxl
0
El
IXI
El
El q
Rev. 03/28/96 )09 7
-
Issues (and Supporting lnfc AtIon Sources).
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
4 Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (I)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (I )
c> Create light or glare? (I)
XIV.
a)
b)
cl
4
4
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (1)
Disturb archaeological resources? (1)
Affect historical resources? (1)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (1)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a>
b)
XVI.
4
b)
cl
XVII.
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (1)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (I)
MANDATORY FINDMGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
babitat of a fish or wildlife 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?
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)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potential _
Significant
Impact
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
El
cl
1 atentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
El
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
0
q
cl
cl
Less Than
Signikan
t Impact
q Cl cl
0 cl cl cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
No
lmpacl
lxl
cl
IXI
(XI
1x1
lzl
IXI
[x1
trzl
lxl
lxl
cl
El
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:
8 Rev. 03/28/96 @
4 Earlier h..alyses used. Identify earlier analyses it.,d state where they are available
for review. (Final Master EIR for the updated General Plan 2994, Final EIR
90-03 for tite Zone 20 Specific: Plan 203, and Mitigated Negative Declaration
for CT 92-02, dated August 5,1993, all on fire in the Planning Department)
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis:
*Land Use and Planning- adequately addressed by mitigation measures;
*Population and Housing - no required mitigation measures;
* Geologic Problems -. adequately addressed by mitigation measures;
* Water Quality - adequately addressed by mitigation measures;
*Air Quality - adequately addressed by mitigation measures;
*Transportation/circulation - adequately addressed by mitigation measures;
* Biological Resources - adequately addressed by mitigation measures;
* Energy and Mineral Resources - no required mitigation measures;
*Hazards- adequately addressed by mitigation measures;
* Noise - adequately addressed by mitigation measures;
* Public Services - a de q uately addressed by mitigation measures;
* Utilities and Services - adequately addressed by mitigation measures;
*Aesthetics - adequately addressed by mitigation measures;
* Cultural Resources - adequately addressed by mitigation measures;
* Recreational - no required mitigation measures.
4 Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
*Air Quality - (I) HOA distribution of transit and ridesharing information
to future owners; (2) Pedestrian connection to Hidden Valley Road and
future Citywide trail easement.
* Noise - (1) N oise walls (shown on plans) and interior mechanical
ventilation where appropriate along Alga Road per the project’s noise
study;
* Aesthetics - (1) 10 p ercent of future homes along ridge - I story; (2)
structures and roofs - earth tone colors; (3) landscaping of manufactured
slopes.
9 Rev. 03/28/96 v
DISCUSSION OF EN \ ,AC>NMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The project site and offsite areas including, Hidden Valley Road north to Palomar Airport Road
and Alga Road south to Poinsettia Lane, have all been graded in conformance with a
combination of the City of Carlsbad’s and the California Coastal Commission’s existing project
approvals for CT92-02/Sambi. However, as a result of a change in the alignment of Cherry
Blossom Road and the elimination of an access street that was required as part of the Coastal
Commission’s modified approval of CT92-02/Sambi, the project’s City approved site plans for
the single-family, multi-family, and community facility planning areas (“A’‘-“D”) must be
revised. The proposed amendment for the redesign of the site plans would constitute some minor
regrading of streets and building pads for the redesigned multi-family, single-family, and
community facility planning areas. The proposed amendments to the project would result in 134
multi-family units (86 multi-family units less than the City approved CT92-02/Sambi), 139
single-family units (10 single-family units more than the approved project), and 1.8 acres of
community facility land use to be consolidated into one area along Hidden Valley Road (.46
acres less than the City approved project). Overall, the redesigned site plans would result in 279
residential units as compared to the 349 residential units for the City approved CT92-02/Sambi
(A total of 70 fewer residential units). In addition, the Coastal Commission’s modified approval
of CT92-02/Sambi resulted in 1.46 acres of additional natural open space.
The project site is located within the boundaries of Specific Plan 203 which covers the 640 acre
Zone 20 Planning Area. The Specific Plan has a certified Final Program EIR that covers all
residential development located within the specific plan area. Since a Final Program EIR was
certified for Specific Plan 203 and the requested project amendments to CT92-02/Sambi are
consistent with the specific plan, the CEQA Guidelines under Section 15182, “Residential
Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan”, states that if a public agency has prepared a EIR for a
specific plan after January 1, 1980, no EIR or Negative Declaration need be prepared for a
residential project undertaken pursuant to and in conformity to that plan. The original Mitigated
Negative Declaration for CT92-02/Sambi was prepared to update and refine the biological
analysis and evaluate environmental impacts created by offsite roadway and sewer line
extensions located outside of the specific plan area (Hidden Valley Road) that were not covered
under the Program EIR. Since the project site and offsite roadways, drainage basins, and sewer
line have all been graded, the required mitigation measures from the project’s EIR and Mitigated
Negative Declaration are being been implemented as part of the project’s current grading
operation. These mitigation measures include the biological mitigation required by the City, CA
Coastal Commission, CA Department of Fish and Game, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Because the revised site plans would have 70 fewer residential dwelling units, less community
facility land use acreage, and more natural open space, the revised project design would further
reduce environmental impacts, resulting in a more environmentally sensitive and preferred
project. Fewer residential dwelling units and more open space equates to more natural habitat
protection, less air pollution and water quality impacts, less traffic generation, less demand on
public facilities, and less aesthetic impact. Because the project site has already been graded and
only minor regrading of streets and the large multifamily building pads would be necessary to
accommodate the redesigned project, the Master EIR for the General Plan Update 1994, the
Certified Final EIR 90-03 for Specific Plan 203, and the approved Mitigated Negative
Declaration for CT92-02/Sambi, all provide adequate environmental analysis and mitigation to
10 Rev. 03/28/96 7%
cover the proposed revr,;d project.
The redesign of the residential site plans for Planning Area “A” , “B”, “C”, and “D”, results in a
rearrangement of local streets and driveways, parking spaces, recreational open space facilities,
and residential structures, however, all the proposed development is located within the confines
of the existing large rough graded pad areas and there is no development encroachment beyond
these graded areas. Redesigning the physical layout of the residential development within the
confines of the larger existing graded pads does not create additional environmental impacts
beyond those already considered in the Master EIR for the General Plan Update 1994, Final EIR
90-03, and the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT92-02/Sambi. All the appropriate
and applicable mitigation measures from these environmental documents will be carried through
and added as conditions to the resolutions of approvals for CT 92-02(A)/Sambi Seaside Heights.
LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The redesigned site plans maintain the same types of land uses, in that, Area “A” still contains
multi-family residential development adjacent to Alga Road and the large open space canyon to
the east, Area “B” and “C” still contains single-family development, and Area “D” still contains
multi-family development across from Poinsettia Community Park. The project’s only major
land use rearrangement is the consolidation and relocation of the two community facility sites,
into one, 1.8 acre site, relocated to an area north of Cherry Blossom Road, adjacent to Hidden
Valley Road. The proposed community facility site would be located adjacent to Hidden Valley
Road to the west and an open space area located north of Cherry Blossom Road. Given the site’s
location across from Poinsettia Community Park to the west, direct access to Cherry Blossom
Road to the south, and natural open space buffers to the north and east, the future community
facility land use would be compatible with the surrounding park and residential land uses and not
create significant land use impacts
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS:
I Air Quality:
The implementation of projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General
Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled.
These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic
gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major
contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San
Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate (&era! Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
II Rev. 03/28/96 1’
design of the project 01 -1.e mcluded as conditions of project approval.
a
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 projects consistent
with the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further
environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
Circulation:
The implementation of projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General
Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to
accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects consistent with the General Plan’s Master EIR,
including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is
required.
SOURCES ARE ALL ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. Final Master EIR for the General Plan Update, dated 1994;
2. Final Program EIR 90-03 for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203);
12 IL( Rev. 03/28/96
3. Approved Mi. ,ated Negative Declaration for CT92-&Sambi, dated August 5,
1993.
13 “1 s’ Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATII, J IWASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
See Mitigation Monitoring Program for Final EIR 90-03, and Mitigated Negative Declaration for
CT 90-02/ Sambi, on file in the Planning Department.
14 Rev. 03/28/96 d@
_- -
APPLICANT CONCI.J~&NCE WITH MITIGATION MEAScl&Es
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVlEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. N/A
Date Signature
15 Rev. 03/28/96 7’1
3
-..‘..s... .
E
.
-------w--m-_ --- 7--------- / / / / / /
S ‘ON l33HS 3X
I e a
“I- !
1
i k b
: ii; P ?ll
II &“’ !Q g !‘, “:: t UC-c, d+.,.> ,.s c 2: f$ P,’ Jb B‘d’
I % 1 0 ,sj r! . . 8 Q$ - * *
-I I
1 i b! $1
? v) L 0 -i -
9 ‘ON 133% 335
I .
‘
_ 1’
v / ”
/ ;
I ,
I
I
-i
/
,
-.I -
g[f
‘I: id4 : -i r: 1-”
4c P ‘:$“- $a@ ;
“I e I ,i it
1 L
c :. L .:
%
,I
> , ‘.,.
&ii’ :
:4 IL ,- 5 ,I[ \I. ,‘i;- j; ; ’ ,r 3, f I
:]I ,‘$ c * P’“I A’ I ;; ]j,
rii i <* ,s,
‘III ,‘, I .‘, ,‘, Y ’ 1’ ( 1 :,: P f , ,: ;,,,
2 ‘ON 133HS 335
-
z=’ $Z / ,,
..‘./’
,‘,$. ‘, , ,f
I’! :;
:! 3 f i ,‘. I T, 1 /;, Ii’ .. 11 1 1 ::y;/
i ‘ .=--’ 5 /
*I “,, e #,111,O,.“l< “I \wn a*, 1
“,,I ,,I. ,..*1* “l..,,,! w111111 lllltl
t,,l,l”iVII~i 8, ,,,, ~,,I, “/I’*# ,111 1, 1X/\>
,,>I11 A”/ \ JI,A”l\/ ,a11 “k, ,u,l*,,ll.* Pn,,.r*ru.*l ,,.,. 111.,. I
I, “b/I” liII*Nlnl~*lI~I*N~~ILIII111IINXr‘Itl*TIIINLllU I *>,a, I ,*,l,,~\.,ltl,l >llll,
I! ,llYIll “M u1 *I/in**, l\cwn II ,*c,e,
II ww~~;~M;“A”’ tNLLLh”“t,Y,n:IY EAc”TowYmL*Ht1
AREA “A”
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
/A
1w
8649 Ftrestone Blvd. Downey. CA 90241 1 “L KTGY ;i~j?lF, INC _~_~ --.. II,I,,IecI”,* llrnmrg En”l*onmcn!al ~~ ,“““.<w- -<-, “,“I. ll.l....,,l r.. ,.w...w* ,/,, ,,“,,e,I,,. II 1, r/_““. 1*.*.* 95221m o,-
-
0
f
I./, *
LI i
--j5 i,,
CL \I jl,i
;' g 1: :
z 0 F
S?
2 L
2:
&
-
p
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
1.
-
APPLICA )N COMPLETE DATE:
JULY 8. 1432
STAFF PLANNER: JEFF GIBSON - L -
STAFF RFJ’ORT
DECEMBER 15, 1993 0 2
I’WJNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Cl- 92-02/PUD 92-03/SDP 92-06/HDP 92-03 - SAMBI - Request for
recommendation of approval for a Conditional Negative Declaration, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Site Development
Plan, and Hillside Development Permit to subdivide 129 single-family lots,
subdivide and construct 76 townhomes and 72 condominium units, construct
72 apartment units, and designate two future community facility sites, all on
property generally located east of Paseo de1 Norte, north of Camino de las
Ondas, and scuth of Palomar Airport Road, in the RD-M-Q Zone and R-l-
lO,COO-Q Zone in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3590
recommending APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and
ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3591,3592,3593, and 3594, recommending
APPROVAL of CT 92-02, PUD 92-03, SDP 92-06, and HDP 92-03, based on the findings
and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECF DF$RIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting recommendation of approval for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map,
Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit to
subdivide 129 single-family lots, subdivide and construct 76 townhomes and 72
condominium units, construct 72 apartment units, and designate two future community
facility sites, all on property generally located east of Paseo de1 Norte, north of Camino de
las Ondas, and south of Palomar Airport Road. The parcel is located in the Coastal Zone,
totals 68.5 gross acres, is undeveloped, and a majority of the site is currently under
agricultural cultivation.
The property has a split zoning and General Plan Land Use designation. The property is
located in the Residential Density-Multiple Zone with the Qualified Overlay Zone @D-M-Q)
and in the One-Family Residential Zone with the Qualified Overlay Zone (R-1-10,000-Q).
‘The General Plan Land Use designation is Residential Medium (RM) and Residential
Medium Low (RLM). In addition, the project is subject to the requirements of the Zone
20 Specific Plan (SP 203) and Final Environmental Impact Report 90-3.
-
CT 92-02/PUD 92-03, aL_ 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER 15, 1993
The applicant is processing a vesting tentative map which is different from a tentative map.
When a local agency, such as the City, approves a vesting tentative map, State law and
local ordinance (Title 20) stipulates that the approval of the map confers a vested right to
proceed with the development in substantial compliance with the local ordinances, policies,
and standards in effect at the time the application was deemed complete. It is a vested guarantee that if an ordinance or standard changes before the vesting tentative map is
finaled or building permits issued, the project would not be subject to the new
requirements.
As shown on Exhibits “A” - “YYY’, the project is divided into four different land use areas
as follows:
Area “A” - In the eastern portion of the site, east of future Alga Road, there would be: (1)
a 1.3 acre future community facility site and a natural open space area with a Citywide
trail link; (2) a 72 unit condominium development with two-story buildings, dwelling
units ranging in size from 858 to 1,375 square feet, two-car garages and carports, guest
parking, and a central recreational facility with a pool and club house; and (3) a 72 unit,
two-story, apartment development with one, two, and three-bedroom units ranging in size from 551 to 1,017 square feet, carports and guest parking, and several recreational areas
including a pool and a tot lot.
Area “B” - In the central portion of the site, directly west of future Alga Road, there would
be 40 single-family lots ranging in size from 10,000 to 28,300 square feet and a 42,000
square feet future community facility site.
Area “cl - Also in the central portion of the site, located west of Area “B”, there would be
89 single-family lots ranging in size from 7,500 to 11,800 square feet.
Area “D” - In the western portion of the site, adjacent to future Hidden Valley Road, there
would be 76, two-story townhouse units, ranging in size from 2,010 to 2,350 square feet,
with two-car garages, guest parking, and a central recreational facility with a pool and club
house.
A majority of the project would feature contemporary architecture consisting of Spanish tile
roofs with varying roof lines, and stucco exteriors. Area “D” would have townhomes with
contemporary architecture and metal seamed roofs to be more compatible with the
architecture and materials proposed for the buildings in future Poinsettia Community Park
located directly west of the project site.
Per the requirements of the City’s recently adopted Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, 15%
of the proposed dwelling units (47 affordable units) must be provided for lower income households. However, because the applicant is requesting a Density Bonus, 20% of the
total dwelling units (63 affordable units) must be reserved as affordable to lower income
households. The applicant is proposing to provide those affordable dwelling units within
the apartment portion of the project (Area “A”). The project would be conditioned to
require an Affordable Housing Agreement that would be submitted for review and approval
by the City prior to Final Map approval.
-
CT 92-02/PUD 92-03, JL. 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER 15, 1993
PAGE 3
Access to the project would be provided by the northern extension of Alga Road from it’s
current intersection at Poinsettia Lane and from Hidden Valley Road which would extend
from Camino de las Ondas north along the project’s western boundary and connect with
Palomar Airport Road to the north.
The surrounding neighborhood is undeveloped with vacant land on all four sides. The
future Poinsettia Community Park would be located directly west on the opposite side of
future Hidden Valley Road.
III. ANALYSIS
The proposed project is subject to the following land use plans, and ordinances:
A. Carlsbad General Plan: Land Use Element - (Residential Medium Low (RLM)
and Residential Medium (RM) Land Use Designations); Open Space
Element; and Housing Element;
B. Zone 20 Specific Plan (Specific Plan 203);
C. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21;
1. Chapter 21.45, Planned Development;
2. Chapter 21.53, Section 21.53.120 - Site Development Plan -
“Affordable Housing” and Chapter 21.06 - Qualified Overlay Zone;
3. Chapter 21.95, Hillside Development Regulations;
4. Chapter 21.85, Inclusionary Housing;
5. Chapter 21.86, Density Bonus;
D. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20, Subdivision Ordinance; and the California
Subdivision Map Act;
E. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program;
F. Growth Management (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20);
G. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 19, Environmental Protection Procedures; and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
CT 92-02/PUD 92-03, aL. 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER 15,1993
PAGE 4
A. GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE ELEMENT
The property has a Residential Medium (RM) and Residential Medium Low (RLM) General
Plan Land Use Designation. The RM designation allows the development of low density
apartment, condominium, or townhome developments that range in density from 4 to 8
dus/acre with a 6 dus/acre growth management control point. The RLM designation
allows single-family homes that range in density from 0 to 4 dwelling units per acre with
a 3.2 dus/acre growth control point. The net density in the RLM portion of the project is
9.18 dwelling units per acre and the net density in the RM portion is 4.4 dwelling units
per acre. The project contains a combination of apartments, townhomes, condominiums,
and single-family homes all developed at an overall net density of 5.8 dus/acre, therefore,
the project, exclusive of the density bonus request, is consistent with the growth
management dwelling unit allowance for the parcel.
OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMFBT
The property contains no existing or approved General Plan open space, however, the Zone
20 Specific Plan designates open space in the very northeastern comer of the property.
This specific plan designated open space also corresponds with the conceptual open space
associated with a greenway and a planned trail system link per the open space exhibits
found in the City’s Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan (OSCRMP).
This project is consistent with the OSCRMP and Zone 20 Specific Plan in that: (1) a 20
foot wide trail easement would be provided to accommodate Trail Segment No. 30 within
the SDG&E powerline easement; and, (2) the project would also preserve in protected open
space the steep coastal sage covered slopes located in the northeastern comer of the
project.
HOUSING ELEhdENT
All residential development within the Zone 20 Specific Plan is required to include a
percentage of housing units affordable to persons and families of lower income. Consistent
with the policies and programs of the Housing Element and subsequent to the affordable
housing requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan the project would provide 15% or 47
apartment units available and affordable to lower income households. In addition, and
consistent with Housing Element Policy 3.2 the project would provide at least 10% of the
lower income units with three or more bedrooms.
-
CT 92-02/PUD 92-03, SLr 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER 15, 1993
B. ZONE 20 SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN 203)
The Zone 20 Specific Plan provides a framework for the development of the vacant
properties within Zone 20 to ensure the logical and efficient provision of public facilities
and community amenities for the future residents of the planning area. This project meets
the goals and objectives of the specific plan for the following reasons:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(61
(7)
The project conforms to all aspects of the General Plan and applicable City
ordinances, regulations and policies.
As conditioned the project provides coordination between surrounding developments
through the provision of roadway connections with properties to the north, east,
south, and west.
The residential land uses are compatible with the existing multi-family residential
land uses to the south and the future community park to the west.
The project implements the objective of an integrated open space and trail system
within the planning area.
The project provides an attractive, well buffered, and landscaped circulation system
that safely and aesthetically provides for the needs of automobiles, cyclists,
pedestrians and adjacent land uses.
The provision of the following land uses creates a well planned, yet diversified
community: (1) single-family lots ranging in size from 7,500 to over 10,000 square
feet; (2) higher density multi-family townhomes located near a community park
(Poinsettia Park) and a non-loaded collector street (Hidden Valley Rd.); (3) two
future community facility sites (potential church and daycare) located adjacent to
a major roadway (Alga Road); (4) higher density condominium units located
adjacent to a community facility site and natural open space; and (5) apartment
units available to low income households located adjacent to a major circulation
element roadway (Alga Road) and natural open space.
The project would provide two community facility sites along future Alga Road.
The 1.31 acre site on the east side of the road is designated for a potential church
site. Because this site does not have a minimum of 2 net useable acres, as required
by the specific plan, staff recommends that a conditional use permit be approved by
the Planning Commission prior to development of the site. The .9 acre site located
on the west side of the Alga Road is designated for a potential day care facility.
This site meets the location and .5 acre size criteria established by the specific plan, . therefore, staff recommends that no further discretionary action be required to
develop the site with a day care use.
CT 92-02/PUD 92-03/ &. 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER 15,1993
The project is located in Planning Area “A” of the Zone 20 Specific Plan and complies with
the required “Special Design Criteria” as follows:
(1) An average 50 foot setback from Alga Road would be provided.
(2) Noise mitigation measures for the single-family homes, condominium units, and
apartments units impacted by traffic noise from Alga Road would be provided.
(3) Enhan d 1 d ce an scaping would be provided along Hidden Valley Road and Alga Road,
and on the manufactured slopes between the terraced building pads.
(4) The buildi ng elevations for the single-family homes, townhomes, condominium
units, and apartment buildings all would have a variety of materials, architectural
accent features, articulated wall and roof planes, varying roof heights and building
massing, and street setbacks. The various site plans would also have curvilinear
streets to follow the natural contours and to provided visual interest within the
project.
C. CARLSBAD MUNICJPAL, CODE. TITLE 21:
1. PIANNFiD DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 21.45:
The utilization of the Planned Development Ordinance in conjunction with the vesting
tentative tract map for this project allows for the following: (1) use of private gate
guarded streets in the single-family portion of the project; (2) provides a method to
approve separate ownership of the 72 air space condominium units located within the
multiple-unit buildings in Area “A” and the 76 postage-stamp townhouse lots located in
Area “D”; and, (3) allows for the development of multi-family residential development in
an R-1-10,000 Zone in Area “A”. Before the Planning Commission recommends approval
of the project to the City Council, Title 21 of the Municipal Code under Section 21.45.072
requires that the following findings be made:
a. ‘The g-ranting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with
Chapter 21.45, the Zone 20 Specific Plan, and all adopted plans of the City and
other governmental agencies.”
The project is consistent with Chapter 21.45, the Zone 20 Specific Plan, the General
Plan, and the Local Coastal Program, because it meets all the Planned Development
standards, and single-family and multi-family residential land uses would be
developed at the appropriate lot size and residential density. See Section A under
General Plan, Section B under Specific Plan, and Section F under Mello II for a more
detailed discussion on compliance with these three land use plans.
CT 92-02/PUD 92-03, ;Ll 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER 15,1993
b. “The proposed use is necessary and desirable to provide a service or facility which
will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the neighborhood and the
commlmity.”
The development of two community facility sites, single-family lots, condominiums,
townhomes, and apartments would provide a balance and mix of land uses within
the Zone 20 Specific Plan. A majority of the residential development planned for
the specific plan area would be standard single-family homes on 7,500 to 10,000
square foot lots. The development of higher density multi-family units in close
proximity to natural open space, Poinsettia Community Park, and future Alga Road,
in addition to the provision of apartment units affordable to lower income
household would create a more diversified and balanced community.
C. “Such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working iu the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.”
The project is designed to preserve the coastal sage scrub habitat located along the
eastern portion of Area “A”. This open space would connect with the larger open
space located in the central canyon. Drainage facilities would be provided
concurrent with development of the project to reduce erosion and flooding. All
manufactured slopes would be landscaped to prevent erosion and to visually screen
the slopes.
d. “The proposed planned development meets all of the minimum development
standards set forth iu Section 21.45.090, the desigu criteria set forth in Section
21.45.080, and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the
Design Guidelines Manual.”
i. The local streets in the single-family portion of the project would have curb,
gutter, and sidewalks on both sides, and have 36 to 40 feet of paving. This
exceeds the 30 foot minimum private street width standard.
ii. The project would provide a mixture of one and two-story homes, and the
multi-family buildings would have varied roof lines, and a variety of front building elevations and front yard setbacks.
. . . 111. Adequate recreational vehicle storage space would be provided within the
individual projects and be sufficiently screened from the public right-of-way
and surrounding properties.
CT 92-02/PUD 92-03, &A 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER 15,1993
PAGE 8
iv. The single-family homes would have, at a minimum two car garages which
would meet the parking and storage requirements of the ordinance, and
guest parking would be provided on both sides of the streets. The
condominiums and townhomes all have two covered parking spaces,
including garages and carports for residents, and guest parking is dispersed
along the internal driveways.
V. The project complies with the Planned Development Ordinance as follows:
PRIVATE STREET &
DRIVEWAY WIDTH
DRIVEWAY AND
STREETSETBACK
BUILDING HEIGHT
I REQUIRED
30 Feet
5 to 20 Feet
30 To 35 Feet
PARKING: RESIDENT: 2 Covered Spaces Per Unit 2 Covered Spaces Per Unit
Including Garage Spaces &
carports.
GUEST: 64 Spaces 64 Guest Spaces
RV STORAGE
STORAGE SPACE
20 Square Feet Per Unit
480 Cubic Feet Per Unit
RECREATIONAL SPACE
A. COMMON ACTIVE 22,000 square feet
B. PRIVATE PASSIVE Patio or Balcony
PROPOSED
30 to 45 Feet
5 to 20 Feet .
29 to 31 Feet
20 Square Feet Per Unit
480 Cubic Feet Per Unit
40,061 square feet
Patio, Balcony, and 15’ x
15’ Rear Yards
e. ‘The proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natuml
topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on
the site.”
The project meets all the requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations and
Guidelines, except the 30 foot slope height standard as explained in Section C(2)
of this report under Site Development Plan. The manufactured slopes would be
landscaped, and the single-family lots would terrace down the slope towards the
west to conform with the topography. The homes have roof lines that are varied
and relate to the topography. In addition, the northeastern comer of the site would
be preserved to protect the coastal sage habitat and to provide open space in the
central canyon.
CT 92-02/PUD 92-03, .A- 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER 15, 1993
PAGE 9
f. “The project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with
the project and does not dominate the project.”
See Section C(2) and E of this report under the Qualified Overlay Zone and
Subdivision Ordinance for an explanation on project circulation.
g- ‘The proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site is
compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disham~onioti or
disruptive element to the neighborhood.”
The proposed project meets all City standards and the proposed residential density
is consistent with the General Plan (5.8 dus/acre). The proposed residential land
uses are compatible in scale, architecture, and building materials with the multi-
family residential development to the south and future Poinsettia Community Park
to the west. Public street improvements would be provided to accommodate traffic
generated by the project and the project must comply with all the circulation and
public facility requirements of Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20. The
adjacent properties to the south have either existing multi-family residential
development or are planned for multi-family and single-family residential
development, therefore, the proposed multi-family and single-family residential
developments in this project would be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
2. C.WPTER21.53, SECTION 21.53.120, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - “AFFORDABLE
HOUSING” AND CHAPTER 21.06, QUALIFIED OVERLAY ZONE
The Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.53.120 requires a Site Development Plan for any
multi-family residential apartment development having more than 4 dwelling units or an
affordable housk moiect of any size.
This project would have 349 residential units of which 47 of those units must be
designated as affordable to lower income households. The building pad in Area “A”/Lot
133 of the project does not meet the Hillside Development Ordinance’s standard for slope
height (30 foot high maximum). A portion of the fill slope on the eastern edge of the
building pad for the apartments is 43 feet high which exceeds the standard by 13 feet for
approximately 100 linear feet along the slope. In order to provide affordable housing in
this project the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council that this standard be modified under Section 21.53.120(c) Development
Standards. A Site Development Plan for an affordable housing project may allow less
restrictive development standards than specified in the zone code or underlying zone if the project is in conformance with the General Plan and would not have a detrimental effect
on public health, safety and welfare.
CT 92-02/PUD 92-03/oLL 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER 15, 1993
PAGE 10
Before the Planning Commission recommends approval of the project to the City Council,
Title 21 of the Municipal Code under Section 21.53.120(c) requires that the following
finding be made:
‘That the project is in conformity with the General Plan and adopted policies and goals of
the City, and it would have no detrimental effect on public heal&, safety and welfare.”
See the section below entitled med Develment Ove&v Zone (0) for additional
findings of fact that also apply to this finding requirement of the code. The creation of a
43 foot high manufactured fill slope that exceeds the 30 foot standard does not pose a
health and safety problem if the recommendations of the projects’s geotechnical report are
adhered to. The slope height standard of 30 feet is an aesthetic regulation intended to
minimize visual impacts created by large manufactured slopes. The overheight slope would
not face any public roadways including Alga Road and be contour graded and adequately
landscaped to provide for visual screening, thus, offsetting any visual impacts created by
the additional 12 feet of slope height.
QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (Q)/CHAPTER 21.06
The zoning for the property includes the Qualified Development Overlay Zone (Q),
therefore, before the Planning Commission recommends approval of the project to the City
Council, Title 21, Chapter 21.06, Section 21.06.020(b) requires the Planning Commission
to make the following findings:
(1) ‘That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and
envimmnental settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the
general plan, will not be detrimental to exkting uses or to uses specifically
permitted in the area in which the pmposed use is to be located, and will not
adversely impact the site, surroundings or trafEc circulation.”
The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zone 20 Specific Plan as
explained in Sections A and B of this report. The project would not have a
significant impact on the environment as discussed in Section G of this report. The
proposed residential land uses are compatible in scale, architecture, and building
materials with the multi-family residential development to the south the future
commumty park to the west. Public street improvements would be provided to
accommodate traffic generated by the project and the project must comply with all
the circulation and public facility requirements of Local Facilities Management Plan
Zone 20.
CT 92-02/PUD 92-03/ ~Lw 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER 15, 1993
PAGE 11
(2) That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the use.”
The project complies with all City ordinances and polices except for the Hillside
Ordinance’s slope height standard as explained in Section C(2) of this report,
therefore, the parcel is adequate in size, shape and slope to accommodate the
proposed land uses.
(3) That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other feahmes
necessary to adjust the requested use to exkting or permitted future uses in the
neighborhood will be provided and maintained.”
The project would be conditioned to provide a solid wall or fence, and landscaped
windbreaks along the perimeter of any future developable area that abuts property
under “open field” cultivation, in order to reduce public nuisance effects of adjacent
pesticide spraying and dust generation from farm operations.
Area “B” and “C” - Single-fkmily Residential:
a). Standard R-l Zone front, side and rear setbacks would be provided for each
home, and all homes would have at least a two-car garages to satisfy off-
street parking requirements.
b). The front yards of all the lots would be landscaped with a minimum of 3
street trees of varying sizes, and the 50 foot setback along Alga Road would
be landform graded and heavily landscaped.
Area “A” and “D” - Multi-Family Residential And Community Facility Site:
a). The bulk and scale of the proposed two-story condominiums, townhouses, and apartment buildings would be compatible with the existing and
surrounding residential development to the south. The proposed multi-family
townhomes would provide an appropriate transition between the proposed
single-family land use to the east and the future community park land use to
the west.
W. The design of the project would assure a unique mix of residential
development, and enhance the aesthetic quality of the area as follows:
i. The street setbacks would be landscaped with a combination of trees
and shrubs to partially screen the residential structures from the
public streets.
CT 92-02/PUD 92-OJ/ oL& 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER 15,1993
PAGE 12
ii. The building elevations would have textured stucco exteriors and tile
and metal roofs, varied roof lines, architectural accent features and
building forms, and varied building facades.
. . . ill. The dwelling units would be orientated at various angles along the
driveways to provide an enclosure of space between the buildings and
to provide more visual interest when the project is viewed from the
public streets.
(4) ‘That the street system serving the pmposed use is adequate to properly handle all
traffic generated by the proposed use.”
Area ‘8” zind “C’ - Single-Family Residential:
All the local, collector, and major streets, both within and offsite of this project
would be constructed to City standards, have underground utilities, and contain
public sidewalks. A pedestrian access is provided between Lots 47 and 48 in Area
“c” to allow access to future Hidden Valley Road and Poinsettia Community Park.
Area “A” and “D” - Multi-Family Residential And Commmity Facility Site:
a>.
W
4.
d).
d.
The project would provide adequate onsite parking (498 parking spaces) and
circulation to serve the needs of the residents and their guests, and it would
not impact the availability of offsite street parking.
Sidewalks and drainage facilities would be provided along the project’s street
frontages to serve the project.
The proposed 30 to 45 foot wide central private driveways would be
adequate to provide safe and efficient traffic circulation, vehicle turn
movements, and emergency access. The City’s Parking Ordinance requires
a minimum standard width of 24 feet for a two-way traffic aisle containing
ninety degree parking on both sides. A 24 foot driveway aisle provides
adequate separation and distance for vehicles backing out of parking spaces
and adequate separation for two-way traffic (12 feet per travel lane).
An internal pedestrian circulation system that is separated from the
driveways within the multi-family projects would be provided and allow
sufficient and safe access to the recreation facility and adjacent public streets.
Adequate access for emergency vehicles is provided by the central 30 to 45
foot wide private driveways that service the multi-family projects. The 30
to 45 foot wide driveways are also wide enough to accommodate emergency
vehicles, and the project would be conditioned to prohibit parallel parking
along the 30 foot wide driveways. The project has been reviewed and approved by the Fire Department.
-
CT 92-02/PUD 92-03, SL, 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER 15, 1993
3. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS/ CXWTEFt 21.95
The project site contains slopes of 15% or greater and an elevation differential greater than
15 feet, therefore, a Hillside Development ‘Permit is required. The project design is in
conformance with the development and design standards of the Hillside Developmenr
Regulations and the Hillside Development Guidelines, with exception to the maximum 30 foot high slope standard and the restriction on developing on slopes 40% and greater. A
43 foot high fill slope is being requested to provide a building pad large enough to
accommodate 72 apartment units, a portion of which would be designated as affordable
to lower income households (see discussion under Site Development Plan, Section C(2) of
this report).
Grading of 40% slopes would also be necessary to construct portions of Alga Road. Areas
where circulation element roadways must be placed and no feasible alternatives consistent
with this chapter are available may be excluded from the requirements of the Hillside
Development Regulations by the decision making body based on Section 21.95.090(b) (2)
of the ordinance. The alignment of Alga Road in this area was established with the
approval of the tentative map for Cobblestone Sea Village (CT 84-32). Analysis of
alternatives for Alga Road indicated that due to constraints from the SDG&E powerline
easement that traverses through the main canyon there is no feasible alternative consistent
with the Hillside Development Regulations.
Before the Planning Commission approves the Hillside Development Permit, Title 21,
Chapter 21.95, Section 21.95.030 requires that the Planning Commission make the
following findings:
(1) “That hillside conditions and undewhpable areas of the project have been properly
identified.”
The site’s hillside slope conditions and undevelopable areas have been identified on
Constraints Exhibit ‘X’ dated, December 15, 1993.
(2) ‘That the development proposal and all applicable development approvals and
permits are consistent with the purpose, intent, and requirements of this chapter
and that the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts
illustrated in the hillside development guidelines manual.”
a). All manufactured cut and fill slopes are landform/contour graded and do not exceed a height of 30 feet, except for the 43 foot high slope along the
eastern portion of the apartment development in Area “A” (See Site
Development Plan, Section C(2) of this report for further explanation).
-
CT 92-02/PUD 92-03,jL, 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER15,1993
PAGE14
b).
4.
4.
4.
0.
The project’s cut/fill grading volumes of 8,652 cubic yards per graded acre
falls within the “potentially acceptable range” of 8,000 - 10,000 cubic
yds./acre. Included in these volumes is 86,000 cubic yards of grading for
Alga Road which is a circulation element roadway. When grading for Alga
Road is subtracted out of the grading calculations, the project’s grading
volumes are reduced to 7,773 cubic yards per graded acre and are within the
“acceptable range”.
Landscaping in conformance with the Zone 20 Specific Plan and the City’s
Landscape Manual would be provided on all manufactured slopes to assist in
visually screening the slopes and to reduce erosion.
All structures and roofs within the project would be earth tone in color to
reduce visual impacts.
A percentage of the homes along the north/south trending and gently sloping
ridgeline would be one-story in height and all homes would have varying
roof lines.
The multi-family residential buildings are setback from the top of
manufactured slopes from a range of 15 to 60 feet, along the eastern portion
of Area “A”.
(3) ‘That no development or grading will occur in those portions of the property which
are undevelopable pursuan t to the provisions of Section 21.53.230 of this code.”
All undevelopable areas have been identified and except for Alga Road no
development or grading would occur in the areas containing 4O%+ slopes.
(4) ‘That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside
lands.”
The proposed grading would create single-family building pads that are terraced for
views and step down the slope. A majority of the local streets and manufactured
slopes are curving and are aligned to follow the north/south trending contours. The
street alignments and curving landfoxm graded slopes would reduce visual impacts
created by the grading and help simulate the natural slope conditions.
4. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE, CHAFTER 21.85:
The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance implements the inclusionary objectives of the Housing
Element (Objective 3.6), and at a minimum, the project would be required to provide not
less than 15% of all proposed residential units affordable to lower income households. The
CT 9202/PUD 92-03,aLL 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER 15, 1993
General Plan permits 312 dwelling units on this site, therefore, 15% of those units would
yield a minimum requirement to provide 47 housing units affordable to lower income
households, (Note: the applicant has requested a density bonus, therefore, 20% of the 312
base units dwelling units or 63 units must be affordable). The applicant is proposing to
meet the affordable housing requirement of the project within the apartment portion of the
site plan (Area ‘A’/Lot 133). In addition, at least five (10% min.) of the affordable
apartment units must be three-bedroom. The applicant is proposing three-bedroom units.
that contain 1,017 square feet to accommodate larger families.
The project would be conditioned to require an Affordable Housing Agreement that would
be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to Final Map approval. The
Affordable Housing Agreement is a legally binding agreement between the applicant and
the City which provides the specific details regarding the implementation of the affordable
housing requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan and subsequent conformance with the
City’s Housing Element.
5. DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 21.86:
The applicant is requesting an 11.8 percent density bonus above the maximum General
Plan land use designation for the site (RLM/RM), under the provisions of the City’s
Residential Density Bonus Ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide
incentives to developers for the production of housing affordable to lower income
households. Density bonus means a minimum density increase of at least 25% over the
growth management dwelling unit allowance for the project site. Section 21.86.030 of the
ordinance states that for new residential construction the City shall grant a density bonus
and at least one additional incentive. Additional incentives may consist of a reduction in
development standards and architectural design requirements, partial or additional densitv,
and direct financial aid. Under the provisions for a density bonus the applicant must agree
to construct a minimum of 20% (more restrictive than 15% inclusionary requirement) of
the total base units of the project as restricted and affordable to low income households,
or a minimum of 10% of the total base units as restricted and affordable to very low
income households. The project would have 72 apartment units in Area “A” and the
applicant shall meet these minimum density bonus requirements by providing 63 apartment
units affordable to lower income households.
CT 92-02/PUD 92-03, &~r 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER 15, 1993
PAGE 16
D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20 in the
Southwest Quadrant. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and
compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows:
FACtLIlY ME?ACl%
CITY ADMINISTRATION 1,213.36 sq. ft.
LIBRARY 647.1 sq. ft.
WASTE WATER TREATMENT 353 EDU
PARKS 2.42 Acres
DRAINAGE N/A
CIRCULATION 3650 ADT
FIRE Station # 4
OPEN SPACE 9.03 Acres
SCHOOLS CUSD
SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM 353 EDU
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 77,660 GPD
.coMewcE WrrH
STANDARDS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The proposed project would exceed the allowable growth management density of 312.17
dwelling units for the site by 36.83 dwelling units, (349 proposed units). The Growth
Management Ordinance, Section 21.90.045, states that no residential development permit
shall be approved in which density exceeds the growth management control point for the
applicable density range (RLM 0 - 3.2 & RM - 4 - 8 dus/acre), unless the following findings
are made:
(1) ‘The project will mmide sufiicient additional mblic facilities for the den&v in
excess of the contml mint to ensure that the adeauacv of the Citv’s mblic facilities
plans will not be adverselv impacted.”
This project will be served by public facilities which are adequate to meet the
increased demand generated by the increased density. In general, public facilities
have been sized to accommodate the maximum development allowed under the
General Plan and Proposition E for the Southwest Quadrant. The density increase
CT 92-02/PUD 92-05, JDr 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER 15, 1993
PAGE 17
requested for this project simply shifts density from one portion of the quadrant to
another and does not create an overall increase in demand beyond the projections
contained in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan. Therefore, sufficient
facilities are either already in place or will be provided concurrent with the project
to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s public facility plans will not be adversely
impacted.
(2) “There have been suf%ient develomnents aoDToved in the auadxxnt at densities
below the control Doint to cover the units in the proiect above the control wint so
that amxoval will not result in exceedinsr the uuadrant limit.”
The Aviara Master Plan has been approved for development of approximately 572
dwelling units less than what was projected in the adopted Zone 19 LFMP. These
units are referred to as “excess” units, and they may be utilized to grant density
increases elsewhere in the Southwest Quadrant, subject to City Council Policy No.
43. Approval of this project will make use of 36.83 units, leaving a balance of
approximately 535.17 units that would be available for density increases to other
future projects. Monitoring of the balance of excess units and density increases will
assure that the quadrant limits stated in Proposition E are never exceeded.
(31 “All necessarv public facilities rechred bv this chapter will be constructed or are
guaranteed to be constructed concurren tly with the need for them created bv this
development and in compliance with the adopted Citv standards.”
As stated in finding #l, all public facilities necessary to serve this project are either
already in place or will be provided by conditions of approval placed on the project.
As shown in the table above, all facilities will remain in compliance with adopted
City standards.
E. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCWITFLE 20
The proposed tentative map would comply with all the requirements of the City’s
Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20. Currently there are no public roads to serve the project
site, therefore, the developer must extend public street improvements off the project site
to connect to the existing circulation network. In addition, in order to comply with the
City cul-de-sac policy the developer is required to construct a second offsite road
connection for emergency access purposes. To satisfy this secondary access requirement,
the developer is proposing to extend Hidden Valley Road north from the project site to
Palomar Airport Road. The developer is also proposing to extend Alga Road from the
project site south to the current terminus of Alga Road at its intersection with Poinsettia
Lane.
CT 92-02/PUD 92-03, SL, 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER 15, 1993
PAGE 18
The construction of these two access roads together with the onsite roads shown on the
proposed vesting tentative map would be adequate to serve the proposed project. In
addition, new traffic signals would be necessary at the intersections of Hidden Valley
Road/Palomar Airport Road, Alga/Poinsettia Lane, and Alga Road/Cherry Blossom Road.
With the construction of the roads and traffic signals, the proposed project would comply with the established standards of the Growth Management Ordinance.
The project site naturally drams into two separate sewer basins. The portion of the project
west of Alga Road drams west towards Hidden Valley Road where it would be collected
in a main line and carried north down Hidden Valley Road to the main trunk line adjacent
to Palomar Airport Road. The portion of project east of Alga Road naturally drains north
to Cherry Blossom Road and ultimately flows in a main line down the canyon which runs
parallel with Alga Road and connects to the same trunk line adjacent to Palomar Airport
Road. On an interim basis, the developer is proposing to construct a sewer lift station
adjacent to Cherry Blossom Road and pump the sewer across Alga Road to the sewer main
in Hidden Valley Road. The developer is required to contribute a fair share contribution
towards the construction of the future main line in the Alga Road canyon through payment
of the sewer benefit area fee established for this sewer drainage basin.
To mitigate drainage impacts from ‘the project site the developer is required to provide
adequate drainage, erosion control, and urban pollutant basins. To comply with Water
Quality standards, City grading and erosion control requirements, and the requirements of
the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program, the developer is required to install
permanent and or temporary siltation/retention basins at the downstream end of all
proposed storm drain pipes.
F. MELLO II SEGMENT OF LOCAL COASFAL PROGRAM
The project is located in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and
complies with the plan as follows:
(1) The project is located within the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone. The
construction of Hidden Valley Road offsite would impact disturbed riparian habitat
and 25%+ slopes containing coastal sage scrub habitat located in a small drainage
that flows to the north and along En&as Creek which flows east to west. This
road is required to provide access and sewer facilities to this northwestern portion
of the Zone 20 Specific Plan and there are no alternatives to the road aiigmnent
that would be more environmentally sensitive. To offset the biological impacts
created by Hidden Valley Road a mitigation program has been provided. In
addition, portions of onsite Alga Road, Cherry Blossom Road and Camino de las
Ondas would impact 25%+ slopes containing coastal sage scrub habitat. These
roadway links are necessary to provide access to developable areas while at the
same time comply with City engineering standards and policies for major, collector,
and local roadways.
CT 92-02/PUD 92-03,3LI 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER 15, 1993
PAGE 19
The Overlay Zone permits development and grading on slopes over 25% with native
coastal habitat when it is a circulation element roadway (Alga Road), a utility
system (sewer lines, drainage basins, etc.), and in order to provide access to
developable areas of the project site if there is no less environmentally damaging
alternative. In all cases biological mitigation is proposed to offset any impacts to
coastal sage habitat. The project has been conditioned such that prior to approval
of a final map, all applicable state and federal resource agencies must be consulted,
applicable permits must be obtained, and a final biological mitigation program must
be approved.
(2) The project would also be conditioned to provide adequate drainage, siltation, and
erosion control facilities as part of the approved grading permit. The grading
operation would be limited to the summer construction season, April 1 to October
1.
(3) The project contains vacant non-prime agricultural land containing Class III and IV
soils and is located in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Site II). The Mello II
LCP requires mitigation when non-prime coastal agricultural land is converted to
urban land uses. The project would be conditioned to comply with one of the three
LCP mitigation options provided when projects are located in Site II: (1) “Prime
Land Exchange”; (2) “Determination of Agricultural Feasibility”; and (3)
“Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee”.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/ TITLB 19 AND CEOA
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203)
which covers the 640 acre Zone 20 planning area. The direct, indirect, and cumulative
environmental impacts from the future development of the Zone 20 planning area have
been discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-03) for the specific plan.
The recommended and applicable mitigation measures of Final EIR 90-03 would be
included as conditions of approval for this project. Per the requirements of Final EIR 90-03
additional project specific environmental studies, including biological analysis, have been
prepared. These studies provide more focused and detailed project level analysis and
indicate that additional environmental impacts beyond what was analyzed in Final EIR 90-
03 would result from implementation of the project.
Per the recommendations of Final EIR 90-03 a Conditional Negative Declaration was issued
for this project to evaluate the additional environmental impacts to coastal sage scrub and
riparian habitats created by onsite development and the alignment of Hidden Valley Road
north to Palomar Airport Road. The Planning Director has determined that the project
could have a significant effect on the environment, however, there would not be a
significant effect in this case since the mitigation measures described in the attached initial
study have been added to the project. This decision was based on findings of the
Environmental Assessment Part II, Biological Resource Impact Studies, a Geotechnical
Report, acoustical study, traffic report, and a field surveys by staff. A Conditional Negative
Declaration was issued by the Planning Director on August 5, 1993.
CT 92-02/PUD 92-03, SL, 92-06/HDP 92-03
SAMBI
DECEMBER 15, 1993
PAGE 20
The Conditional Negative Declaration was sent to the State Clearinghouse for State Public
Agency review, and one letter from the Department of Fish and Game was received. It was
also sent to the United State Fish and Wildlife Setice and the Army Corps of Engineers
for review and no comments were received. The Department of Fish and Game has
indicated that the project would create impacts to sensitive coastal sage scrub and riparian
habitat and they have requested consultation, therefore, the project has been conditioned
such that prior to approval of a final map, all applicable state and federal resource agencies
must be consulted, applicable permits must be obtained, and a final biological mitigation
program must be approved.
Iv. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDA~ON
The proposed project: (1) is consistent with the general plan; (2) complies with the Zone
20 Specific Plan; (3) meets the requirements of Title 20 and 21; (4) findings for the Site
Development Plan can be made under Section 21.06.020 and 21.53.120; (5) is consistent
with the Mello II Local Coastal Program; (6) complies with Growth Management; and (7)
is in conformance with the mitigation requirements of Final EIR 90-03, and will not
significantly impact the environment, therefore, staff recommends approval of CT 92-
02/PUD 92-03/SDP 92-06/HDP 92-03.
AlTACHMF.NTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3590
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3591
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3592
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3593
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3594
6. Location Map
7. Background Data Sheet
8. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
9. Disclosure Form
10. Reduced Exhibits
11. Full size Exhibits “A” - “YYY”, dated December 15, 1993
JG:Ih
November 26, 1993
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
20
21’
22
23
24
25 I
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.3590
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR AVESTING TENTATIVE MAP, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEVELOP 129 SINGLE-FAMILY
LOTS, 76 TOWNHOMES, 72 CONDOMINIUM. UNITS, 72
APARTMENT UNITS, AND TWO FUTURE COMMUNITY
FACILITY SITES, ALL ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE, NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS
ONDAS, SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: SAMBI
CASE NO: CT 92-02/PUD 92-03/SDP 92-06/HDP 92-03
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of December, 1993,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staif,
and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
factors relating to the Conditional Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B)
Findinas:
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Conditional Negative
Declaration according to Exhibit “CND”, dated August 5, 1993, and “PII”,
dated July 15, 1993, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
1. The initial study shows that the proposed project could have a signific
the environment, however, there will be no significant impact in
the mitigation measures described in the initial study have
project.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project.
3. The project is in compliance with the adopted mitigation measures of Final
Environmental Impact Report 90-03 and would not create any additional significant
environmental impacts based on the conditions of this Conditional Negative
Declaration.
Conditions:
1.
2.
Approval of this project, is subject to all conditions contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No.‘s 3591, 3592, 3593, and 3594.
The applicant shall provide the following noise mitigation measures to comply with
Planning Department Policy No. 17:
a.
b.
C.
d.
Prior to occupancy of individual units, the applicant shall construct
sound attenuation walls, berms, or a combination of both along Alga
Road per the requirements of the project’s noise study dated
September, 1992 and any subsequent amendments. If sound
attenuation walls are provided along Alga Road, the walls shall be
designed with pilasters, be compatible with the proposed
development, offset with tree wells, and landscaped to provide
screening of the walls from the roadway in order to reduce visual
impacts along the street. All secondary story balconies along Alga
Road shall be sound attenuated’ to 60 CNEL.
To obtain an interior noise level of 45 CNEL, the windows and doors
in buildings subject to traffic noise must be closed, therefore, a
“windows closed” condition is applicable and a mechanical ventilation
system with fresh air provisions in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code and Planning Department Policy No. 17 is required.
Prior to the issuance of building permits the owner of the record of
the property shall prepare and record a notice that this property is
subject to noise impacts from the existing Alga Road transportation
corridor and overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from
Palomar Airport. The notice shall be prepared in a manner meeting
the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney.
The applicant shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales
and/or rental offices associated with the new development. The
number and locations of said signs shall be approved by the Planning
Director (see Noise, Form #3 on Ne in the Planning Department).
PC RESO NO 3590 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
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
. . . .
. . . .
The applicant shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best
management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to
discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever occurs first.
Prior to approval of a final map, issuance of a grading permit, or approval of
improvement plans for Hidden Valley Road from the Poinsettia Park north to
Palomar Airport Road, whichever occurs first, a detailed biological mitigation,
restoration and enhancement plan to mitigate project and Hidden Valley Road
biological impacts, per the recommendations of Final EIR 90-03 and the Biological
Technical Report of the Sambi Project, dated July 1993, shall be prepared and
approved by the City. In addition, and pursuant to Section 1601/1603 of the Fish
and Game Code, the applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement from
the California Fish and Game Department if required for any proposed alterations
to existing natural watercourses and shall comply with any and all permit
requirements associated therewith. The applicant, in conjunction with the
Department of the Army Corp of Engineers shall determine whether a 404 permit
shall be required for alterations to wetland areas. The applicant, in conjunction
with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service shall determine if a 10A permit or
other restrictions of the NCCP and Endangered Species Act process is required for
impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain said
permits and comply with those conditions and requirements imposed therewith.
Prior to approval of a final map, issuance of a grading permit, or approval of
improvement plans for Hidden Valley Road from Poinsettia Park north to Palomar
Airport Road, the applicant, in discussion with the Planning and Engineering
Departments, shall consider, if feasible, the incorporation of an oversized culvert
under Hidden Valley Road ar the En&as Creek crossing to mitigate the effects of
fragmentation of the open space and wildlife con-idor caused by the roadway, and
to enhance wildlife mobility in the area.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation requirements of the Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation for the project prepared by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc.,
dated February 1989 and any subsequent revisions To the report, prior to issuance
of a grading permit.
In addition to the conditions above, the project shall comply with all the applicable
mitigation conditions of Final EIR 90-03 for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203), as
contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3525, dated June 16, 1993.
PC RESO NO 3590 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of December, 1993.
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz,
Welshons, Savary 6 Hall.
NOES: Commissioner Erwin.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
BAILEY NOME, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
MICHAEL J. HO~ZMIL’&R
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO 3590
CONDITIONAL NEGATTVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South of Palomar Airpon Road, east of Paseo de1 None, north of Camino de las Ondas.
APN: 214-14-07
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Development of a 68.6 acre parcel to include 222 multi-family
residential dwelling units - 150 townhomes and 72 apartments,
130 single-family lots, and 625,000 cubic yards of grading to
accommodate building pads, lots, recreation areas, utilities,
private driveways, local public streets, two non-loaded collector
streets, and a circulation element roadway (Alga Road).
The City of Carisbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for implementation of the California Environmenta.l Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Conditional Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a
significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project.
Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Conditional Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on i?le in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Paimas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from
the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department
within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in
the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4455. .
DATED: AUGUST S, 1993
. . 44
MICHAEL J. HmM&R
CASE NO: tX 92-02/PUD 92-03/SDP 92-06/ Planning Director
HDP 92-03
CASE NAME: SAMBt
PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST S,l993
lib
2075 Las Palmas Drive l Carlsbad, California 92009-l 576 l (619) 438-l 161 @
-
ENWRONMENTALlMPACI-ASSESSMENTFORM- PARTII
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
BACKGROUND
CASE NO. CT 92-02/HDP 92-03/PUD’92-OWSDP 92-06 DATE: JULY 15. 1993
1. CASE NAME: SAMBI
2. APPLICANT: TOYOHARA AMERICA INC. C/O MR DON AGATEP
3. ADDRESSANDPHONE NUMBEROFAPPLICANT: 2956ROOSEVELT
CARLSBAD.CA92008
(6191434-1056
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: FEBRUARY 14.1992
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DeveloDment of a 68.6 acre Darcel to include 222 muhi-family
residential dwellinn units - 150 townhomes and 72 atxutments . 130 sinnle-familv lots. and
625.000 cubic vards of grading to accommodate building Dads. lots. recreation areas. utilities,
private drivewavs. local nublic streets. two non-loaded collector streets, and a circulation
element roadwav (Alga Road).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment.
. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This
checklist 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed
project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, “NO” will be checked
to indicate this determination
l An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the
project may cause a siznificant effect on the environment. The project may qua@ for a Negative
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed
insimificant. These fIndings are shown in the checklist under the headings YES-s&” and “YES-in@
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the foxm under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
-
PHYSICAL ENvIRoNMFNr
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
big) Gnsig>
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
2. Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
4. . Result in changes in the deposition of beach
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
sands, or mod&cation of &e channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Alter a signifkant archeologica&
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
NO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x -
-2-
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
-
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
big) Gnsig>
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a btier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all &a;er dwelling organisms
and insects?
x
x
x
x
Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
ENVIRONMENT
NO
x
WILL tiE PROPOSAL DIRECIZY OR INDIRECIZY: YES YES NO
(rig) (in.@
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area? x
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services? X
-3-
HUMANENVIRONMENT
WILL -l-HE PROPOSAL DIRECl-LY OR INDIRECTLY: YES
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems?
20.
21.
22.
Increase existing noise levels?
Produce new light or glare?
Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
23. Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
24. Mfect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
25.
26.
Generate substantial additional traffic?
Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
27. Impact existing Iransportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
28.
29.
Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Increase Uaffk hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
32. Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational oppornmities?
YES
(inskI
x
X
big)
NO
x
X
x
x -
x
x
X
x
X
4
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECI-LY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO big) (insig)
33.
34.
35.
36.
Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Ca.l.ifomia history or prehistory.
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts wiIl endure well into the future.)
Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively con- siderable” means that the incremenml effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other cement projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Does the project have emironmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
x
x
x --
X
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONi ,l AL EVALUATION
PROJECI’ BACKGROUND ANIl EWARON?vENTAL SEITlNG:
The project is located S0Ut.h of Palomar Airport Road, east of Paseo De1 None, adjacent to future Hidden
Valley Road, and north of Camin De Las Ondas in the City of Carlsbad. The western two-thirds of the
property is almost entirely utilized for active agricultural use. The property contains gently sloping topography that rises from west to east towards a ridgeline. At the northwestern comer of the property
is the edge of a highly disturbed finger canyon which continues north and eventually connects with Canyon de las Encinas. Along the eastern edge of the property is a larger north/south canyon system. Elevation ranges horn 156 to 300 feet above mean sea level. Soil types include Las Flares loamy fine
sand, Gaviota line sandy loam, and Chesterson fine sandy loam. Three vegetation types are present on the property: ruderal/agriculture, Diegan coastal sage scrub in varying levels of disturbance, and
disturbed riparian scrub.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided from Camino de las Ondas, future Alga Road from Poinsettia Lane, and a future collector street named Hidden Valley Road. Hidden Valley Road would
travel along the site’s western property line, intersect with Camino de las Ondas to the south and intersect with Palomar Airport Road to the north. The project would sewer north along Hidden Valley
and connect with the east/west mmk line in Canyon de las Encinas.
The project site is located within the boundaries of Specific Plan 203 which covers the 640 acre Zone 20 Planning Area. The Final EIR 90-03 for SP 203 addresses the potential environmental impacts
associated with the future buildout of the Zone 20 Specific Plan area. Use of the program EIR enables the City to characterize the overall environmental impacts of the specific plan. The Final EIR contains broad, general environmental analysis that serves as an information base to be consulted when ultimately approving subsequent development projects (i.e. tentative maps, site development plans, grading permits,
etc...) within the specific plan. The City can avoid having to “reinvent the wheel” with each subsequent development project by analyzing, in the program EIR, the regional influences, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, and broad alternatives associated with buildout of the planning area. The
recommended mitigation measures of Final EIR 90-03 will be included as conditions of approval for this project. This subsequent expanded “Initial Study” is intended to supplement the Final EIR and provide
more focused and detailed project level analysis of site specific environmental impacts and provide more
refined project level mitigation measures as required by Final EIR 90-03. As an example, additional
environmental impacts not addressed in EIR 90-03 include riparian impacts created by the alignment of
Hidden Valley Road north to Palomar Airport Road and site specific traffic noise impacts.
PHYSICAL ENWRONMENT:
Development of the site would include 625,000 cubx yards of grading to accommodate building pads,
lots, recreation areas, utilities, private driveways, local public streets, two non-loaded collector streets
and a circulation element roadway (Alga Road). The proposed grading and development of the project would conform to the Civs Hillside Development Ordinance and manufactured slopes would be
land.fonn/contour graded, landscaped, and not exceed 30 feet in height, therefore the alteration of the
topography would not be considered a significant physical impact. The preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation prepared by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., dated February 6,1989 states that; “the subject property is compatible with the indicated geotechnical conditions and may be developed with
conventional cut and fill grading techniques; Considering the dense to medium dense character of the
Lindavista Formation and Scripps Formation, liquefaction potential is considered nil”. Erosion control
-6-
measures including landscapmg on manufactured slopes, adequare drainage facilities, and proper sod
compaction would all be conditions of approval for the project and be required by the Engineering
Department prior to isSUaXe of the grading permit.
Development of the project would create impervious surfaces onsite which reduce absorption rates and increases surface runoff and -off velocities, however, the appropriate drainage facilities would be provided. Drainage from roofs, streets, driveways, slopes, and yards in the project would constitute a potentially sign&ant impact to water quality due to urban pollutant runoff, therefore, mitigation measures will be required to reduce to an insignificant level the amount of contaminants contained in the nuloff. Temporary desiltation basins would be provided within the project in graded pad areas and a permanent basin is proposed west of future Hidden Valley Road, adjacent to En&as Creek at the 67
foot elevation. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant must comply with the requirements
of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant would be required to provide the best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level
prior to discharge to sensitive biological areas. Compliance with this requirement would reduce any
water quality impacts to below a level of sign%cance.
For a discussion on air quality see Section 3.3 of Final EIR 90-03 for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203).
Final EIR 90-03 identified one archaeological site (Sdi-9478) and no historic sites within the project boundaries. W-9478 is classified in EIR 90-03 as a site that was identified as potentially significant and will require preliminary signifkance evaluation prior to approval of a_ tentative map. The Preliminary Archaeological Analysis For M-9478, prepared by Advanced Sciences, Inc., dated July 10, 1992, indicates that the site can not be located for testing due to dense, high grass cover, and recent extensive
agricultural activity in the area. Due to’the extremely disturbed nature of the area it was determined
that the site is no longer extent, therefore, Site CA-Sdi-9478 has been determined not significant based
on criteria presented in Appendix K of CEQA and no further recommendations for cultural resources
impact mitigation are offered.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT:
The Biology Section of Final EIR 90-03 provides baseline data at a gross scale due to the large size of
the planning area. Given the large number of property owners and their differing development horizons
and the inevitable change in biological conditions over the long term buildout of the planning area, it
is not possible to mitigate biological impacts from the buildout of the entire specific plan under one
comprehensive open space easement that crosses property lines or a habitat revegetation/enhancement
plan sponsored solely by the property ownen. Based on the future biological impacts created by
individual subsequent development projects, property owners within the planning area will be given several mitigation options that will be based on subsequent and additional site spezific biological suNey
and impact analysis. These additional biological studies will consider the baseline data and biological
open space recommendations of Final EIR 90-03 and provide more detailed resource surveys plotted at
the tentative map scale for each property. The range of the future mitigation options would include preservation of sensitive habitat onsite in conjunction with enhancemenf/revegetation plans, payment
of fees into a regional conservation plan, or the purchase and protection of similar habitat offsite.
A Biological Technical Report was prepared for the project by Anita Hayworth, Biological Consultant, dated July 1993. This subsequent biological studyis intended to supplement the Final EIR, provide more focused and detailed project level analysis of site specific biological impacts and provide more refined project level mitigation measures as required by Final EIR 90-03. The report indicates that
-7-
implementation of the projeLL wullld create significant impacts to coastitl sage scrub and riparian habitats,
therefore, mitigation measures designed to reduce biological impacts to below a level of significance d be required as part of this environmental document, (see attached conditions). The project site was surveyed for sensitive plant and animal species and no species were observed during the sensitive species
survey, including the burrowing owl survey, therefore, significant impacts would not occur to sensitive
species. Mitigation proposed in the biology report includes onsite habitat preservation, onsite enhancement/revegetation of habitat, and the option for offsite enhancement/revegetation, purchase and
protection of inkind offsite habitat, or the possible payment of fees for a regional conservation plan. The
detailed mitigation plans would be i?nalized prior to approval of a fmal map for the project and subject
to review and approval by State and Federal resource agencies.
The site is currently being utilized for agricultural purposes. It does not contain prime agricultural soils, however, it is located in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Site II) and the Mello II Local Coastal
Program requires mitigation when non-prime coastal agricultural land is converted to urban uses,
therefore, compliance with the adopted LCP mitigation would reduce all adverse impacts to an insignificant level.
HUMANENVIRONMENT:
The project would not alter the planned land use of the site and is consistent with the residential land
use designation and density established by the Land Use Element of the Citys General Plan.
Portions of the site had been farmed and cultivated for a number of years and there may be a potential
for significant impacts to future residents from accumulations of hazardous chemicals in the soil. Based on the Soil Testing for Pesticide Residue Report for Sambi prepared by Pa&c Soils Environmental, dated July 1992, analytical tests on soil sampled did not detect pesticide/herbicide residue. The report states
that; “further environmental sampling for pesticide residue in soil appears unwarranted for this property, based on the information available at this time”.
The project would increase traffic in the area, however, a Traffic Impact Analysis conducted as part of the Zone 20 Specific Plan and the project indicates that compliance with the circulation requirements of
the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203), Final EIR 90-03, and the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone
20 would mitigate any signikant traffic impacts.
The project is located within the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan. Public facility impacts and financing have been accounted for in this plan to accommodate the residential development. The residential land use would be consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the project would nor signikantly impact public facilities and planned land uses.
Traffic noise from future Alga Road would create a signifkanr impact on homes adjacent to the road,
therefore, a noise study was prepared for the project by Robert Kahn, John Rain Associates, Inc., dated
February 1992. Noise levels on the project site will not exceed the exterior noise standard of 60 CNEL and the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL, if the recommended mitigation measures recommended in
this study are implemented. Sound attenuation walls, berms, or a combination of both would be required along Alga Road to mitigate exterior traffic noise to comply with Planning Department Policy No. 17. If sound attenuation walls are provided along Alga Road, special landscaping @ wall design criteria shall be required to reduce any potential visual impacts the walls may create along the roadway.
-8-
/&ALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTttCrunTIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECl’ SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
C) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alternate sites for the proposed project, and
g) no project alternative.
For a discussion on alternatives to the proposed project see Section 8.0 in Final EIR 90-03 for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203).
-9-
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
x
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I f%d the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed.
I fmd the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ILL, 1773
’ Date
- Dare
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE1
1. The applicant shall provide the following noise mitigation measure to comply with Planning
DepartmmPolicyNo.17:
a. hiortoompancyofindividualti~theapplicanrshaIl-Sotmd attenuationwalls,berms,~acombinationofbothalongAlgaRoadpertbc ~~of~piojeasnoix~~&tcdFebntary,1992, Ifsound attenuationwallsarrprovidedalongAlgaRoad,thcwalls~bedgignrd with pilasters, be ampatible with the proposed ddopment, o&et with tree-
wells,and~toprovidcxreening ofthewaus6mmtheroadwayin odertore!dllcevisualimpacttalongthestre!eL
b. ToobtaiaaniPtaiar~levclof4SCNEI,thwirsdowsaaddoorsia
~~subjectto~noiscmtMbtclased,therefore,a~~closed" conditionisapplicablcanda~atvmtilatiansystemwith6nshair provisionsinacaxdanm wirhtheUnifonnBu&iing~aadPlanning DqammmrPoli~No.17isrcqrrired.
-101
C. Prior to the issuance of building permits the owner of the record of the property
shall prepare and record a notice that this property is subject to noise impact
!kom the exidng Alga md transportation cotidor and overflight, sight, and sound of a&aft opemting from Palomar Airport, The notice shall k prepared in a manner meeting the approval of the Pl2uming Director and the City
Attorney.
d. The applicant shall post airaafk noise notification signs in all sales and/or rental offices associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be approved by the Planning Director (see Noise, Form #3 on file in the Planning DepannWt).
2. The applicant shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever occurs first.
3. Prior to approval of a Enal map, issuance of a grading permit, or approval of impIWement Ph for Hidden Valley Road from the Poinsettia Park south to Palomar Airport Road, whichever occurs first, a detailed biological mitigation, restoration and U plan to mitigate project and
Hidden Valley Road biological impacts, per the recommendations of Final EIR 90-03 and the Biological Technical Report of the Sambi Project, dated Juiy 1993, shall be prepared and approved by the City. Ln additioa, and pursuant to Section 1601/1603 of the Fish and Game code, the
applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the Califomia Fish and Game Department if lqtid for any proposed aiterations to exist@ natural watercouxss and shall comply with any and all permit rqukments associated therewih The applicant, in conjunction
withtheDepartmeatoftheAnnyCorpofEngkersshalldetermine whethera4Mpexmitshallbe
requkd for akrations to wetland areas. The appkant, in conjunction with the United States Fish
and Wildlife Sewice shall determine if a 1OA permit or other resbktions of the NCCP and
Endangered Speck Act process is required for impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat. If applicable,
the applicant shall obtain said permits and comply with those conditions and reqkments imposed therewith.
4. P&r to approval of a &al map, isuanceofagcadingpamit,arapprc&ofimprovementplans for Hidden Valley Road &WI Poinsettia Park south to Palomar Airport Road, the applicant, in discus&on with the Plan&g and En@e&ng w shall consider, if feasible, the incorporationofanoversizcd~underHiddenValleyRoadatthe~Creetr~to mitigate the effects of fqmentation of the open space and wildlife corridor caused by the roadway,
andtOfZhiUl~Wildlif~mDbilityhlthcarea.
5. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation w of the PresminaIy Geotechnical
Investigation for the project prepa& by Pa&c Soils w Inc., dated February 1989 and any subsequent rwisions to the repox& prior to isuance ofagradingpermk
6. Inadditiontothrconditionsabovt,thcprojectshall~~withallthmitigatianccrnditionsof
FinalEIR90-03f~thrzanr!20SpecificPlan(sP203),~cantaincdinPlanningcolmnissian
Resoiution No. 3525, dated June 16,1993. If Final EIR 90-03 is not cer&ied by the City council thisConditionalNegativeDeclarationshallhecomenullaudvoidandnew ’ ml review shailberequircd. Ia7
-ll-
- -
.\~ACHMInGATIONMON~O~NGPROG~ (IF APPLICABLE)
.APPLICANT CONCURRENCE W’IH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES ANDCONCURWI-I’H THEADDlTlONOFTHESEMEASURESTOTHEPROJECT.
L.&I ze,q3-
Date
JG:km
-12-
I!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3591
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO
DEVELOP 129 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, 76 TOWNHOMES, 72
CONDOMINIUM UNITS, 72 APARTMENT UNITS, AND TWO
FUTURE COMMUNITY FACILITY SITES, ALL ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE, NORTH
OF CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS, SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
ROAD IN LOCAL FACXLITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: SAMBI
CASE NO: CT 92-02
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
The South Half of the Southeast Quarter and the South 60
acres of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 21,
Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to United States Government Survey, approved October 25,
1875, according to the Official Plat thereof.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th, day of December,
1993, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the Vesting Tentative Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of CT 92-02, based on the following findings and subject
to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zone 20 Specific Plan since the
RM designation allows the development of low density apartment, condominium,
or townhome developments that range in density from 4 to 8 dus/acre with a 6
d&acre growth management control point. The RLM designation allows single-
family homes that range in density from 0 to 4 dwelling units per acre with a 3.2
d&acre growth control point. The net density in the RLM portion of the project
is 9.18 dwelling units per acre and the net density in the RM portion is 4.4 dwelling
units per acre. The project contains a combination of an overall net density of 5.8
d&acre, therefore, the project, exclusive of the density bonus request, is consistent
with the growth management dwelling unit allowance for the parcel.
2. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this
project, ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the
District Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot
occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning
Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the
General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
3. The project is in compliance with the adopted mitigation measures of Final
Environmental Impact Report 90-03 and would not create any additional significant
adverse environmental impacts.
4. The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or
new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure
continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts
created by the project.
5. This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has
been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20.
6. School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad
Unified School District.
PC RESO 3591 2
P
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
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
To ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad Unified !3chool District
the applicant will submit evidence to the City that impacts to school facilities will
be mitigated in conformance with the Ciws Growth Management Plan to the extent
permitted by applicable state law for legislative acts.
Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval.
The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the general plan.
The project complies with all requirements of Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed.
The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land use since surrounding properties are designated for residential development on the general plan.
The project is consistent with all policies of the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program.
The tentative map satisfies all requirements of the Title 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map Act.
Conditions:
1. Recommendation of approval is granted for CT 92-02, as shown on Exhibits “A” - ‘WY”, dated December 15, 1993 incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless
otherwise noted in these conditions.
2. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which may
be required as part of the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
PC RESO 3591 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the District Engineer
determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such
sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note
shall be placed on the final map.
This project is also approved under the express conditions that the applicant pay the
public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 and as amended
from time to time, and any development fees established by the City Council
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance
adopted to implement a growth management system or facilities and improvement
plan and to fulfil1 the subdivider% agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated
February 12, 1992, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is
incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid, this application will not be
consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the
payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on
this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in
Government Code Section 65913.5. If any such condition is determined to be
invalid, this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the
project without the conditions complies with all requirements of law.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance.
Approval of CT 92-02 is granted subject to the approval of the Conditional Negative
Declaration, PUD 92-03, SDP 92-06, HDP 92-03, SP 203, and Final EIR 90-03.
m 92-02 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution
No. 3590 for the Conditional Negative Declaration.
The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of
the Tentative Map as approved by the Planning Commission. The Tentative Map
shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The map copy shall be submitted to the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map,
or improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
A 500’ scale map of the subdivision shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior
to the recordation of the final map. Said map shall show all lots and streets within
and adjacent to the project.
PC PESO 3591 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
As part of the plans submitted for building permit plan check, the applicant shall
include a reduced version of the approving resolution/resolutions on a 24” x 36”
blueline drawing. Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any
applicable Coastal Development Permit and signed approved site plan.
The applicant shall provide the following note on the final map of the subdivision
and final mylar of this development submitted to the City:
“Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code establishes a Growth Management
Control Point for each General Plan land use designation. Development cannot
exceed the Growth Control Point except as provided by Chapter 21.90. The land
use designation for this development is RLM and RM. The Growth Control Point
for these designations are 3.2 and 6 dwelling units per nonconstrained acre.
All parcels’ were used to calculate the intensity of development under the general
plan and Chapter 21.90. Subsequent redevelopment or resubdivision of any one of
these parcels must also include all parcels under the general plan and Chapter 21.90
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code”.
Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall receive approval of a Coastal
Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission that substantially
conforms to this approval. If the approval is substantially different, an amendment
to CT 92-02 shall be required.
The applicant shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name
policy subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval.
The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the
final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The applicant shall establish a homeowner? association and corresponding
covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&R’s shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval.
The CC&R’s shall include conditions stating the following provisions: (1) language
specifying the Homeowneis Association maintenance responsibility for all natural
open space and slope maintenance easements, and offsite manufactured slopes
shown on the approved tentative map and landscape plan (CT 92-02), which is on
file in the Planning Department; (2) In Area “D” (Lot 134), all patio covers and
decks that require a building permit shall conform to the setback and coverage
requirements of the underlying zone (RDM) and the accessory structure standards
of Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; (3) In Area “D” (Lot 134) all trash cans
shall be stored inside the garage and out of view from the private street; (4) In
Area “A” (Lot 132) and Area “D” (Lot 134) all dwelling units with a 5 foot setback
PC PESO 3591 5
I3 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17.
18.
19.
20.
from the private street shall have garages installed with a automatic garage door
opener and parking shall be prohibited on the driveway leading to the garage; (5)
Area “A” (Lot 132) is being approved as a condominium permit for residential
homeownership purposes. If any of the units in the project are rented, the
minimum time increment for such rental shall be not less than 26 days. A condition
so stating this shall be placed in the CC&R’s for the project; and (6) all structures
and roofs within the project area shall be earth tone in color to reduce visual
impacts, according to the color boards approved by the Planning Director.
The applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as
part of building permit application. These fees shall be based on the fee schedule
in effect at the time of building permit application.
Prior to the approval of any final map or the issuance of any permits within the
Zone 20 Specific Plan, the applicant for the final map or permit shah submit
evidence to the City that impacts to school facilities have been mitigated in
conformance with the City’s Growth Management Plan to the extent permitted by
applicable state law for legislative acts. Lf the mitigation involves a financing
scheme such as a Mello-Roos Commun.ity Facilities District which is inconsistent
with the Cit$s Growth Management Plan i.ncluciing City Council Policy Statement
No. 38, the developer shall submit disclosure documents for approval by the City
Manager and City Attorney which shall disclose to future owners in the project, to
the maximum extent Possible, the existence of the tax and that the school district
is the taxing agency responsible for the fmancing district. At a minimum the project
CC&R’s shall require maximum disclosure and signed statements for disclosures
upon transfer of residential property”.
Prior to the issuance of the building permit there shall be a Notice of Restriction
placed on the deed to this property subject to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of
Carlsbad has issued a Vesting Tentative Map, Planned Development Permit, Site
Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit by Resolutions No.‘s 3591,
3592, 3593, and 3594 on the real property owned by the declarant. Said Notice
of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or
restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. Said Notice of
Restriction may be modified or terminated only with the approval of the Planning
Director, Planning Commission or City Council of the City of Carlsbad whichever has
final decision authority for this project.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditions, shall be architecturally integrated
and concealed from view and 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.
PC RESO 3591 6
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
15
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
In Area “A” (Lot 132 & 133)
striped a different color th
clearly marked as may
individual units.
“D” (Lot 134), all visitor parking spaces shall be
e assigned resident parking spaces and shall be the Planning Director prior to occupancy of
The developer shall dis oning and Land Use Map in the sales office
at all times, or suitable alt ative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Trash receptacle areas (Lot 132 & 133) and “D” Lot 134) shall be
enclosed by a six foot wall with gates pursuant to City standards.
The enclosure shall be lors and/or materials to the project to the
satisfaction of the Plarmmg
For Area “A” (Lot 132 plan including
parking areas shall be submitt r to issuance of
building permits. All lightin and avoid any
impacts on adjacent homes
The applicant shall submit
approval prior to issuance 0
d fencing plan subject to Planning Director
Prior to issuance of a buil t the applicant shall submit detailed building
elevations and floor plans ational buildings in Area “A” (Lot 132) and
“D” (Lot 134) subject to app by the Planning Director.
Prior to approval of the final or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first, the applicant shall est h a process to notify, to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director and City mey, all owners, users and tenants of this project
that a community p
This project shall comply wi the requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP
203).
To s&ice this development the project shall provide bus stop facilities at locations
subject to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District. Said facilities shall
at a minhnum include a bench, free from advertising, and a pole for the bus stop
sign. The bench and pole shall be designed in a manner so as to not detract from
the basic architectural theme of the project and said design shall be subject to the
approval of the Planning Director and North County Transit District.
Prior to approval of the final map, the owner proposing a future community facility
development shall obtain Planning Director approval of a program to disclose the
potential community facility use to future owners of the surrounding properties.
PC RESO 3591
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31.
32.
33.
34.
Prior to approval of the final map an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of
Carlsbad, Open Space District or other similar entity designated by the City of
Carlsbad, for a perpetual easement for public trails over, upon and across Lot 132
as shown on the tentative map shah be made on the Enal map for trails that are
part of the Carlsbad Trail System, see Exhibit “A”, dated December 15, 1993.
If prior to recordation of final map, the City of Carlsbad adopts the financing
mechanism necess&y to implement the Carlsbad Trail System, the trails shown on
the tentative map shall be constructed prior to occupancy of the first unit (within
a phase), and shall be constructed by the developer, pursuant to the guidelines of
the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan, and dedicated to the
City of Carlsbad. If the City of Carlsbad accepts dedication of the trail easement,
the City shall assume responsibility, maintenance and liability for the trail(s).
If prior to recordation of final map, the City of Carlsbad does not adopt the
financing mechanism necessary to implement the Carlsbad Trail System., the
applicant will not be required to construct the proposed trails. Said trail easement
shall be maintained by the Homeowner Association as shall be stated in the CC&R’s
Prior to final map approval the 24 foot wide driveway in Area “D” (Lot 134) which
leads to the recreational vehicle storage area shall be widened to 30 feet to comply
with the requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance.
Prior to final map approval Building 12 in Area “A” (Lot 132) shall be setback 5 feet
from the private street leading to the unit.
Prior to approval of the f%na.l map for Area ‘73” and “c’ (single-family lots)’ the
applicant shah submit a Site Development Plan for Planning Director approval which
shall address: (1) provisions for a percentage of single-story homes along the ridge;
(2) building height; (3) distance between structures and building placement on the
lot; (4) distance from top of slopes; (5) slopes of roofs; and, (6) building materials
and colors.
Affordable Housing Conditions:
35. This project is approved, subject to the condition that the required income-restricted
units shah be constructed concurrent with the project’s market rate units, unless
both the final decision making authority of the City and the developer agree within
an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule for development.
36. The project shall construct 63 housing units affordable to persons and families of
lower income and comply with all the requirements of the Affordable Housing Plan
of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203). Six (6) of the 63 units shall have 3 or more
bedrooms.
PC EESO 3591 8
Pb
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
37. Prior to final map approval, an Affordable Housing Agreement shall be required to
be submitted by the applicant to the City, approved by the &nning Director and
Director of Housing and Redevelopment, and completed and recorded as a deed
restriction on those units of the project which are designated for the location of
low-income affordable units. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding
to all future owners and successors in interest. The Affordable Housing Agreement,
for which the inclusionary housing requirement will be satisfied through new
construction of inclusionary units on-site, shall establish, but not be limited to, the
following:
it:
The number of inclusiona.ty dwelling units proposed;
The unit size(s) (square footage) of the inclusionary units and
the number of bedrooms per inclusionary dwelling units;
:.
The proposed location of the inchrsionary units;
Tenure of affordability for inclusionary units (useful life of the
dwelling unit);
E-
Schedule for production of the dwelling units;
incentives and/or financial assistance provided by the City;
g- Where applicable, terms and conditions establishing rules and
procedures for qualifying tenants, setting rental rates, filling
vacancies, and operating and maintaining units for affordable
inclusionary dwelling units;
h. Standards modikations granted by the City.
Sign Conditions:
38. Prior to occupancy of any of residential units in Area “A” (Lot 132 & 133) and “D”
(Lot 134), the applicant shall construct a directory sign at the entrance to the
project. The design of this sign shall be approved by the Planning Director.
39. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of
identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color.
40. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in
conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval
of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs.
Landscape Conditions:
41. The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the approval of the
final map.
PC RESO 3591 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
51. Prior to final occupancy, a letter from a California licensed landscape architect shall
be submitted to the Planning Director certifying that all landscaping has been
installed as shown on the approved landscape plans.
52.
PC PESO 3591
All herbicides shall be applied by applicators licensed by the State of California.
10
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
All landscaping shall comply with the Landscape Requirements of the Zone 20
Specific Plan (SP 230).
Prior to approval of building permits, all manufactured off-site slopes created by this
project shah be landscaped to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, and shall
include at a minimum, landscaping to control erosion and to provide visual
screening of the slopes.
Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall establish a 10 foot landscape
easement along the project’s street frontage on Hidden Valley Road. These planting
easements shall be planted by the applicant per the landscape requirements of the
Zone 20 Specific Plan prior to occupancy of individual units.
All building pad and street areas that are graded and remain vacant or undeveloped
for a period of more than 6 months after the grading operation is completed shall
be seeded to reduce erosion and visual impacts. If grading is phased, the six month
time period shall start at the completion of each individual grading phase.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free
from weeds, trash and debris.
The developer shall install street trees at the equivalent of 40-foot intervals along
all public street frontages in conformance with City of Carlsbad standards. The
trees shall be of a variety selected from the approved Street Tree List.
All landscape plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Manual, and
submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning
Department.
Landscape plans shall be designed to minimize water use. Lawn and other zone 1
plants (see Landscape Manual) shall be limited to areas of special visual importance
or high use. Mulches shall be used and irrigation equipment and design shall
promote water conservation.
The developer shall avoid trees that have invasive root systems, produce excessive
litter and/or too large relative to the lot size.
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
53. The applicant shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. -
54. The first set of landscape and irrigation plans submitted shall include building plans,
improvement plans and grading plans.
55. All landscape and irrigation plans shall show existing and proposed contours and
shall match the grading plans in terms of scale and location of improvements.
56. The minimum shrub size shall be 5 gallons. One (1) gallon shrub sizes may be used
if it is deemed to be more beneficial for the long term survivability of the plants as
determined by the Planning Director.
57. The number of trees in the project shall be equal to or greater than the number of
residential units.
58. 20% of the trees in the project shall be 24” box or greater.
Environmental Mitiaation Conditions:
59.
60.
To offset the conversion of non-prime agricultural land to urban land uses per the
requirements of the Mello II Local Coastal Program, prior to final map approval, the
applicant shall execute an agreement to pay a $10,000.00 (per converted acre)
agricultural mitigation fee. The fee shall be paid prior to issuance of a building
pennit.
Compliance with APCD Rules 51 (The “Nuisance” Rule), 52 (Particulate Matter),
and 54 (Dust and Fumes) of the Air Quality Chapter would effectively mitigate dust
impacts generated during grading operations. A note shall be placed on the grading
permit stipulating that the following measures shall be required to achieve
compliance with these rules, and reduce construction-related air pollutants:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
The watering of all surfaces being graded and haul routes shall be
required during dry weather conditions.
All unpaved areas shall be revegetated according to approved
landscape plans as soon as possible after grading.
All construction-related traffic shall be restricted to routes that are
dust-controlled, and reduced speed limits shall be maintained for all
haul and construction vehicles.
All construction activities shall be limited during periods of high
winds.
All heavy-duty, diesel-powered construction equipment shall be
operated according to manufacturers suggested operating instruction
(with the fuel-injection timing retarded to recommended levels for
PC PESO 3591 11
)39
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
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
f.
g-
NO, emissions, but which would not result in excessive visible smoke
emissions) in order to control pollutant emissions.
Construction equipment shah be subject to regularly scheduled
maintenance/tune-ups, and be turned off when not being utilized to
avoid excessive idling emissions.
The application of architectural coating and cut-back asphalt shall
adhere to APCD Rules 67.0 and 67.7, to effectively control other
construction-related emissions of air pollutants.
h. The Engineering Department shah monitor for compliance during all
grading operations of the project.
The Homeowners Association and apartment project owner shall obtain and
distribute to owners and tenants annual information from Caltrans and North
County Transit regarding the availability of public transportation, ride-sharing, and
transportation pooling services in the area. This information shah also be provided
in the sales and rental offices of the project. A condition so stating this shall also
be placed in the CC&R’s for the project.
Prior to approval of a grading permit a detailed soils testing and analysis report
shah be prepared by registered soils engineer and submitted to the Planning
Department and County Health Department for review and approval. The report
shall identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate any potentially
signScant public health impacts if hazardous pesticides or other chemicals are
detected at high concentrations in the soil.
Prior to occupancy of individual units a solid wall or fence, and landscaped
windbreaks shah be installed along the perimeter of any future developable area
that abuts property under “open field” cultivation, in order to reduce public nuisance
effects of adjacent pesticide spraying and dust generation from farm vehicles and
operations.
Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of a building permit, which ever
occurs first, a minimum 25-foot wide open space easement shah be provided
between “open field” ag&ultural operations and the adjacent lot lines of future
developable areas onsite. This buffer area may be located on the adjacent
agricultural property.
Prior to approval of a final map or issuance of a building permit, which ever occurs
first, an infrastructure improvement plan shall be submitted to the Planning and
Fngineering Departments for review and approval by the Planning Director and City
Engineer. This plan shall illustrate the temporary road connections required to
maintain continued access to adjacent agricultural properties that could be impacted
by future roadway improvements.
PCRESO3591 12
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
67.
69.
70.
Drainage water from buildings, streets, parking lots, and landscaped areas within
the project shah be disposed of through stormdrains or otherwise in a manner that
will avoid any runoff onto agricultural areas whether planted or fallow. All runoff
agricultural and urban shall conform with the National Pollution Discharge and
Elimination System Permit requirements pursuant to San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Roar-d Order No. 9042, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 90-
235.
Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first, the applicant shah establish a process to notify, to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director and City Attorney, all owners, users and tenants of this project
that this area is subject to dust, pesticides, and odors associated with adjacent
agricultural operations, and that the owners, users, and tenants occupy this area at
their on risk.
Paleontology:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be
retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the
grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil
resources. A copy of the paleontologist’s report shall be provided to
the Phmning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit.
A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic
inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the
small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it
may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing
through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports
to the Planning Director during the grading process.
The paleontologist shah be allowed to divert or direct grading in the
area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if
necessary, salvage artifacts.
All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution
with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego
Natural History Museum.
Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading
activities of the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director.
Prior to issuance of a building permit the project shall comply with the City of
Carlsbad’s standards for solid waste management.
All grading shall comply with the recommendations of Pacific Soils Engineering, ~nc.
Prehmmary Geotechnical Investigation dated February 6,1989 and any subsequent
amendments, and on file in the Planning Department.
PC RFSO 3591 13
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
To reduce the visual impacts of the project, a percentage of single-family homes
along the north/south trending and gently sloping ridgeline shah be one-story in
height and have varying roof lines. Prior to approval of the final map the applicant
shall establish a mechanism to guarantee that a percentage of the homes in Area “B”
are constructed as one-story, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
All structures and roofs within the project shall be earth tone in color. Prior to
issuance of the first building permit the applicant shall submit to the Planning
Department a sample color board depicting the proposed earth tones subject to the
approval of the Planning Director.
To reduce the visual impacts of manufactured slopes and roadway cuts, all cut and
fill slopes shall be landform-graded, contoured, and heavily screened by landscaping
in conformance with Specific Plan 203. All planted slopes shall be watered with a
complete irrigation system using low precipitation-rate sprinkler heads to stabilize
exposed slopes and curtail visual impacts associated with possible erosion.
Prior to approval of a final map, improvement plans shah be submitted to the
Engineering Department showing locations and sizing of reclaimed and or urban
runoff diversion facilities, in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Water District
requirements and the phasing schedule provided in the Zone 20 LFMP. Reclaimed
water facilities shall be constructed in all major roadways within the project.
Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall be required: (1) to consult with U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regarding the impact of the project on the Coastal
California Gnatcatcher; and, (2) be issued any permits required by the FWS..
Engineerinn Conditions:
76. Direct access rights for all lots abutting Hidden Valley Road, Cherry Blossom Road
west of Alga Road and Alga Road shall be waived on the final map.
77. This project is located within the Mello II Local Coastal Plan. All development
design shah comply with the requirements of that plan.
78. Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is
authorized by virtue of approval of this tentative map.
79. The applicant shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements
of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project.
80. The applicant shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.&E., Pacific Bell
Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
PC RESO 3591 14
P-b
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
The applicant shall provide an acceptable means for maintaining the private
easements within the subdivision and all the private: streets, sidewalks, street lights,
storm drain facilities and sewer facilities located therein and to distribute the costs
of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties
within the subdivision. Adequate provision for such maintenance shall be included
with the CC&R’s subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to final map
approval.
A note to the effect of the following shall be placed on a separate sheet of the final
map. All improvements are private and are to be privately maintained with the
exception of the following:
a. Hidden Valley Road, Cheny Blossom Road, Alga Road and Camino de las
ondas.
b. The sewer and water improvements beneath the private internal streets.
A note shall be placed on the improvement plans stating which utilities are public
and which are private.
Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the
date of City Council approval unless a final map is recorded. An extension may be
requested by the applicant. Said extension shall be approved or denied at the
discretion of the City Council. In approving an extension, the City Council may
impose new conditions and may revise existing conditions pursuant to Section
20.12.110(a)(2) Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents,
officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its
agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the
City, the Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the
City within the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision
Map Act.
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.
The applicant shall pay the current local drainage area fee prior to approval of the
final map for this project or shall construct drainage systems in conformance with
Master Drainage Plan and City of Carlsbad Standards as required by the City
Engineer.
Prior to final map approval the applicant shall pay all current fees and deposits
required.
PC RESO 3591 15
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
S
1c
11
li
1:
14
15
1E
17
1E
15
,
,
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
Prior to approval of the final map, the owner shall enter into an agreement with the /
City to pay any drainage area fees established as a result of the Master Drainage 1
Plan Update.
The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City
harmless regarding drainage across the adjacent property prior to approval of the
final map for this project.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on
the tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required, Prior to final map
approval, the applicant must submit and receive approval for grading plans in
accordance with City Codes and standards.
Upon completion of grading, the applicant shall ensure that an “as-graded” geologic
plan is submitted to the City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology
as exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually
constructed and must be based on a contour map which represents both the pre and
post site grading. This plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the
engineering geologist. The plan shall be prepared on a 24” x 36" mylar or similar
drafting film and shall become a permanent record.
No grading shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision unless a grading or slope
easement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties. If the applicant
is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, no grading permit will be issued.
In that case the applicant must either amend the tentative map or change the slope
so grading will not occur outside the project site in a manner which substantially
conforms to the approved tentative map as determined by the City Engineer and
Planning Director.
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.
The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this
project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided
in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer. Reference
Chapter 11.06.
The applicant shall construct desiltation/detention/urban pollutant basin(s) of a
type and a size and at location(s) as approved by the City Engineer. The applicant
shall enter into a basin maintenance agreement and submit a maintenance bond
satisfactory to the City Engineer prior to the approval of grading, building permit
16
- -
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
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
or final map whichever occurs first for this project. Each basin shall be serviced by
an all-weather access/maintenance road.
Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be
provided for prior to the issuance of grading or building permit as may be required
by the City Engineer.
The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and
easements required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map. The offer
shall be made by a certificate on the final map for this project. All land so offered
shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without
cost to the City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated.
Some improvements shown on the tentative map and/or required by these
conditions are located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has
sufficient title or interest to permit the improvements to be made without
acquisition of title or interest. The applicant shall conform to Section 20.16.095 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This conditional approval is null and void if title to said property is not obtained, unless the City Engineer and Planning Director make
findings of substantial conformance without construction of said improvements.
Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner shall
give written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of
the site plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping
District No. 1 on a form provided by the City.
The drainage system shall be designed to ensure that runoff resulting from lo-year
frequency storms of 6 hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are
equal to or less than the runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration
under existing developed conditions. Both 6 hour and 24 hour storm durations shall
be analyzed to determine the detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the
desired results prior to final map approval, issuance of building or grading permits
whichever occurs first.
The applicant shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best
management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to
discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the
City Engineer prior to approval of the final map, issuance of grading or building
permit, whichever occurs first.
This project is specifically approved as four (4) units for the purposes of recording.
PC RESO 3591 17
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
103. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall
be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to approval of final map
in accordance with City Standards, the applicant shall install, or agree to install and
secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the
tentative map and the following improvements:
With the First Final Map
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
. . .
Alga Road onsite and offsite to Camino de Las Ondas shall be improved to
fdl major arterial standards, including all necessary drainage and subsurface
Utilities.
Alga Road offsite from Camino de las Ondas to Poinsettia Lane shall be fully
graded to major arterial standards. Full landscaped- median, two 14 foot
wide traffic lanes on either side of the median, all necessary drainage
facilities and any subsurface utility lines that may be required are to be
improved.
Cherry Blossom Road shall be constructed to full collector street standards
from Alga Road to Hidden Valley Road including all drainage sewer and
utility improvements.
Hidden Valley Road offsite from cherry Blossom Road to Palomar Airport
Road shall be constructed with a 28 foot wide paved roadway with suflicient
drainage control facilities as may be required by the City Engineer, including
environmental mitigation improvements and sew&, water, and utilities that
would be located underneath the 28 foot wide roadway.
Modification to the median island on Palomar Airport Road at the
intersection with Hidden Valley Road to provide appropriate left turn pockets
onto Hidden Valley Road.
Fully actuated traffic signals at Hidden Valley Road/Palomar Airport Road,
Alga Road/Poinsettia Lane and Alga Road/Cherry Blossom Road. Actual
construction of the above noted signals shall be at the direction of the City
Engineer when traffic signal wan-ants are met. The developer is eligible for
reimbursement for the installation of the traf5c signals at Hidden Valley
Road/Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and Alga Road/Poinsettia Lane from
Public Facilities Fees collected by the City. The cost of the median island
modifications on PAR to provide left turn pockets is not eligible for
reimbursement.
PC RESO 3591 18
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
104.
Area A
A. Full improvement of Cherry Blossom Road east of Alga Road including all
improvements on and offsite necessary to complete the temporary cul-de-sac
and handle the drainage needs.
B. Full improvement of Camino de las Ondas on and offsite from Alga Road east
to the temporary culde-sac to local street standards including all necessary
drainage and utility improvements.
C. Full improvement of the temporary sewer pump station and force main.
D. All onsite and offsite sewer, water and utility improvement necessary to serve
Areak
Area B
A. All onsite sewer, water and utility improvement necessary to serve Area B.
AreaC
k All onsite sewer, water and utility improvements necessary to serve Area C.
B. Public access trail from Antherium Drive to Hidden Valley Road.
Area D
A. Hidden Valley Road adjacent to Area D to one half of super collector street
standards including all necessary drainage improvements and all utility
improvements required beneath the pavement section.
B. All onsite sewer, water and utility improvements necessary to serve Area D.
C. ‘Public access trail from Antherium Drive to Hidden Valley Road.
A note to this effect shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final map per
the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed
above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured
improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
The developer shall install street lights along all public and private street frontages
in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards.
PC PESO 3591 19
147
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
‘I/
!j
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
The design of all private streets and drainage systems shall be approved by the City
Engineer prior to approval of the final map for this project. The structural section
of all private streets shall conform to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value
tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the City, and
the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees shall be paid prior to
approval of the final map for this project.
Prior to issuance of the 51s building permit within Area C a secondary access road
shall be constructed consistent with City Standards.
The 20 foot public access easement shown along the southern boundary of Area D
shall be increased to 30 feet if the developer and the City are unable to secure an
additional 10 foot access easement from the adjacent property owner to the south
or if no walls or fencing are placed within the stated 30 foot pedestrian area a 20
foot wide pedestrian easement shall be sufficient subject to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer prior to final map recordation.
The internal lot drainage shown for Area A shall be redesigned to accommodate the
proposed surface and recreational improvements, subject to the approval of the City
Engineer.
The units within Area D are proposed to be recorded within a single final map.
Should the developer wish to record these units on multiple final maps, the phasing
for construction of the internal improvements, for such multiple maps must be
approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
Prior to final map approval, the subdivider shall secure the dedication of all the
offsite easements necessary to construct the offsite sewer, water, drainage, slope and
roadway improvements required by these conditions.
The alignment of Hidden Valley Road shown on Sheet 2 of the tentative map is
specifically not approved. Prior to submittal of the final map the subdivider shall
realign Hidden Valley Road approximately 10 feet to the east between Stations 58
and 70 to provide additional room for the riparian mitigation on the west side of
Hidden Valley Road.
Hidden Valley Road shall be dedicated to the City from the subdivision boundary to
Palomar Airport Road, based upon a right-of-way width of 68 feet including all
necessary slope and drainage easements.
Alga Road shall be dedicated to the City from the subdivision boundary to Poinsettia
Lane based on a right-of-way width of 102 feet including all necessary slope and
drainage easements.
PC RESO 3591 20
- --
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
114. Camino de las Ondas shall be dedicated to the City from Alga Road to the end of
the temporary cul-de-sac as shown on the tentative map.
Carlsbad Municipal Water District Conditions:
115. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands are
met.
116. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected at time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego County Water
Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for meter
installation.
117. Sequentially, the Developers Engineer shall do the following:
a. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection
requirements.
b. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning
Department or processing and approval.
C. Schedule a meeting with the District Engineer for review, comment and
approval of the preliminary system layout usage (G.P.M. - E.D.U.) plan for
potable, reclaimed and sewer systems prior to the preparation of
improvement plans.
118. This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving
the development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are
available at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will
continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note ,shall be placed on the
final map.
119. Developer shall be responsible for the following systems/lines:
k Potable Svstems:
1.
2.
3.
Install 12” line in Hidden Valley Road from south property line to
north property line. Developer shall be eligible for reimbursement if
oversizing of line occurs. (375 H-G.)
Install 12” line (375 H-G.) in Woodruff Road and Coneflower Drive.
Lnstall 12” line (550 H-G.) in Wti Road, Coneflower Drive,
Cherry Blossom Road and Narcissus Drive.
PC RESO 3591 21
144
- -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l(
19
2c
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
28
4.
5.
6.
Install 18” line (375 H-G.) in Alga Road. Developer shall be eligible
for reimbursement.
Install 12" line (550 H-G.) in Alga Road from south to north property
lines.
The District has an existing 6” waterline (potable) along the southerly
property line. Developer shall relocate at his expense.
B) Reclaimed Svstems:
1. InstaJl12” line in Alga Road from north to south property lines.
2. Install lines to adequately serve area “A” and arka “D”.
3. hstall system to service all open space and slopes as determined by
District.
Cl Sewer Systems:
1. Pursuant to local facilities management plan Zone 20, install 8” local
trunk line in Hidden Valley Road from southerly property line to San
Marcos Interceptor line (gravity).
2. Install 12" trunk line (VBT2 per Zone 20) in Laurel Tree Drive (or
Alga Road).
Any temporary sewer service alternates must be approved by the District
Engineer.
Fire Conditions:
120. Additional on-site public water mains and fn-e hydrants are required.
121. Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts
location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydrants.
The plan should include off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
122. Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways and
traffic circulation for Fire Department approval.
123. An all weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles
shall be provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the
Fire Chief, the access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or
other reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety, require that construction
operations cease until the condition is corrected.
124. All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational
before combustible building materials are located on the construction site.
PC PESO 3591 22
Ifl
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
125. All security gage systems controlling vehicular access shall be equipped with
“Knox”, key-operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall contact the Fire
Prevention Bureau for specifications and approvals prior to installation.
126. Plans and/or specifications for fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, automatic fire sprinkler systems and other fire protection systems shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval prior to construction.
127. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in buildings having
an aggregate floor area exceeding 10,000 square feet.
128. The applicant shall provide a street map which conforms to the following
requirements: A 400 scale photo-reduction mylar, depicting proposed improvements
and at least two existing intersections or streets. The map shall also clearly depict
street centerlines, hydrant locations and street names.
129. A monument sign shall be installed at the entrance to the driveway or private street
indicating the addresses of the buildings on site.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City .of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of December, 1993,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz,
Welshons, Savary & Hall.
NOES: Commissioner Erwin.
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
None.
None. k*-%!k
BAILEY NOB , Chairtjerson-
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSIOr\i
AT-I-EST:
MICHAEL J. MLZ~~LLER
PLANNING DtRECTOR
PC RESO 3591 23
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. 3592
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEVELOP 129 SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS, 76 TOWNHOMES, 72 CONDOMINIUM UNITS, 72
APARTMENT UNITS, AND-TWO FUTURE COMMUNITY FACILITY
SITES, ALL ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF PASEO
DEL NORTE, NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS, AND SOUTH OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
PLAN ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: SAMBI
CASE NO: PUD 92-03
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
The South Half of the Southeast Quarter and the South 60
acres of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 21,
Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to United States Government Survey, approved October 25,
1875, according to the Official Plat thereof.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15 th day of December, 1993
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the Planned Development Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
. . . .
-
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
Bl That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of PUD 92-03, based on the following findings and subject
to the following conditions:
Findinns:
1. The project is consistent with the Zone 20 Specific Plan since the RM designation
allows the development of low density apartment, condominium, or townhome
developments that range in density from 4 to 8 dus/acre with a 6 dus/acre growth
management control point. The RLM designation allows single-family homes that
range in density from 0 to 4 dwelling units per acre with a 3.2 dus/acre growth
control point. The net density in the RLM portion of the project is 9.18 dwelling
units per acre and the net density in the RM portion is 4.4 dwelling units per acre.
The project contains a combination of an overall net density of 5.8 dus/acre,
therefore, the project, exclusive of the density bonus request, is consistent with the
growth management dwelling unit allowance for the parcel.
2. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this
project, ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the
District Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot
occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning
Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the
General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
3. The project is in compliance with the adopted mitigation measures of Final
Environmental Impact Report 90-03 and would not create any additional significant
adverse environmental impacts.
4. The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or
new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure
continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts
created by the project.
5. This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has
been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20.
6. School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad
Unified School District.
PC RESO NO 3592 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
To ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad Unified School District
the applicant will submit evidence to the City that impacts to school facilities will
be mitigated in conformance with the City’s Growth Management Plan to the extent
permitted by applicable state law for legislative acts.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as
conditions of approval.
The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the general plan.
The project complies with all requirements of Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code.
The granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with
Chapter 21.45, the Zone 20 Specific Plan, and all adopted plans of the City and
other govemmental agencies.
The proposed use is necessary and desirable to provide a Service or facility which
will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the neighborhood and the
community, because the development of two community facility sites, single-family
lots, condominiums, townhomes, and apartments would provide a balance and mix
of land uses within the Zone 20 Specific Plan. A majority of the residential
development planned for the specific plan area would be standard single-family homes on 7,500 to 10,000 square foot lots. The development of higher density
multi-family units in close proximity to natural open space, Poinsettia Community
Park, and future Alga Road, in addition to the provision of apartment units
affordable to lower income household would create a more diversified and balanced
community.
Such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity, because the project is designed to preserve the coastal sage scrub habitat
located along the eastern portion of Area “A”. This open space would connect with
the larger open space located in the central canyon. Drainage facilities would be
provided concurrent with development of the project to reduce erosion and flooding.
All manufactured slopes would be landscaped to prevent erosion and to visually
screen the slopes.
The proposed planned development meets all of the minimum development
standards set forth in Section 21.45090, the design criteria set forth in Section
21.45.080, and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the
PC RESO NO 3592 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15.
16.
17.
_- .-
Design Guidelines Manual for the following reasons:
a.
b.
C.
d.
The local streets in the single-family portion of the project would have curb,
gutter, and sidewalks on both sides, and have 36 to 40 feet of paving. This
exceeds the 30 foot minimum private street width standard.
The project would provide a mixture of one and two-story homes, and the
multi-family buildings would have varied roof lines, and a variety of front
building elevations and front yard setbacks.
Adequate recreational vehicle storage space would be provided within the
individual projects and be sufficiently screened from the public right-of-way
and surrounding properties.
The single-family homes would have, at a minimum two car garages which
would meet the parking and storage requirements of the ordinance, and
guest parking would be provided on both sides of the streets. The
condominiums and townhomes all have two covered parking spaces,
including garages and carports for residents, and guest parking is dispersed
along the internal driveways.
The proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural
topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on
the site, because the project meets all the requirements of the Hillside Development
Regulations and Guidelines, except the 30 foot slope height standard as permitted
per the Site Development Plan. The manufactured slopes would be landscaped, and
the single-family lots would terrace down the slope towards the west to conform
with the topography. The homes have roof lines that are varied and relate to the
topography. In addition, the northeastern comer of the site would be preserved
protect the coastal sage habitat and to provide open space in the central canyon.
The project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with
the project and does not dominate the project the local streets in the project
The proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site
compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious
disruptive element to the neighborhood.
General Planninn Conditions:
1. Recommendation of approval is g-ranted for PUD 92-03, as shown on Exhibits “A”
‘WY’, dated December 15, 1993 incorporated by reference and on file in the
Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless
otherwise noted in these conditions.
PC RESO NO 3592 4
;45’
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
26
2. Approval of PUD 92-03 is granted subject to the approval of CT 92-02, SDP 92-06,
HDP 92-03, and the Conditional Negative Declaration.
3. All conditions of approval for the CT 92-02 as contained in Planning Resolution No.
3591 are applicable and incorporated through this reference.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of December, 1993,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Welshons,
Savary & Hall.
NOES: Commissioner Erwin.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
BAILEY NOBLE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H&ZMItiER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO 3592
,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 COMMtSSION RESOLUTION NO. 3593
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DEVELOP 129 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, 76
TOWNHOMES, 72 CONDOMINIUM UNITS, 72 APARTMENT UNITS,
AND TWO FUTURE COMMUNITY FACILITY SITES, ALL ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE,
NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS, SOUTH OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE
20.
CASE NAME: SAMBI
CASE NO: SDP 92-06
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and
referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on the 15th day of December, 1993, consider said request on property
described as:
The South Half of the Southeast Quarter and the South 60 acres of
the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 21, Township 12
South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to United States Government
Survey, approved October 25, 1875, according to the Official Plat
thereof.
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 92-66.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
- -
I
2
:
4
c c
E
7
E
s
1c
11
1E
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of SDP 92-06, based on the following findings and
subject to the following conditions:
Findinns:
1. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this
project, ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the
District Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot
occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning
Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the
General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
2. The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed, to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure
continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts
created by the project.
3. This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has
been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20.
4. School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad
Unified District.
5. To ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad Unified School District
the applicant will submit evidence to the City that impacts to school facilities will
be mitigated in conformance with the City’s Growth Management Plan to the extent permitted by applicable state law for legislative acts.
6.
7.
Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as
conditions of approval.
8. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
PC RESO NO 3593 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
9.
10.
11.
12.
The project provides affordable housing units that will be available to low income
households and the modification to the Hillside Standard for slope height would not
have a detrimental effect on public health, safety or welfare because the creation of
a 43 foot high manufactured fill slope that exceeds the 30 foot standard does not
pose a health and safety problem if the recommendations of the projects’s
geotechnical report are adhered to. The slope height standard of 30 feet is an
aesthetic regulation intended to mhimize visual impacts created by large
manufactured slopes. The overheight slope would be contour graded and
adequately landscaped to provide for visual screening, thus, offsetting any visual
impacts created by the additional 12 feet of slope height.
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 because the project is
consistent with the General Plan and Zone 20 Spetic Plan. The project would not
have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed residential land uses
are compatible in scale, architecture, and building materials with the multi-family
residential development to the south the future community park to the west. Public
street improvements would be provided to accommodate traffic generated by the
project and the project must comply with all the circulation and public facility
requirements of Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
use because the project complies with all City ordinances and polices except for the
Hillside Ordinance’s slope height standard as explained in Section C(2) of this
report, therefore, the parcel is adequate in size, shape and slope to accommodate
the proposed land uses.
That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features
necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the
neighborhood will be provided and maintained because the project would be
conditioned to provide a solid wall or fence, and landscaped windbreaks along the
perimeter of any future developable area that abuts property under “open field”
cultivation, in order to reduce public nuisance effects of adjacent pesticide spraying
and dust generation from farm operations and for the following reasons:
Area “B” and “c’ - Single-family Residential:
a. Standard R-l Zone iiont, side and rear setbacks would be provided for each
home, and all homes would have at least a two-car garages to satisfy off-
street parking requirements.
PCRESO NO 3593 3
II
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
b. The front yards of all the lots would be landscaped with a minimum of
street trees of varying sizes, and the 50 foot setback along Alga Road would
be landfoxm graded and heavily landscaped.
Area “A” and “D” - Multi-Family Residential And Community Facility Site:
a. The bulk and scale of the proposed two-story condominiums, townhouses,
and apartment buildings would be compatible with the existing and
surrounding residential development to the south. The proposed multi-family
townhomes would provide an appropriate transition between the proposed
single-family land use to the east and the future community park land use to
the west.
b. The design of the project would assure a unique mix of residential
development, and enhance the aesthetic quality of the area as follows:
i. The street setbacks would be landscaped with a combination of trees and shrubs to partially screen the residential structures from the
public streets.
ii. The building elevations would have textured stucco exteriors and tile
and metal roofs, varied roof hues, architectural accent features and
building forms, and varied building facades.
. . . lu. The dwelling units would be orientated at various angles along the
driveways to provide an enclosure of space between the buildings and
to provide more visual interest when the project is viewed from the
public streets.
12. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all
traffic generated by the proposed use for the following reasons:
All the local, collector, and major streets, both within and offsite of this project
would be constructed to City standards, have underground utilities, and contain
public sidewalks. A pedestrian access is provided between Lots 47 and 48 in Area
“c’ to allow access to future Hidden Valley Road and Poinsettia Community Park.
Area “B” and “CT - Single-Family Residential:
a.
PC RESO NO3593 4
Area “A” and “D” - Multi-Family Residential And Community Facility Site:
The project would provide adequate onsite parking (498 parking spaces) and
circulation to serve the needs of the residents and their guests, and it would
not impact the availability of offsite street parking.
- -
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
b.
C.
d.
e.
Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
. . . .
. ..a
. . . .
Sidewalks and drainage facilities would be provided along the project’s street
frontages to serve the project.
The proposed 30 to 45 foot wide central private driveways would be
adequate to provide safe and efficient traffic circulation, vehicle tum
movements, and emergency access.
An intemal pedestrian circulation system that is separated hm the
driveways within the multi-family projects would be provided and allow
sufficient and safe access’to the recreation facility and adjacent public streets.
Adequate access for emergency vehicles is provided by the central 30 to 45
foot wide private driveways that service the multi-family projects. The 30
to 45 foot wide driveways are also wide enough to accommodate emergency
vehicles, and the project would be conditioned to prohibit parallel parking
along the 30 foot wide driveways. The project has been reviewed and
approved by the Fire Department.
All conditions of approval for CT 92-02 as contained in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3591 are applicable to this approval and incorporated through this
reference.
Approval for SDP 92-06, as shown on ‘Exhibits “A” - “YYY”, dated December 15,
1993, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any
proposed grading and/or development substantially different from this approval as
determined by the Planning Director, shall require an amendment to this permit.
Approval of SDP 92-06 is subject to approval of CT 92-02, PUD 92-03, and HDP 92-
03.
The approval for the apartment portion of the Site Development Plan shall become
null and void if building permits are not issued for this portion of the project within
one year from the date of final map recordation creating Lot 133, unless otherwise
stated in an approved affordable housing agreement for the site.
PC RESO NO 3593
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 j I
20 /
21'
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- -
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of December, 1993,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz,
Welshons, Savary & Hall.
NOES: Commissioner Erwin.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H\dLZMILtiR
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO 3593
BAILEY NOBLfl, Chairperson
CARLSBAD 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3594
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
DEVELOP 129 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, 76 TOWNHOMES, 72
CONDOMINIUM UNITS, 72 APARTMENT UNITS, AND TWO
FUTURE COMMUNITY FACILITY SITES, ALL ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE, NORTH
OF CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS, SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: SAMBI
CASE NO: HDP 92-03
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and
referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on the 15th day of December, 1993, consider said request on property --
described as:
The South Half of the Southeast Quarter and the South 60 acres of
the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 21, Township 12
South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to United States Government
Survey, approved October 25, 1875, according to the Official Plat
thereof.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to HDP 92-03.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
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
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of HDP 92-03, based on the following findings and subject
to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
. . . .
That hillside conditions and undevelopable areas of the project have been properly
identified because the site’s hillside slope conditions and undevelopable areas have
been identified on a slope constraints exhibit.
That the development proposal and all applicable development approvals and
permits are consistent with the purpose, intent, and requirements of this chapter
and that the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts
illustrated in the billside development guidelines manual for the following reasons:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
All manufactured cut and fill slopes are land.form/contour graded and do not
exceed a height of 30 feet, except for the 43 foot high slope along the
eastern portion of the apartment development in Area “A” per the Site
Development Plan.
The project’s cut/fill grading volumes of 8,652 cubic yards per graded acre
falls within the “potentially acceptable range” of 8,000 - 10,000 cubic
yards/acre. Included in these volumes is 86,000 cubic yards of grading for
Alga Road which is a circulation element roadway. When grading for Alga
Road is subtracted out of the grading calculations, the project’s grading
volumes are reduced to 7,773 cubic yards per graded acre and are witbin the
“acceptable range”.
Landscaping in conformance with the Zone 20 Specific Plan and the City’s
Landscape Manual would be provided on all manufactured slopes to assist in
visually screening the slopes and to reduce erosion.
All structures and roofs witbin the project would be earth tone in color to
reduce visual impacts.
A percentage of the homes along the north/south trending and gently sloping
ridgeline would be one-story in height and all homes would have varying
roof lines.
The multi-family residential buildings are setback from the top of
manufactured slopes from a range of 15 to 60 feet, along the eastern portion
of Area “A”.
PC RESO NO. 3594 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
3. That no development or grading will occur in those portions of the property which
are undevelopable pursuant to the provisions of Section 2153.230 of this code
because all undevelopable areas have been identified and except for Alga Road no
development or grading would occur in the areas containing 40%+ slopes. Grading
of 40% slopes would be necessary to construct portions of Alga Road. Areas where
circulation element roadways must be placed and no feasible alternatives consistent
with this chapter are available may be excluded from the requirements of the
Hillside Development Regulations by the decision making body based on Section
21.95.090(b)(2) of the ordinance. The alignment of Alga Road in this area was
established with the approval of the tentative map for Cobblestone Sea Village (CT
84-32). Analysis of alternatives for Alga Road indicated that due to constraints
from the SDG&E powerline easement that traverses-through the main canyon there
is no feasible alternative consistent with the Hillside Development Regulations,
therefore, the Planning Commission excludes grading for Alga Road from the 40%
slope standard.
4. That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands
because the proposed grading would create single-family building pads that are
terraced for views and step down the slope. A majority of the local streets and
manufacNed slopes are curving and are aligned to follow the north/south trending
contours. The street alignments and curving landform graded slopes would reduce
visual impacts created by the grading and help simulate the natural slope conditions.
5. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this
project, ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the
District Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot
occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning
Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the
General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
6. The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or
new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure
continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts
created by the project.
7. This projecr is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has
been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20.
PC RESO NO. 3594 3
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8.
9.
10.
11.
School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad
Unified District.
Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as
conditions of approval.
The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the general plan.
Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.a..
.a..
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
All conditions of approval for CT 92-02 as contained in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3591 are applicable to this approval and incorporated through this
reference.
Approval for HDP 92-03, as shown on Exhibits “A” - ‘YW’, dated December 15,
1993, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any
proposed grading and/or development substantially different from this approval as
determined by the Planning Director, shall require an amendment to this permit.
Approval of HDP 92-03 is subject to approval of m 92-02, PUD 92-03, and SDP 92-
06, and the Conditional Negative Declaration.
PC RESO NO. 3594 4
1
2
3
4
* Y
6
7
E
S
1c
11
li
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of December, 1993,
by the following vote, to wit:
-
I
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz,
Welshons, Savary & Hall.
NOES: Commissioner Erwin.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
& BAILEY NOBL%, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMItiLER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 3594
SITE%
hty of hlsbad 0
SAMBI CT 92=02/PUD 92003/ SDP 92-06/HDP 92-03
- BACKGROUND DATA SHEET -
CASE NO: CT 92-02/PUD 9L-03/SDP 92-06/HDP 92-03
CASE NAME: SAMBI
APPLICANT: TOYOHARA AMERICA
REQUEST AND LOCATION: 129 Single-Family Lots, 76 Townhouse Units, 72 Condominium Units, 72
Apartment Units, 81 2 Communitv Facilitv Lots
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The South Half of the Southeast Ouarter and the south 60 acres of the north
half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bemadino Base and
Meridian, Count-v of San Diego, State of California, according to United States Government Survev,
apuroved October 2.5, 1875, according to the Official Plat thereof.
APN: 214-140-07 Acres 68.56 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 204 Lots & 144 Units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation Residential Medium & Residential Medium Low
Density Allowed 3.2 & 6 Dus/Acre Density Proposed 5.8
Existing Zone RD-M-Q & R-1-10,000-0 Proposed Zone N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site RD-M-Q & R-1-10.000-Q Vacant
North RD-M-Q & R-1-10.000-Q Vacant
South RD-M-Q & R-1-10.000-Q Vacant
East LC Vacant
West PC Agriculture
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 353 EDU
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Februarv 12. 1992
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued August 5, 1993 X
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, JG :Ih
-
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
t
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: SAMBI - CT 92-OZ/PUD 92-03/SDP 92-06/HDP 92-03
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE:= GENERAL PLAN: RM/RLM ZONING: RD-M-O/R-1-10.000-Q
DEVELOPER’S NAME: TOYOHARA AMERICA INC.
ADDRESS: 8641 Firestone Boulevard - Downev. CA 90241
PHONE NO: (213) 861-3808 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO: 214-140-07
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 68.56 Acres
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: N/A
A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 1.213.4 sq. ft.
B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = 647.1 so. ft.
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) N/A
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = 2.42
E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A
Identify Drainage Basin = N/A
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
F. Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 3.650
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = No 4 A
H. Open Space: Acreage Provided - 9.03
I. Schools: N/A
(Demands to be determined by staff)
J. Sewer: Demand in EDUs - 353
Identify Sub Basin - N/A
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: Demand in GPD - 77,660
L. The project is 36.83 units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.J”“” iy”
XSCLOSL’RE ST.\TEMENT
APD~;CAM'S STATEUEh;T SF =‘SCL’C)SURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS ‘WHICH ~~IIJ. ZE3uiFf :tSCRE;IONARY ACTICN CN :kE 2An OF THE Cm CCUNCL OR ANY APPOINTED BCARD. COMMISSION CR CChlt.dTr;EE
!Please Print)
The following information must be disclosed:
2.
Amlicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. TOYOSARA AMERICA. Inc C/O nnrra1.J A AGA’PDP (DBA) Sunbelt Plannix Co. 2054 Roosevelt St Ltl
8641 Firestone Blvd 1;. Carlsbad, CA 929O8 Doxney, CA 90241 ,
Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
85-11 Firestone Slird Downey. CA 30241
3.
4.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names ant addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnersnic
interest in the partnership. Seizo 3. TOYOH~RA;&aimnofti&&rd Kazuyuki KAWAKITA; Director, President
10355 Brookshire Ave 11432 Hanover Ct., Cerritos. Ca. 90701 Doxney, CA ?rJ241
Sayoko AOYAGI; Treasurer
Kinko K. TOVOIIARA; Director, Secretary 16510 Stonehaven Ct. Sane as above La Mirada, Ca. 90638
If any person identiiled pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust. list the names ant
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficlarj
cf the trust.
FRMm13 8/90 171
2075 Las Palmas Drwe - Carlsbad. California 920094859 - (819) 438-l 161
Disclosure Statement
(Over)
Page 2
5. Have you had more than S250 woR3 of business transacted with any member of City sta?f 3::::;
Commlsslons, bmmittees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - NoX& If yes. please indicate perscn(s)
tocower. rynd~cato. the and any otnor county, cy an0 county, cy munwpally. 0bstrtCI or other pohlicd WbOrwwOn. 0, any otbr ;~roup 9
combmat~on l ctmg u l una’
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
IiIROMICHI TOYOHARA ‘TTR(J fl F T,TFIT VJ WARP
Print or rype name of owner Print or type name of applicant
FRMooo13 8no
tn(g
-__--- __---
gj
I Lo/-- __---
E: i, C \
__--
\
--
- ,- , ‘\ , I 1 I : I- ,- c ‘( i :%A, B ;jj I?,. i
I
1% I s l---- ,
s :s zl .r”, / t
---
/ I t--- t I
\ --_
‘:
!
-- _~ -_.----.
-... -,,,,, - ^ -,-I ..*a ..” -.“., -- :., -. -;*~v<i- . .-:.--
*.-,. s-m-...- l m -ma l en ‘i 1 VI .~MI ‘-8~ mm*. tow . I
s1IvI)ossv v aJwNl OIMIY ‘“I- r-a
Ii
a-,uII-t--l-c*~
. ~ ‘YYIAI ‘” .- 1, ,. < .’
i
:-.. .--.. / /
.--.-
Ii
:“l&si~i zv
7 1
‘t
$ 7
j 3~
,-s"
-s
2
w .a
-= f4
1s
c 1 ! f :: L & : rl . \&
u-‘. 4 I: ._. \ -. _ ‘L. ’
3
,a ‘:
: ‘5’ L
d;
4 .- VI I
‘;I 8!
2
; fri ’ I Ii i, +-j L - c ‘; 3
ii 0.
I
/
g a’ z
4 w;
2: El I&;
,E ‘Z P Y W
j
x
c”
x
2
/i
/ J--+ ?-- - -.~~i, .
L ‘i ii! ;
I: L- gig It
I - c? , I
1 u +,“a :.; ..>.....
1.--- - i:rr’---- ,--r-z 1
ii
1 1
,I, 2 77 .-
t; :
a
'I: s: 2.
:I- -n l ?- f i i s’ E; i ..- I-- I i I
E l --’ s -: i?k i
L
8 .- I
1 w
3
.@.
i -1 .-.* I / .-;-
.
CS
21
@I .ss 3
.g f
J&Q ?
‘=; . li “0 c
.z iid
Q
1
J 1
-. P-P - , .-1- I
5 E
s’ E; u CI
8: ‘U : _-
&-
:B s 5 z ‘4 .-
.;
: c
!i !i f : ‘.‘ B :: I
~---ii---.-.
I t - w B .- z E
p :o
‘C
2
.t;
::
6 .1 :.z
.3
P .= 5
0
0” .-
j w
U
.=:
5
-+. ir----- .? g I
I - -i:* -- -- _.- I
___ -.- - - -~~ ------- - -
PLANNING COMMISSION December 15. 1993 PAGE 8
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution Nos. 3587,3588, and 3589, recommending approval of
CT 90-25, PUD 90-25, and HDP 90-32 based on the findings and subject to ihe
conditions contained therein, including the changes set forth in staff memo dated
December 15, 1993.
VOTE: 6-l
AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Hall, Savary, Schlehuber and Welshons
NOES: Commissioner Erwin
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Erwin stated for the record that he voted no because he thinks we are going in the wrong
direction by allowing a planned development without two-car garages for each unit. He believes the
ideology of using on-street parking as partial fulfillment in meeting the parking standard is regressive.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 6:58 and reconvened at 7:03 p.m.
2. CT 92-02/PUD 92-03/SDP 92-06/HDP 92-03 - SAMBI - Request for recommendation of approval
for a Conditional Negative Declaration, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit,
Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit to subdivide 129 single-family lots,
subdivide and construct 76 townhomes and 72 condominium units, construct 72 apartment units,
and designate two future community facility sites, all on property generally located east of Paseo del
Norte, north of Cainino de las Ondas, and south of Palomar Airport Road, in the RD-M-Q Zone and
R-l -10,000-Q Zone in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20.
Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is
requesting approval to subdivide 129 single family lots, construct 76 townhomes, 72 condominium units,
72 apartment units, and designate two future community facility sites, all on property located east of Paseo
del Norte and north of Camino de las Ondas. The parcel is located in the coastal zone and totals 68.5
gross acres and is undeveloped. The majority of the site is under agricultural cultivation. Access to the
project would be provided by the northern extension of Alga Road from its current intersection at Poinsettia
Lane. In addition, access would be provided from future Hidden Valley Road, which would extend from
Camino de las Ondas north along the project’s western boundary and connect with Palomar Airport Road
to the north. The applicant is processing a Vesting Tentative Map. State law and local ordinance Title 20
stipulates that the approval’bf a Vesting Tentative Map confers a vested right to proceed with the
development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the time the
project application was deemed complete. However, Title 20 does state that the amount of any fees which
are required to be paid as either conditions of approval or by operation of any law, shall be determined at
the time the fee is paid. Therefore, the amount of fees are not vested upon approval of the Vesting
Tentative Map.
The project is subject to the requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan and EIR 90-30 which was approved
by the City Council on December 7, 1993. In addition, the City Council, as part of the Zone 20 approval,
approved a new school facilities mitigation condition set forth in slaff memo dated December 15. 1993.
Mr. Gibson moved to the west wall and reviewed the maps which show the exact location of the project and
the various roadways in and around the site.
Commissioner Erwin requested the Deputy City Attorney to educate the Commission regarding a Vesting
Tentative Map, including the positive and negative aspects. Ms. Hirata stated that the Commission could
not vote yes or no based on the fact that it is a Vesting Tentative Map because the applicant has a right
/P MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION December 15, 1993 PAGE 9
under state law to apply for this map. It is not like a development agreement, where the City would have a
choice. The legislature has decided to give developers a method to ensure that their rights are basically
frozen in time because there is always a question as to when rights vest. The legislature stated that cities
should pass an ordinance to give them procedures and tell them how to apply. If they follow those
procedures and it comes forward, it can’t be rejected on the basis that it is a Vesting Tentative Map. It can
only be approved or rejected on the basis of whether or not they have complied with the ordinances,
policies, and procedures in effect at the time the application was complete, which is basically the same rule
for a regular tentative map. The difference here is that when this is approved, the ordinance, policies, and
standards in effect at the time they completed their application will apply then to any other discretionary
approvals relating to this project that go forward after tonight, up to one year after the final map, is
approved. In other words, if they have some actions after this, they would also be affected. It doesn’t
mean that these other actions would have to be approved, only that the Commission would have to look at
them at a frozen point in time.
Commissioner Erwin referred to Resolution No. 3594, page 3, Finding #6. He inquired if this finding is in
conflict with the vesting. Ms. Hirata replied that it is not because, basically, whatever ordinances are in
place at the time the application is complete state that public facilities have to be available to serve any
development that is approved. That is the general rule. At the time they go torward and pull their building
permits and the project actually becomes a reality, that is the time when some of these fees will be
determined. Those costs cannot be determined at this time. The rule is there but we just don’t know the
amount they will have to pay. So, actually, they are complying with the ordinance in effect now, even
though it doesn’t specify an amount.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if these fees will be determined at the time of final map. Ms. Hirata replied
that many of the fees will be determined as the building permits are pulled. The applicant is committed to
the fees in effect at this time. They would not be subject to any new fees which are created.
Commissioner Erwin stated that he understood that two-car garages would be provided in Areas “D”“C”
and “B” and that the only place to have carports would be in Area “A”. Mr. Gibson replied that the
apartments in Area “A” will have carports and there will also be some carports in the condominium section.
Our minimum requirement for apartments is open parking. In a planned development, where the units are
owned, covered parking is required.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if all of Area “A” will be rental. Mr. Gibson replied that 72 units in Area “A”
will be rental and the other 72 units will be condominiums. The area is split in half into two separate lots.
Commissioner Erwin inquired how many condominiums will have carports. Mr. Gibson deferred comment
to the applicant.
Chairman Noble opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak
Don Agatep, 2956 Roosevelt, Carlsbad, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and
responded to Commissioner Erwin’s inquiry regarding the number of carports for the condominiums in
Area “A”. He stated that there is one garage and one carport for each condominium unit. Most of the
guest parking is uncovered. Mr. Agalep addressed the issue of the Vesting Tentative Map and stated that
the reason Sambi decided to proceed with a Vesting Tentative Map is that it allows them to process the
complete improvement and grading plans concurrent with review of the Tentative Map. Once this process
is complete, they would be ready to record the map once the final map is submitted. It compresses time
and saves them about one year in processing. They have attempted to provide for all product types as well
as community facilities. He thinks the plan is a good one and he urged the Commission to approve it.
lm MINUTES
PLANNfNG COMMISSION December 15, 1993 PAGE 10
Commissioner Welshons is interested in the swimming pools. Does the Vesting Tentative Map specify the
size of the pools. Mr. Agatep replied that the sizes of the pools have not yet been determined. At this
point, they are pretty much diagrammatic. Those facilities would be approved by the Planning Director at
the time building permits are pulled.
Commissioner Welshons commented that a hole in the ground with wafer in it does not serve the purpose
of a swimming pool. She wants to make sure that it is designed correctly. Mr. Agatep agreed.
Because this is primarily a lot sale project, Mr. Agatep requested that Condition #33, Resolution No. 3591,
page 8, be modified to state that the Site Development Plan shall be approved by the Planning Director.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Noble declared
the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
Commissioner Hall inquired if Condition #33 can be modified as requested by Mr. Agatep. Mr. Wayne
replied that it depends on whether or not the Commission wants to be involved in the design or whether
they would be willing to delegate that to the Planning Director. It has been done both ways in the past.
Aviara has a similar requirement for SDP‘s on lot sales. The Planning Director has the authority to make
that decision. If the Planning Director feels there is any question, it would come to the Planning
Commission under appeal.
Chairman Noble could accept approval by the Planning Director. Commissioner Schlehuber agrees.
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Hall, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3590 recommending approval of the Negative Declaration
issued by the Planning Director, and adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3591,
3592,3593, and 3594, recommending approval of CT 92-02, PUD 92-03, SDP 92-06,
and HDP 92-03, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein,
including the changes requested by staff memo dated December 15, 1993, and a
change to Condition #33 (Resolution #3591) to allow approval by the Planning Director
of the Site Development Plans for Areas “B” and “C.”
VOTE: 6-l
AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Hall, Savary, Schlehuber and Welshons
NOES: Commissioner Erwin
ABSTAIN: None ”
Commissioner Erwin stated for the record that he voted no because of the carports which had been
proposed.
Commissioner Schlehuber hopes that the maps will show the two community sites as potential church and
daycare sites. He thinks it is important for luture property owners to know that a church or daycare center
could be placed on those sites, and they could result in traffic, etc. Mr. Gibson replied that this will be
indicated on the map. In addition, any dedications of major roadways will also be shown. There is also a
condition of approval that the applicant create a process to notify surrounding properties that this use has
been proposed in this location.
ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS:
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, announced that at the City Council meeting on December 14,
1993 they had overturned the Planning Commission approval for a U. S. West Cellular antennae at Chase
Field. The project was denied without prejudice on a vote of 3-l.
/ -- OF CARLSBAD - AG-” , BILL G &
I AD Y 19 /,; w2 6 TITLE: APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE ‘MOW ‘R. . DECLARATION, MTG. 3 -2? -+f TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, DEPT. Ht.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SITE DEVELOPMENT CITY ATT=
DEPT. CA PLAN ANDHILLSIDE DEVELOPMENTPERMIT APPm.xNT:sAMBI CITY MGR.
CASE NO: RECOMMENDED ACTION: CT 92.02/PUD 92-03/SDP 92-OWHDP 92-03
If Council concurs your action is adopt Resolution No. 94-83 approving the Conditional Negative Declaration, Tentative Subdivision Map (CT 92-02), Planned Unit Development (PUD 92-03), Site Development Plan (SDP 92-06) and Hillside Development Permit (HDP 92-03).
ITEM EXPLANATION
The City Council, at your meeting of March 15, 1994, voted 4-O (Council Member Finnila absent) approving the Tentative Subdivision Map (CT 92-02), Planned Unit Development (PUD 92-03), Site Development Plan (SDP 92-06) and Hillside Development Permit (HDP 92-03) and directed the City Attorney to prepare the necessary document. That document has been prepared and is attached.
I Condition No. 59 was amended as shown on the resolution.
The Council should satisfy itself that the findings and conditions as recommended by itself and the Planning Commission accurately reflect your intentions in the matter.
I EXHIBITS
Resolution No. 04-87
r-’ - OF CARLSBAD - AGr’ I BILL
AB # 12; b 27 TITLE:
MTG. J-15 -9Y !SAMBI - CI’ 92-02/PUD 92-03
SDP 92-06/HDP 92-03 I DEPT. pLN I ) CITY MGR. -F
I DEPT. HD. ?%+-
CITY ATTY 622
$ RECOMMENDED ACTION:
u III The Planning Commission, Housing Commission, and staff are recommending that the City Council
z direct the City Attorney to prepare documents ADOP’ITNG a Conditional Negative Declaration and
-z APPROVING CT 92-02, PUD 92-03, SDP 92-06 and HDP 93-02 as recommended for approval by
z the Planning Commission.
d ITEM EXPLANAnON
: b On December 15, 1993, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended
: approval (6-l) of the Sambi project, located east of Paseo de1 Norte and north of Camino de las
5-l Ondas in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20. On January 13, 1994 the Housing
z Commission reviewed the affordable housing components of the project and unanimously
E a recommended (8-O) that the City Council approve the project.
2 w The applicant is processing a vesting tentative map which is different from a tentative map. When
0 a local agency, such as the City, approves a vesting tentative map, State law and local ordinance ul u (Title 20) stipulates that the approval of the map confers a vested right to proceed with the
5 development in substantial compliance with the local ordinances, policies, and standards in effect
9 at the time the application was deemed complete. It is a vested guarantee that if an ordinance or
51 a standard changes before the vesting tentative map is finaled or building permits issued, the project
E
would not be subject to the new requirements. The rights conferred by a vesting tentative map
m extend for only two years beyond the recording of the final map. Where several final maps are
$ recorded on various phases of a project the time period begins for each phase when the final map &I a for that phase is recorded. This project would propose to final maps in four (4) separate phases.
The project is located on a 68 acre parcel north of Camino de las Ondas and directly east of the
future Poinsettia Community Park. Access to the property would be provided by future Hidden
Valley Road (non-loaded collector road) leading north from Camino de la Ondas, and future Alga
Road (major road). The project would consist of 129 single-family lots that range in sire from
7,500 to 28,300 square feet, 76 two-story townhomes with attached two-car garages, 72 two-story
condominium units, 72 two-story apartment units, and 2 community facility sites.
A majority of the project would feature contemporary architecture consisting of Spanish tile roofs
with varying roof lines, and stucco exteriors. Area “D” in the far western portion of the site would
contain townhomes with contemporary architecture and metal seamed roofs to be more compatiile
with the architecture and materials proposed for the buildings in future Poinsettia Community Park
located directly west of the project site.
The applicant is requesting an 11.8% density bonus (36.8 dwelling units above the density allowed
by the growth control point) to provide affordable housing, therefore, per the requirements of the
City’s recently adopted Inclusionaty Housing and Density Bonus Ordinances, 20% of the proposed
dwelling units (or 63 affordable units), must be provided for lower income households. The
developer is proposing to provide those affordable dwelling units as rental units within the
apartment portion of the project. The applicant proposes 63 of the total 73 apartment units to be
affordable to households at 80% of the county median income.
The Housing Commission, after considering all factors related to the affordable housing project
0 approved a recommendation to the City Council to approve the affordable housing project
containing 63 apartment units to be affordable to low income households for a period of at least
fifty-five (55) years. No financial assistance was requested for the project. Recommendation pi+/
PAGE~OFAGENU- LLNO. /‘; (;.a?
the project was granted by the Housing Commission with the condition that an acceptable schedule
for construction of the required ratio of restricted units be developed by the applicant. The
schedule must indicate acceptable construction phasing for the affordable units in relation to the
construction of the market rate units. Following Council approval of the proposed project and
prior to the first final map approval, the applicant must enter into an Affordable Housing
Agreement with the City.
More detailed information is included in the attached staff report to the Planning,Commission and
the Housing Commission. There was no public testimony presented to the Planning Commission.
Planning Commissioner Erwin was concerned that the condominium and apartment units should
have two-car garages rather than carports or one-car garages and, therefore, voted against approval
of the project. The project complies with Title 21 because the Planned Development Ordinance
(Chapter 21.45) only requires two covered spaces per dwelling unit for condominiums and
uncovered parking is permitted for apartments. The proposed condominium units would have a
one car garage and carport per dwelling unit. The project is in compliance with all adopted local
land use plans, ordinances, and policies and is consistent with the Mello II Segment of the Local
Coastal Program.
ENVIRONMENTALREVIEW
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) which
covers the 640 acre Zone 20 planning area. The direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental
impacts from the future development of the Zone 20 planning area have been discussed in the
Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-03) for the specific plan The recommended and
applicable mitigation measures of Final EIR 90-03 would be included as conditions of approval for
this project. Per the requirements of Final EIR 90-03 additional project specific environmental
studies, including biological analysis, have been prepared. These studies provide more focused and
detailed project level analysis and indicate that additional environmental impacts beyond what was
analyzed in Final EIR 90-03 would result from implementation of the project.
Per the recommendations of Final EIR 90-03 a Conditional Negative Declaration was issued for this
project to evaluate the additional environmental impacts to coastal sage scrub and riparian habitats
created by onsite development and the alignment of Hidden Valley Road north to Palomar Airport
Road. The Planning Director and Planning Commission have determined that the project could
have a significant effect on the environment, however, there would not be a significant effect in
this case since the mitigation measures described in the attached initial study have been added to
the project. This decision was based on findings of the Environmental Assessment Part II,
biological resource impact studies, a geotechnical report, acoustical study, traffic report, and a field
surveys by staff. A Conditional Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director on
August 5, 1993.
FISCAL IMPACT
As discussed in the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan, ail major capital facilities will be
funded by the developer of this project. A financing plan that comprehensively addresses the
provision of public facilities within the facility zone has been approved by the City Council. The
applicant intends to privately finance the construction of the 63 affordable apartment units and
is not requesting financial assistance from the City.
PAGE 3 OF AGEN~JA -L NO. w
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS
II Facilities Zone I I - 20
Local Facilities Management Plan
Growth Control Point
Net Density
20
3.2 & 6 DWACRE
5.8 DWACRE
Special Facilities C.F.D. NO. 1
ExHIBrIs
1. Location Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3590, 3591, 3592, 3593, 8~ 3594
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 15, 1993
4. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 15, 1993
5. Housing Commission Staff Report, dated January 13,1994
6. Housing Commission Resolution No. 94-003
,
i
2
L
C c
E
7
f
E
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_- -
RESOLUTION NO. 94-87
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (CT 92-02), PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD 92-03), SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP 92-06) AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (HDP 92-03) FOR A 129 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS, 76 TOWNHOMES, 72 CONDOMINIUM UNITS, 72 APARTMENT UNITS AND 2 FUTURE COMMUNITY FACILITIES SITES ON 68 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE AND NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 20. APPLICANT: SAMBI CASE NO: CT 92-02/PUD 92-03/SDP 92-06/HDP 92-03
WHEREAS, on December 15, 1993 the Car&bad Planning
Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a
proposed Conditional Negative Declaration, Tentative Subdivision
Map (CT 92-02), Planned Unit Development (PUD 92-03), Site
Development Plan (SDP 92-06) and Hillside Development Permit (HDP
92-03) for a 129 single family units, 76 townhomes, 72 condominium
units, 72 apartment units and 2 future community facilities sites
and adopted Resolutions Nos. 3590, 3591, 3592, 3993 and 3594
respectively, recommending to the City Council that the Tentative
Subdivision Map (CT 92-02), Planned Unit Development (PUD 92-03),
Site Development Plan (SDP 92-06) and Hillside Development Permit
(HDP 92-03) be approved: and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, held
a public hearing on March 15, 1994 to consider the recommendations
and heard all persons interested in or opposed to Conditional
Negative Declaration, Tentative SubdivisionMap (CT 92-02), Planned
Unit Development (PUD 92-03), Site Development Plan (SDP 92-06) and
Hillside Development Permit (HDP 92-03); and
WHEREAS, a Conditional Negative Declaration was issued on
August 5, 1993 and submitted to the State Clearinghouse for a 30
188
9 2 *Iurn 227 s:g oulgj iuo aoaa *tjf EC5
s 8 o$p i 9L$z
$g&- O$a
E m a:; >-
6 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
day review period. All comments received from that review period
are fully incorporated into the conditions of approval for the :
specific plan and other project approvals and these conditions will
be reviewed through a monitoring program set up for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Conditional Negative Declaration, Tentative
Subdivision Map (CT 92-02), Planned Unit Development (PUD 92-03),
Site Development Plan (SDP 92-06) and Hillside Development Permit
(HDP 92-03) for this project are approved and that the findings and
conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Resolutions Nos.
3590, 3591, 3592, 3593 and 3594, respectively, on file with the
City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings
and conditions of the City Council with the following amended and
new conditions:
a. Condition No. 56 is amended to read as follows:
"TO offset the conversion of non-prime agricultural land to urban land uses per the requirements of the Mello II Local Coastal Program (LCP) the applicant shall implement one of the following three mitigation options prior to approval of the final map:
(1) Preserve prime agricultural property within the Coastal Zone consistent with the provisions of the Carlsbad LCP; or
(2) Illustrate that continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible per the guidelines of Mitigation Option 2 of the Local Coastal Program: or
(3) Provide payment of an agricultural mitigation fee, the amount of which shall not be less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 for each net converted acre. The amount of the fee shall be determined prior to approval of the final map and shall be consistent with the provisions of Carlsbad's LCP."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-.
3. 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 within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later 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 of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008."
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the and day of a
1994, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Nygaard
NOES: None
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
ATTEST: A n
(SEAL)
6.
EXHIBIT 5
CT 92-02(A)/PUD 92-03(AVSDP 92-06(AVHDP 92-03(A) - SAM81 SEASIDE HEIGHTS -
Request for recommendation of approval for a revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Planned
Development Permit, Site Development Plan and Hillside Development Permit to subdivide
137 standard single-family lots, subdivide and construct 98 townhomes on small lots,
construct 42 “ownership” postage stamp lot townhomes designated as affordable to lower-
income households, and designate 1 future community facility site along Hidden Valley Road,
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION August 21, 1996 Page 6
all on property generally located east of Paseo Del Norte, north of Camino de las Ondas, and
south of Palomar Airport Road, in the RD-M-Q Zone and R-1-10,000-Q Zone in Local
Facilities Management Plan Zone 20.
Chairman Compas announced to the applicant, Commissioners and the public that this item, if approved, wilt
be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration.
Project Planner Jeff Gibson presented slides so as to visually indicate the exact location of the development
site and the various locations of homes, park and other facilities. Mr. Gibson gave a brief history of the
SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS project and pointed out that the project has been significantly re-designed and
the changes to the project have resulted in the need for the project to be re-evaluated by the city and once
again reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The project changes were summarized,
including street re-alignments and photos presented of views, future community facilities locations, schools,
streets and preserved natural wildlife habitats.
Commissioner Savary asked if the children would be allowed to ride bicycles on the public access way,
between a local public street and the school and was assured that they would.
Commissioner Heineman pointed out the fact that Mr. Gibson had been referring to some residence
structures as “townhomes” when in fact they are “twin homes”. Mr. Gibson thanked the Commissioner and
agreed with the correction of his terminology.
Chairman Compas invited the applicant to speak.
Nicholas Banche, Attorney at Law, 715 Pier View Way, Oceanside, CA., appearing on behalf of applicant
Toyohara of America, Inc., highlighted some factors he considers deserving of the Commission’s support of
the project, after which he introduced Mr. Kazuyuki Kawakita, President of Toyohara of America, Inc.,
Mr. Kazuyuki Kawakita, President of Toyohara of America, Inc., 8649 Firestone Blvd., Downey, CA (office),
home address is 11432 Hanover Ct., Cerritos, CA., accepted all conditions set forth and offered to answer
any questions the Commission may have.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired as to whether Mr. Kawakita expected to have much trouble selling the owner
occupied or affordable housing units. Mr. Kawakita’s reply was that he really doesn’t know, at this time.
However, the price will be so affordable that he doubts there will be many problems with sales.
Commissioner Nielsen also asked when the project would be completed and if it would be done in phases.
Mr. Kawakita explained that the project would be done in four (4) phases.
Commissioner Savary asked for an idea of the range of prices of the affordable townhouses and was given a
price range of $85,000 to $120,000 for two and three bedroom units.
Chairman Compas then asked for Mr. Kawakita’s best guess as to when the project would commence and
Mr. Kawakita stated that he hoped they could begin the first phase in January or February, 1997 and possibly
begin the affordable housing phase by May or June, 1997.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Compas closed public testimony and opened Commission
discussion.
Commissioner Noble expressed his appreciation for this revised plan by pointing out several highlights of the
MINUTES
/9a
PLANNlNG COMMISSION August 21,1996 Page 7
plan and concluded by voicing his full support for the project.
Commissioner Nielsen agreed with Commissioner Noble’s assessment of the revised project, also gave his
full support and concluded with the comment that he would surely like to see this project come to fruition
where so many others have quietly fallen out of sight. He also wished the developer well in his efforts.
Commissioner Monroy expressed his pleasure in supporting the SAM61 SEASIDE HEIGHTS project by
stating that, in his estimation, this is the first project that attempts to meet the inclusionary housing element
objectives and he has no problem supporting it. He also made it a point to tell the developer that he should
be quite proud of what they are proposing.
Commissioner Welshons expressed her concern for the problems that have seemed to plague this project
and went on to wish Mr. Kawakita and his organization good fortune in the future.
Assistant Planning Director Gary Wayne informed the Commission of some necessary changes in Resolution
No. 3977 (global) and in all resolutions following, in one specific way:
First:
Second:
Continually reference the project as a Vesting Tentative Map revision - i.e.,
all places where the project is referred to as a “Tentative Map”, it will be
referred to as a “Vesting Tentative Map”. (Global)
Findings for the Environmental Review - In the Discussion and the Staff
Report there was the reference to the MEIR for the General Plan Update.
We’re incorporating that and would like to include that incorporation in the
required findings for the Environmental Documents. Page 2 of #3977 -
under Findings: #l .c - there was a Final EIR certified in connection with the
prior approved Specific Plan 203 (EIR 93-03), The General Plan Update
EIR (MEIR 93-01) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration approved for CT
92-02; The same change applies to #2 - The Planning Commission finds
that all feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
certified Final EIR 93-03. The General Plan Update EIR (MEIR 93-01)
and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 92-02 which are
appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this
Subsequent Project.
Chairman Compas asked if the applicant might have a problem with the above changes and was assured by
Counsel that the changes would not have any affect on the applicant.
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion made by Commissioner Nielsen, and duly seconded, to adopt
amended Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3977, 3978, 3979, and
3980 recommending approval of CT 92-02(A), PUD 92-03(A), SDP’ 92-06(A)
and HDP 92-03(A), based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
7-o
Compas, Heineman, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble, Savary and Welshons
None
None
October 18, 1996
Toyohara America Inc.
8641 Firestone Boulevard
Downey, CA 90241
Re: Approval of Vesting Tentative Map - CT 92-2(A)
The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of October 1, 1996, adopted Resolution
No. 96-321, approving CT 92-2(A), PUD 92-3(A), SDP 92-6(A), and HDP 92-3(A), as
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 96-32 1 for your ties.
KRK:ijp
Enclosure
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2808
PROOF OF Pub JATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter, I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
September 21, 1996
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at California, this 23 day
of Sept. 1996
signature
/
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This spaL. r~ for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Public Hearing ____________-_--_----- ----
-__------- _____-_------B-w
NOTICE OF P’UBLIC HEARING
j Cl 9%2(AVPUD 92-3(A)/
Y SDP 9%&AI/HOP 92-3 (A)
SAM61 SEASIDE HEIGHTS
particularly describad as:
APPLICANT: Toyohara’Amka Inc.
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
qal48338 September n (1 &I
CT 9242(A)/PUD d2-03(A)i SDP 924M(A)/HDP 9243(A)
p tf
’ ,
NOTICE OF WBLIC HEARING
CT 92-2(A)/PuD 92-~(A)/sDP ~~-~(A)/HDP 92-3(A)
SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you because your interests may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California,
at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, October 1, 1996, to consider an application for a revised Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan and Hillside Development Permit to subdivide 139 standard single- family lots, subdivide and construct 98 townhomes on small lots, construct 42 "ownership" airspace townhomes designated as affordable to lower-income households, and designate 1 future community facility site along Hidden Valley Road, on property generally located east of Paseo De1 No&e, north of Camino de las Ondas, and south of Palomar Airport Road, in the RD-M-Q Zone, and R-1-10,000-Q Zone, in Local Facilities Management Zone 20, and more particularly described as:
The South Half of the Southeast Quarter and the South 60 acres of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, County of San Diego, State of California, according to United States Government Survey, approved October 25, 1875, according to the Official Plan thereof.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4455
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan and/or Hillside Development Permit 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. The time within which you may judicially challenge this tentative map, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short.
APPLICANT: Toyohara America, Inc. PUBLISH: September 21, 1996
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
SAMBI
CT 92=02(A)/PUD 92-03(A)/
SDP 92=06(A)/HDP 92=03(A)
NOTICE OF PUBIX HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, 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,
August 21, 1996, to consider a request for recommendation of approval for a revised
Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan and Hillside
Development Permit to subdivide 139 standard single-family lots, subdivide and construct 98
townhomes on small lots, construct 42 ‘ownership” airspace townhomes designated as
affordable to lower-income households, and designate I future community facility site along
Hidden Valley Road on property generally located east of Paseo del Norte, north of Camino
de las Ondas, and south of Palomar Airport Road, in the RD-M-Q Zone and R-I-10,000-Q
Zone in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20 and more particularly described as:
The South Half of the Southeast Quarter and the South 60 acres of the
North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 21, Township I2 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to United States Government
Survey, approved October 25, 1875, according to the Official Plat
thereof.
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 August 14, 1996. If you
have any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at (619) 438-I 161,
extension 4455.
The time within which you may judicial challenge this Tentative Tract Map, Planned
Development Permit, Site Development Plan and Hillside Development Permit, if approved, is
established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the
Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan and Hillside
Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 92-02(A)/PUD 92-03(A)/SDP 92-06(A)/HDP 92-03(A)
CASE NAME: SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS
PUBLISH: AUGUST 9,1996
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (619) 438-11610 FAX (619) 438-0894 @
(Form A)
TO: CITV CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PU6LIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the naterlals necessary for you to notide
CT g2-02(A)/puD g2-03(A)/SDP 92-06(A)/HDP 92-03(A) - Sambi Seaside Heights
?or a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of
.
Thank you.
Assistant City Hanww -
1
SeDtember 4, 1996
Date
CijRLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
SUITE 50
330 GOLDENSHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
SUITE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SAidDAG
SUITE 800
400 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT
JEFF GIBSON
DALJIT S. ELANIE SARKARIA RONALD ROESCH SCHINDLER FAMILY TRUST
P.O. BOX 5766 2800 NEILSON WAY 648 MARSOLAN AVENUE
ORANGE, CA 92613 #708 SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. PAC WEST Q A-l GREYSTONE HOMES, INC.
27432 CALLE ARROYO 550 WEST C STREET 495 EAST RINCON
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA #1750 #115 92675 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 CORONA, CA 91719
MSP, CALIFORNIA LLC
c/o MARCUS PALKOWITSH
650 CHERRY STREET
SUITE 435
DENVER, CO 80222
GUY S MOORE JR
6503 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GEORGE BOLTON
6519 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009
FLEN YAMAMOTO 1201 VIA LA JOLLA
SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672
0 Carlsbad Village Drive
Bad, California 92008-I 989
TOYOHARA AMERICA, INC.
C/O DONALD AGATEP 2965 ROOSEVELT ST #l CARLSBAD CA 92008
City of Carlsbad
IO Carlsbad Village Drive
bad, California 92008-l 989
TOYOHARA AMERICA, INC.
DBA SUNBELT PLANNING CO 8641 FIRESTONE BLVD DOWNEY CA 90241
00 Carlsbad Village Drive
;bad, California 92008-l 989
THOMAS A. AND JANET A. MASS
2851 TORRY COURT CARLSBAD CA 92009