HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-28; City Council; 14019; Brookfield Meadows - Appealr’- -
CITY OF CARLSBAD 4 AGENL/A BILL
AB# ly; 019 TITLE:
MTG. l/28/97 APPEAL - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07
DEPT. PLNdC\( CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 9 ? -36 APPROVING the Negative Declaration, and
ADOPT Resolution No. 71-3 3 DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PUD 71(B), and ADOPT
Resolution No. 93 -38 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIALS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE of CT 96-04, HDP 96-04, and SDP 96-07.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
This application is for a Tentative Tract Map (CT), Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment,
Hillside Development Permit (HDP), and Site Development Plan (SDP) for a single-family detached
residential project. The development would include 29 primary residential units and 4 attached
second dwelling units. The PUD Amendment automatically requires a City Council decision
because the original PUD was approved by the Council. The CT, HDP, and SDP are being sent to
Council on appeal. The applicant had to appeal these decisions in order to have Council hear the
total project package.
On November 6, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted (4-3,
Compas, Noble & Welshons) to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration, recommend
denial without prejudice of the PUD Amendment, and deny without prejudice the CT, HDP, and
SDP. The applicant has appealed the denial without prejudice of the CT, HDP, and SDP.
The site for the proposed single-family detached project is part of a larger mostly developed project
(“Brookfield”). The subject site is the only undeveloped portion of that larger site. The property
owner currently has discretionary approvals to develop a 104-unit apartment project, but would like
to build a detached single-family project instead.
Staff had recommended denial of the project because it does not comply with the PUD regulations
as clarified by Planning Department Administrative Policy No. 16 (minimum required distance
between structures) and City Council Policy No. 44 (“Small Lot Single Family Guidelines”) dealing
with required building separation.
la.
lb.
The PUD Ordinance (Chapter 21.45) establishes the minimum required distance between
structures for single-story structures (IO’), for two- and three-story structures when there are
more than 10 in a row (20’) and for two- and one-story structures when there are more than
10 in a row (15’). The ordinance does not address the minimum distance required for two-
and two-story structures. Planning Department Policy No. 16 interprets the ordinance to
require a minimum 20’ distance between two-story structures when there are more than 10
structures in a row. The proposed project is not consistent with this interpretation. The
project is designed with all two-story structures. On Court “A”, where there are 13 such
structures in a row, the project provides only 10’ of separation in 8 locations and 11’ to 15’ in
3 locations, rather than the 20’ indicated in Policy No. 16.
City Council Policy No. 44 (“Small Lot Single Family Guidelines”) apply to single family
developments with lots smaller than 7500 square feet. It is primarily designed to apply to
projects with a predominance of two-story units (e.g., the subject application). This policy
includes architectural guidelines which are to be incorporated into the project design to
i
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA dlLL NO. 1 y: 0 I$
provide architectural relief. The proposed project does not comply with all of the applicable
architectural guidelines, in that it does not provide sufficient single-story building edges or the
varied building planes as required by Policy No. 44.
Policy No. 44 also defines “IO in a row” as including curves and terminating at a 90 degree
intersection. On this basis, the number of units along Court “A” of the proposed project is
greater than 10 and, therefore, would need to provide a minimum distance between
structures of 20’ (per Policy No. 16).
The project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan, and generally complies with the
Hillside Development regulations. However, the project does not comply with the PUD regulations
as clarified by Administrative Policy No. 16 and Council Policy No. 44. Therefore, staff was unable
to recommend approval of the project. Because staff believes the project could be redesigned to
comply with all applicable regulations, staff recommended denial without prejudice to allow the
applicant to return with a revised design without a lengthy waiting period.
The Planning Commission also passed two Minute Motions related to the discussion of this project.
la. The first Minute Motion (passed 7-O) was to request Council to give staff direction with regard
to re-examining Planning Department Administrative Policy No. 16 and City Council Policy
No. 44. There was some confusion regarding what is the standard desired for separation
between two story structures in Planned Unit Developments, and how Policy 16 is applied.
The separation requirements contained in the PUD ordinance have the weight of law
because they are called out in the Code. However, because the separation requirement
discussed in Policy 16 is contained in a policy, rather than an ordinance, it carries less
weight. Therefore, there was some confusion regarding staffs and the decision-makers’
ability to require projects to comply with the separation requirements contained in the Policy.
lb. This Minute Motion also involves City Council Policy No. 44 in that Policy 44 defines what
constitutes units “in a row”. Policy 44 defines “in a row” to “include curves and shall
terminate at a 90 degree street intersection”. This definition is critical to the application of the
separation requirements contained in both the PUD Ordinance and Administrative Policy No.
16.
The Planning Commission felt that more specific direction from Council regarding the intent of these
two policies would be helpful. Should Council wish to do so, staff could be directed to draft a zone
code amendment to revise the PUD Ordinance to clearly address this building separation issue. A
detailed discussion of the proposed project design and its compliance and non-compliance with
these policies is included in the staff report to the Planning Commission and attached to this Agenda
Bill.
2. The second Minute Motion (passed 7-O) was to request Council to establish a minimum size
for second dwelling units. Currently, the City has established only a maximum size for
second dwelling units (640 square feet). The Commission felt that the proposed second
dwelling units in this project were quite small (393 square feet) and discussed the possible
need to establish a minimum size for such units. Staffs research indicates that the City does
have the authority to establish a minimum size. If Council would like this issue addressed, it
could direct staff to study various second dwelling unit configurations (i.e., efficiency, one
bedroom and two bedroom) and return with a zone code amendment that establishes
minimum sizes for each desired configuration.
a
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 3 ‘ii R j 7
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed project was analyzed pursuant to CEQA regulations and was determined to have no
potential significant environmental impacts. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was issued by the
Planning Director. Because the review relied upon the General Plan Update Master EIR (MEIR 93-
01) for analysis of cumulative air and cumulative traffic impacts, the project also qualifies as a
Subsequent Project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Should the Council decide to approve the proposed project or an alternative project, staff would
develop the necessary conditions of approval requiring the Developer to provide all necessary
improvements as required by the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan. This would ensure that
all necessary public facilities needed to serve the development would be provided.
EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
City Council Resolutions No. 9 ? -36 , 93-.47 ,and ‘i7-38
Location Map
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3999, 4000, 4001, 4002, and 4003, dated November
6, 1996
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 6, 1996
Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 6, 1996
Appeal, dated November 12,1996.
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
RESOLUTIONNO. 97-36
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
N FOR BROOKFIELD MEADOWS LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF XANA WAY
CORINTIA STREET AND ALGA ROAD IN
BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
November 6, 1996, the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing to co er a Negative Declaration for CT 96-04/PUD 7 1 (B)/I-IDP
96-04/SDP 96-07, and adopted ing Commission Resolution No. 3999, recommending
WHEREAS, the City cil of the City of Carlsbad, on the
1997, held a public hearing to consider the
recommendations and heard all persons i sted in, or opposed to; a Negative Declaration
for CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE VED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the recommendation of the Planni ission for the approval of the
Negative Declaration is approved and ndings and conditions of the
Planning Commission contained in Pl Commission Resolution No.
3999, on file with the City Clerk and incorpo d herein by reference, are the
findings and conditions of the City Council.
2. This action is final the date this resolution is a ted by the City Council.
The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad M al Code, “Time Limits
for Judicial Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time within which judicial review of this decision mu
governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which
applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code
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
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
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 Car bad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008.”
+l
of the City of Carlsb
by the following vote, to wit:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. BAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
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
h
RESOLUTION NO. 9 7 - 3 7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
GENERALLY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF XANA
WEEN CORINTIA STREET AND ALGA ROAD IN
ILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6
LD MEADOWS
lanning Commission did on November 6, 1996, hold a duly
noticed public hearing as presc by law to consider Planned Unit Development Amendment
(PUD 7 1 (B)), and adopted Plannin mmission Resolution No. 4001 recommending to the City
Council that it be denied without prej
WHEREAS, the City Co
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescr by law to consider the proposed Planned Unit
Development Amendment; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearin on hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be , the City Council considered all factors
relating to the Planned Unit Development Amendme
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED he City Council of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
1.
2.
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That the findings of the Planning Commission in Res
the findings of the City Council in this matter.
n No. 4001 constitute
3. That the Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUD 71
prejudice as shown in Planning Commission Resolution N
City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
is denied without
1 on file with the
4. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City
Judicial Review” shall apply:
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
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
“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
w must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the
eenth day following the date on which this decision becomes
owever, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a
the record of the deposit in an amount sufficient to cover
ed cost or preparation of such record, the time within which
ay be tiled in court is extended to not later than the
owing the date on which the record is either personally
led to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has
quest for the preparation of the record of the
e filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200
ve, Carlsbad, California 92008.”
PASSED, APPROVE ND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad, Califo , 1997, by the
following vote, to wit:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
-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
RESOLUTIONNO. 97-38
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING A PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE
A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
IT, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
CT 96-04/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07
lsbad Planning Commission denied
without prejudice a Tentati Tract Map , Hillside Development Permit, and Site Develop-
ment Plan to develop a single- ily detached residential subdivision; and
day
ion decision to deny
the request, the City Council considered all
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
e City Council of the
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
1.
2.
That the above recitations are true an
That the findings of the Planning Co
and 4003 on file with the City Cle
constitute the findings of the City Co
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 Carlsbad
City Council held on the day of 1997, by the following vote, to
wit: wit:
AYES: AYES:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENISRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
EXHIBIT 2
BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
CT 96=04/PUD 71(B)/
HDP 96=04/SDP 96-07
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. 3999
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A 30-
LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF XANA WAY BETWEEN CORINTIA
STREET AND ALGA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 6
CASE NAME: BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
CASE NO.: CT 96-04/PUD 7 1 (B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07
WHEREAS, Okon Development Co., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Edgecrest Investments,
Ltd., “Owner”, described as
Lot 224 and a portion of Lot 223, Carlsbad Tract No. 84-23, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to map thereof No. 11241, recorded in the offlice of
the County Recorder of said County
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of November 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, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
. . .
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) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND”, dated August 26, 1996, and “PII” dated July 15,
1996, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
FindinPs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered the Negative Declaration for the Brookfield Meadows project, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior
to recommending denial of the project. Based on the EIA Part-II and comments thereon,
the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will
have a significant effect on the environment and thereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL
of the Negative Declaration.
The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration for the Brookfield
Meadows project reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad.
The Planning Director has found that, based on the EIA Part II, this Subsequent Project
was described in the MEIR 93-01 as within its scope; and there will be no additional
significant effect, not analyzed therein; and that therefore this subsequent project is
within the scope of the prior EIR; and no new environmental document nor Public
Resources Code 21081 findings are required.
The Panning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures of project
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Subsequent
Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
PC RESO NO. 3999 -2-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of November 1996, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Heineman, Monroy, Nielsen and Savary
NOES: Chairperson Compaq Commissioners Noble and Welshons
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
[m&J
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpe&on
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3999 -3-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: On the South side of Xana Way between Corintia St. and Alga
Road, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego
Project Description: An amendment to an approved PUD. The amendment would
provide 29 single family detached units (5 of which would include
attached second dwelling units) rather than the approved 104-unit
apartment project originally approved.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 21 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department
at (619) 438-l 161, extension 4471.
DATED: AUGUST 26,1996
CASE NO: CT 96-04/PUD 7 1 (B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07
CASE NAME: BROOKFIELD MEADOWS .
PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 26,1996 . i A& MICHAEL J. HOIZ?MILI%R
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-0894 @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 96-04/PUD 7 1 (B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07
DATE: July 15, 1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Brookfield Meadows
2. APPLICANT: Okon Develonment Co.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: PO Box 577. De1 Mar. California
92014, (619) 755-7005
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 26.1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The nroiect is an amendment to an aDDrOVed Planned Unit
DeveloDment. The amendment would provide 29 single family detached dwelling units (5 of
which would include attached second dwelling units) rather than the 104~unit apartment proiect
OriginahaDDrOVed.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning
q Population and Housing
q Transportation/Circulation
q Biological Resources
0 Public Services
0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
cl Water
q Air Quality
cl Hazards cl Cultural Resources
cl Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03LW96
.J 3
C
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
lxl
cl
cl
0
cl
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An 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 Master
Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have
been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR
93-Ol), including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
V Plan!ier Signature
57l,/(1yk / Date G/ /
Date
2 Rev. 03l28/96
-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 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.
l “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.
a “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.
a “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but fl potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and.(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
0 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.
l 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. 03f28196
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a)
b)
c>
4
d
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): ( )
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? ( )
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
0 Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? ( )
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? .( )
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( )
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? ( )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( )
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a)
b)
cl
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l :Pg 5.1-5)
Seismic ground shaking? (# 1 :Pg 5.1- 12)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (# 1 :Pg
5.1-12)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l :Pg 5.1-9)
Landslides or mudflows? (# 1 :Pg 5.1- 11)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ()
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pg 5.1-l 1)
Expansive soils? ( )
Unique geologic or physical features? ( )
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff! ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ()
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ( )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
Potentially Significant Impact
cl
Cl
q
Cl
Cl
Cl
cl
Cl
0 cl cl
Cl Cl 0
cl cl 0
Cl
0
Cl
0
-
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
q
Cl
cl
0
Cl
0
Cl
0
Cl cl Cl
0 0 cl
Cl 0 Cl
cl
cl
cl
0
Less Than Significan
t Impact
0
0
Cl
Cl
cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
cl
cl
Cl
0
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
0
No Impact
lxl
Ix1
IXJ
IXI
El
El
IXI
Ix1
El
lxl
IXJ
IXI
lxl
I8
El
Ix1
lx
Ix)
El
l-xl
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
6
f)
g>
h)
0
body? ()
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ()
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? ()
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( )
Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ()
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
cl
4
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#I:Pg 5.3-
4) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#I :Pg 5.3-4)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ( )
Create objectionable odors? ( )
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a)
b)
cl
4 d f)
s>
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traftic congestion? (#l:Pg
5.7-10)
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?
0 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
a)
b)
cl
4
e)
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? ( )
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( )
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
0 Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
cl
Cl
cl
0
Cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
lxl
El
cl
0
IXI
cl
cl
Cl
cl
Cl
Cl
cl
0
Cl
cl
0
Less Than Significan
t, Impact
No
Impact
0
Cl
Cl
0
cl
Cl
0
cl
cl
0
0
Cl
0
cl
0
cl
0
cl
cl
Cl
cl
IXI
Ix1
El
Ix1
El
0
IXI
IXI
cl
IXI
Ix1
lxl
lz
IXJ
lz
IXJ
IXJ
lx
Ix)
IXI
;30
Rev. 03/28/96 6
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pg 5.12.1 and 5.13.1)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pg 5.12.1-4)
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 :Pg 5.13-5)
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)? ( )
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? ()
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ( )
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ( )
Potentially Significant Impact
cl
0
Cl
0
cl
0
0
0
Potentially LessThan No Significant Signitican Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated
0
Cl
Cl
0
Cl
Cl
Cl
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) Cl cl b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) cl 0
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pg 5.12.5-3) Cl cl b) Police protection? (#I :Pg 5.12.6-2) cl cl c) Schools? (#l:Pg,5.12.7.4) cl Cl d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) cl Cl e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg
5.12.4-l)
q cl
XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg 5.12.4-l) 0 cl b) Communications systems? ( ) Cl cl c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pg 5.12.2-5) 0 0
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-4) 0 Cl e) Storm water drainage? (#l :Pg 5.2-8) 0 cl f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pg 5.12.4-2) Cl cl
cl El
Cl IXI
cl El
0 IXI
cl Ix1
0 Ix1
0 lxl
0 IXI
Cl El cl IXI
Cl El cl El Cl Ix1 Cl Ix1 0 IXI
cl IXI cl IXI cl IXI’
Cl lxl Cl lx
0 fx Jl
7 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
g) Local or regional water supplies? (# 1 :Pg 5.12.2-5)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? ( )
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? ( )
c) Create light or glare? ( )
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( )
c) Affect historical resources? ( )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( )
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( )
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a>
b)
XVI.
a)
b)
cl
XVII.
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (# 1 :Pg 5.13.8-5)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( )
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat 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.
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
cl 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially LessThan No
Significant Signitican Impact
Unless t Impact Mitigation Incomorated cl 0 ixl
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
El
0
0 lx 0 [XI 0 Ix1
0 Ix1 0 IXI 0 El 0 lx
0 lx
0 lx
0 IXJ
0 IXI
0 0
0 IXI
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
8 Rev. 03/28/96
-
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
4 Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
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.
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.
. ‘,,.’ .P’ 2
Rev. 03LW96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project is an amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development. The approved
PUD incorporated a variety of product types, including 104 apartment units to be constructed on the
subject site as the last phase of development. The proposed amendment would provide 29 single
family detached units (5 of which would include attached second dwelling units) instead of the 104
apartments previously approved. The project site is a previously graded pad now covered with non-
native grasses. The pad includes existing 2:l slopes created by previously approved grading
activities and also contains some previously approved stockpile areas. The applicant proposes to
regrade the entire site to accommodate the change in product type. This site is the last portion of a
larger project area. The other portions have all been developed. However, the overall pad and slope
configuration will be generally similar to its current conftguration.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
1. Land Use and Planning (a-e)
The proposed project site is designated for medium density residential development by the
City’s General Plan. The proposed single family project is consistent with this designation.
The proposed density of the project (5.91 du/ac) is within the density range allowed by the
General Plan (4-8 du/ac) and is below the growth control point (6 du/ac). There is no
conflict with the zoning or with any other applicable environmental plans or policies.
Residential development of this site will be compatible with surrounding uses, which are also
residential. There are no agricultural resources or operations present on the subject site or on
surrounding sites. The project also will not disrupt or divide any established communities.
The project will form the southern extension of the existing community and will be the final
piece of the overall project.
2. Population and Housing (a-c)
The proposed project will not cause the population to exceed regional or local projections.
The proposed project will actually reduce the expected population in the area because the
number of residential units will be reduced from 104 apartments to 29 single family units
with five attached second dwelling units. The project will not include growth nor displace
any existing housing, but will provide new housing.
3. Geologic Problems (f, h, i)
The project proposed will not result in erosion, unstable soil conditions, etc. Development of
the proposed project will be required to comply with all City regulations and requirements
for grading activities, erosion control, and soil conditions. There are no unique geologic or
physical features on the subject site. A soils report was prepared for the previously approved
project and updated for this application.
4. Water (a-i)
The project site does not contain, and is not adjacent to, any bodies of water. Therefore,
there will be no impact to water currents, or other water movements or courses. The project
will be conditioned to provide all improvements necessary to manage runoff and erosion
from the proposed project. Therefore, the project is not expected to result in any impact to
groundwater quality or quantity. The project site is also not in an area of anticipated
10 Rev. 03128196
flooding.
5. Air Quality (c, d)
The proposed project will be required to comply with all City requirements regarding
adequate setbacks and maximum building heights. Accordingly, the project will not result in
changes to air movement, climate, etc. The proposed residential development will not be
expected to result in objectionable odors.
6. Transportation/Circulation (b-g)
The proposed project design will be required to comply with all applicable City regulations
governing the design of the streets and circulation system. Therefore, there will be no
hazards to safety from design features or incompatible uses. Adequate emergency access
will be provided. Parking for the proposed residents and guests must be provided according
to applicable City requirements (i.e., a 2-car garage for each primary residence; one parking
space for each second dwelling unit; and 10 parking spaces for guests). All required parking
must be provided on-site. The project will also be designed to comply with all City
requirements regarding bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The project will not impact rail,
waterborne, or air traffic. There are no railways or waterways on or near the site. Activities
at Palomar Airport will not be impacted by these residences located several miles away.
7. Biological Resources (a-e)
There are no endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats on the site. There are
no locally designated species or natural communities on the site. There is no wetland habitat
on the site. The site does not serve as a migration corridor for wildlife. The project site is a
pregraded pad which was designed to be the last phase of an approved project development.
9. Hazards (a-e)
The proposed residential development is not expected to result in any risk of explosion,
release of hazardous substances, or creation of any potential health hazards. The project will
be required to comply with the requirements of the City’s Landscape Manual and with Fire
Department regulations regarding protection/prevention of fire hazards.
10. Noise (a, b)
The proposed residential project is not expected to result in any increase in noise levels or to
expose people to severe noise. The noise study prepared for the project concluded that noise
levels on the ‘site will not exceed acceptable levels despite expected increased trafftc on
nearby Melrose Avenue. Any noise resulting from grading and/or building activities will be
of a temporary nature and will be subject to all applicable City regulations and restrictions.
11. Public Services (d)
The project is designed to include private streets. The project will be conditioned to require
maintenance of these private streets by the Homeowners’ Association. All other public
facilities are in place or will be provided concurrent with development as a condition of
approval.
13. Aesthetics (a-c)
The project will not have any negative aesthetic impact. The proposed structures are within
the City’s allowed building height for the site. There are no scenic vistas on or near the
project site. The proposed residential project is not expected to produce an inordinant
amount of light or glare. Therefore, adjacent residential uses will not be impacted.
11 Rev. 03t28l96
14.
15.
B.
5.
Cultural Resources (a-e)
The project site is a pregraded pad which contains no recognized/documented
paleontological, archaeological, or historical resources. The project wiI1 not cause any
changes which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. There are no known religious or
sacred uses occurring within the area of the project site.
Recreational (b)
The proposed project will not affect existing recreational opportunities. The recreational
requirements of the project itself will be satisfied on-site (private yards) and within the larger
overall project site (community swimming pool and several pocket park play areas).
Environmental Impact Discussion
Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled.
These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases,
oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors
to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a
“non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant:
therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of
mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions, for
roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to
reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit
services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in
regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan
air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are
included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located
within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially
Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of
an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council
Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts.
This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the
General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review
of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
6. Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to
accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted
by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally
include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with
the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
12 Rev. 03/28/96
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to
ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto
City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable
and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial
Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the
General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of
Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations”
applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project,
therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (619)
438- 116 1, extension 447 1.
1. Final Master Environmental Imuact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
13
EB:bk 2x7
Rev. 03128196
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. 4000
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 96-04 TO
SUBDIVIDE 4.39 ACRES INTO 30 LOTS ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF XANA
WAY BETWEEN CORINTIA STREET AND ALGA ROAD IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6
CASE NAME: BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
CASE NO.: CT 96-04
WHEREAS, Okon Development Co., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Edgecrest Investments,
Ltd., “Owner”, described as ’
Lot 224 and a portion of Lot 223, Carlsbad Tract No. 84-23, in
the City of Carisbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to map thereof No. 11241, recorded in the office of
the County Recorder of said County
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map as shown on Exhibits “A”-“O” dated November 6, 1996, on file in the Planning
Department Brookfield Meadows (CT 96-04), as provided by Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning ‘Commission did, on the 6th day of November 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 persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Tentative Tract Map.
~ . . . I $
IJ
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Tentative Tract Map CT 96-
04, based on the following findings:
Findinps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision is
consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan and any applicable
specific plans, and will not cause serious public health problems, but is not consistent
with and does not satisfy all requirements of Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act in that it does not provide
adequate distance between structures as required by Chapter 21.45 of the Municipal
Code and Administrative Policy No. 16, and does not comply with the City’s Small
Lot Single Family Guidelines pursuant to City Council Policy No. 44.
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for medium density residential development on
the General Plan, in that the project is a residential project which has a density of 5.89
dulac.
That the site is not physically suitable for the type and density of the development since
the site is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the
density proposed, in that the proposed design does not comply with the requirements
of the PUD regulations for minimum distance between structures through
Administrative Policy No. 16, and does not comply with the City’s Small Lot Single
Family Guidelines pursuant to City Council Policy No. 44.
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in
that the project has been designed and structured such that there are no conflicts
with any established easements.
That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
That the design of the subdivision does not provide, to the extent feasible, for future
passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that the
structures do not incorporate adequate separation between structures as required
by the PUD regulations (Chapter 21.45) and Administrative Policy No. 16. \ ; _- i
PC RESO NO. 4000 -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
7.
8.
9.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
, . .
-
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 there are no fish or wildlife or their habitat on the site, and the EIA
Part-II prepared for the project concluded that there would be no significant
impacts from the project.
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 the proposed project have been considered and appropriate
drainage facilities have been designed, and the project would be required to comply
with all applicable City Engineering Standards, the City’s Master Drainage Plan,
and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards.
PC RESO NO. 4000 -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 6th day of November 1996, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Heineman, Monroy, Nielsen and Savary
NOES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Noble and Welshons
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpekon
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H%LZMtiLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4000 -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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4001
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT PUD 71(B) ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF XANA
WAY BETWEEN CORINTIA STREET AND ALGA ROAD IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6
CASE NAME: BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
CASE NO.: PUD 71(B)
WHEREAS, Okon Development Co., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Edgecrest Investments,
Ltd., “Owner”, described as
Lot 224 and a portion of Lot 223, Carlsbad Tract No. 84-23, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to map thereof No. 11241, recorded in the office of
the County Recorder of said County
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planned Unit
Development as shown on Exhibits “A”-“ 0” dated November 6, 1996, on file in the Planning
Department, Brookfield Meadows (PUD 71(B)) as provided by Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 6th day of November 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 persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Planned Unit Development.
-. ‘, ., Li
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE Planned Unit
Development 71(B), based on the following findings:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood and
community, in that the proposed type of use (medium density residential) is
consistent with the General Plan designation of the site (RM) and with the
surrounding residential uses.
The project will be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing
or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, in that
the proposed amended project does not meet all required City standards and does
not comply with all applicable regulations. The project does not provide the
minimum distance between structures as required by the PUD regulations (Chapter
21.45) and clarified by Administrative Policy No. 16, and does not comply with the
City’s Small Lot Single Family Guidelines pursuant to City Council Policy No. 44.
The proposed Planned Development does not meet all of the minimum development
standards set forth in Chapter 2 1.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section 2 1.45.080,
and has not been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design
Guidelines Manual. The proposed project does not provide the minimum distance
between structures required by Chapter 21.45 and clarified by Administrative
Policy No. 16, and does not comply with the City’s Small Lot Single Family
Guidelines pursuant to City Council Policy No. 44.
The proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural
topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on the
site, in that the building pads are stepped in the more sloped portions of.the site, and
there are no significant natural resources on the site.
The proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site is
compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or
disruptive element to the neighborhood, in that the project’s density and architecture
are consistent with that of the surrounding neighborhood.
The project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with the
project and does not dominate the project, in that the proposed circulation system will
provide adequate access to all units, adequate room for vehicular movement, 2-car ._L ” .
PC RESO NO. 4001 -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
C
garages for each unit for resident parking, and adequate guest parking in a manner
which is dispersed throughout the project for maximum convenience. The project
utilizes curvilinear street design and short private drives so that the street system
does not dominate the project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of November 1996, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Heineman, Monroy, Nielsen and Savary
NOES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Noble and Welshons
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairp&son
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4001 -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
A
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4002
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF XANA WAY BETWEEN CORINTIA STREET AND ALGA
ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6
CASE NAME: BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
CASE NO: HDP 96-04
WHEREAS, Okon Development Co., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Edgecrest Investments,
Ltd., “Owner”, described as
Lot 224 and a portion of Lot 223, Carlsbad Tract No. 84-23, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to map thereof No. 11241, recorded in the office of
the County Recorder of said County
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A “-“O”, dated November 6, 1996, on file in the
Carlsbad Planning Department Brookfield Meadows (HDP 96-04) as provided by Chapter
21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of November 1996,
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said 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.
.,. .e
.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
C
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Hillside Development Permit, HDP 96-04,
based on the following findings:
Findinps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
. . .
. . .
. . .
That hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show
existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages.
That undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properly
identified on the constraints map.
That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of
the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that the proposed grading volume is within
the acceptable amounts, manufactured slopes will not exceed 30’ in height, and the
building pads are stepped with the contours of the site.
That the proposed development or grading will not occur in the undevelopable portions of
the site pursuant to provisions of Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in
that the steeper slope areas of the site are along the perimeter of the property and
will not contain structures.
Although the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts
illustrated in the.Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that the proposed grading
volume is within acceptable amounts, there are no manufactured slopes exceeding
30’ in height, and the roadway design is curvilinear, the Hillside Development
Permit cannot stand alone, and the project does not provide an adequate distance
between structures as required by the PUD regulations and Administrative Policy
No. 16 and City Council Policy No. 44.
That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands, in
that the steeper slope areas of the site are along the perimeter of the property and
will not contain structures.
PC RESO NO. 4002 -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 Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of November 1996, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Heineman, Monroy, Nielsen and Savary
NOES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Noble and Welshons
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
. . Lkc!l&h?
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chair&x-son
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
- MICHAEL J. HOLZMILER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4002 -3-
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
-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4003
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF XANA
WAY BETWEEN CORINTIA STREET AND ALGA ROAD IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6
CASE NAME: BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
CASE NO.: SDP 96-07
WHEREAS, Okon Development Co., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Edgecrest Investments,
Ltd., “Owner”, described as
Lot 224 and a portion of Lot 223, Carlsbad Tract No. 84-23, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to map thereof No. 11241, recorded in the office of
the County Recorder of said County
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A”-“O” dated November 6, 1996, on file in the Planning
Department, Brookfield Meadows (SDP 96-07) as provided by Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 6th day of November 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.
..* -2 c < ,’ 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
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.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Site Development Permit, SDP 96-07 based
on the following findings:
FindinTs:
1. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental
settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will
not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which
the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact traffic circulation, but
will adversely impact the site and surroundings in that the project does not provide
adequate distance between structures to comply with PUD regulations (Chapter
21.45) as clarified by Administrative Policy No. 16, and does not comply with the
Small Lot Single Family Guidelines pursuant to Council Policy No. 44.
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the site with the proposed design and the proposed number of units does not
provide adequate distance between structures to comply with PUD regulations
(Chapter 21.45) as clarified by Administrative Policy No. 16, and does not comply
with the Small Lot Single Family Guidelines pursuant to Council Policy No. 44.
3. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust
the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and- maintained, in that the project does not provide adequate distance
between structures as required by the PUD regulations (Chapter 21.45) as clarified
by Administrative Policy No. 16, and does not comply with the Small Lot Single
Family Guidelines pursuant to Council Policy No. 44..
4. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the proposed circulation system .will provide
adequate access to all units, adequate room for vehicular movement, %-car garages
for each unit for resident parking, and adequate guest parking in a manner which is
dispersed throughout the project for maximum convenience.
PC PESO NO. 4003 -2-
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of November 1996, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Heineman, Monroy, Nielsen and Savary
NOES: Chairperson Compaq Commissioners Noble and Welshons
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chaix$erson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
v MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLEa:
Planning Director
II PC RESO NO. 4003 -3-
- EXHIBIT 4
.,ie city of CARLSBAD Planning Departmeu
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 4 0
Application complete date: June 27, 1996
P.C. AGENDA OF: November 6, 1996 Project Planner: Elaine Blackburn
Project Engineer: Ken Quon
S1 BJECT: CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07- BROOKFIELD MEADOWS -
Request for recommendation of approval of a Negative Declaration and Planned
Unit Development Amendment; and request for approval of a Tentative Tract
Map, Hillside Development Permit and Site Development Plan to develop 29
single-family dwelling units and 4 second dwelling units (attached), on property
generally located on the south side of Xana Way between Corintia Street and Alga
Road.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3999
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director,
and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4000, 4002, and 4003 DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE CT 96-04, HDP 96-04, and SDP 96-07, and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4001, RECOMMENDING DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
of PUD 7 1 (B), based on the findings contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
This application proposes the development of 29 small lot single family residences and 4 second
dwelling units at the southwest comer of the Corintia Street and Xana Way intersection. Staff is
recommending denial of the project due to non-compliance with the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) regulations as clarified by Administrative Policy No. 16 and City Council Policy No. 44.
Compliance would necessitate some project redesign and staff is recommending denial without
prejudice to allow the applicant to reapply prior to the one year limit associated with a straight
denial. The applicant currently has discretionary approvals to build 104 apartment units on the
site. However, the applicant indicates that the neighborhood residents would prefer to see a
single family detached product on the project site rather than the approved apartment
development. The applicant has worked to resolve the issues associated with the project and has
reduced them to two items (minimum distance between structures and architectural guidelines).
The final decision on this project must be made by City Council because the original approvals
were granted by Council,
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map, planned unit development
amendment, hillside development permit, and site development plan to allow the construction of
29 small lot single family residences and 4 second dwelling units on a 4.39 acre site, which is
located on the south side of Xana Way between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
CT 96-04/PUD 71 (B)/HDk 16-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEAL)OWS
NOVEMBER 6,1996
As shown on Exhibits “A” - “O”, the project consists of 29 single family dwelling units (ranging
in size from 1748 - 2281 square feet in area), plotted on substandard residential lots (ranging in
size from 3876 - 9602 square feet). The units are double loaded along minimum 32’ private
streets. Parking is provided through 2-car garages, tandem spaces in driveways for the second
dwelling units, and on-street parking for guests. The lots include private yards to satisfy private
recreation requirements. The applicant proposes to satisfy common area recreation requirements
by annexing into the neighboring Meadowbrook development, thereby sharing a swimming pool
area and pocket parks.
To satisfy inclusionary housing requirements, four of the proposed dwelling units (Lots 10, 14,
20, and 21) will include attached second dwelling units. The second dwelling units each contain
a total of 393 square feet and form a portion of the second story of the primary units over the first
floor garage. The structures are similar architecturally to the neighboring residences, They
include exteriors of stucco and painted wood siding and tile roofs with aluminum window trim.
The project site is a previously graded lot now covered with non-native grasses. The site consists
of mostly gentle slopes, with existing 2:l slopes along the perimeter of the property and. a
previously approved stockpile on the northern portion of the site.
The project site is a portion of a larger project (PUD 71) approved and amended in the early
1980’s. At that time the total project area consisted of a 43.6 acre site. The area of the current
proposal is a 4.39 acre portion of that 43.6 acre site. In 1980, the Planning Commission
approved development of 300 dwelling units on the overall site. These units were to consist of
single family detached, duplex, triplex, and 4-plex units. That project was not built. Then, in
1984, the City approved discretionary permits for 324 dwelling units to consist of 220 zero lot
line single family units (on the bulk of the site) and a 104~unit apartment project (on the 4.39
acre portion of the site). The majority of the site was developed as approved. However, the
apartment project was never built. The applicant would now like to amend the PUD for the
apartment portion of the project to provide instead 29 single family detached residential units
with four attached second dwelling units.
The site has a General Plan designation of RM (Residential - Medium Density) and a zoning
designation of RD-M/Q (Residential Density-Multiple Zone and Qualified Development
Overlay).
This project is subject to the following regulations:
A. General Plan RM (Medium Density Residential) Designation;
B. Subdivision Regulations (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
C. RDM (Residential Density - Multiple) Zone Regulations (Chapter 21.24 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code;
JP
h
CT 96-04/PUD 71 (B)MDk ~6-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEn0OWS
NOVEMBER 6,1996
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Q (Qualified Overlay) Zone (Chapter 21.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) and
Site Development Plan (affordable housing projects) (Chapter 21.53 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code);
PUD (Planned Unit Development) Regulations (Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code);
Hillside Development Regulations (Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code);
Inclusionary Housing Regulations (Chapters 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code);
Growth Management Regulations (Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6);
and,
Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code)and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
IV. ANALYSIS
A. GENERAL PLAN
The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan. The
General Plan Compliance Table (below) indicates how the project relates to the goals and
policies of the General Plan.
The project site is designated for RM (Medium Density Residential) development by the General
Plan. The designated density for the site is 4-8 du/ac (6 du/ac growth management control
point). The proposed project consists of 29 primary and 4 second dwelling units. Because this
site is the final piece of a larger, already constructed project, the density calculation has been
based upon the combined total density of the existing built project and the proposed development
of the subject site. This results in a total project density of 5.89 du/ac.
The already built project includes 220 dwelling units on a 39.21 acre (gross) site. The density of
the already built portion of the project is based on gross acreage, since that is how the regulations
were written when it was built. The current project includes 33 dwelling units on a 3.70 acre
(net) site. The density of the current subject site is based on net acreage in accordance with
current regulations. Thus the project would be allowed to have a maximum of 261 units and a
maximum density of 6 du/ac on a 42.91 acre site. The proposed development will include 253
units and have a density of 5.89 du/ac. Therefore, the project is consistent with the overall range
allowed by the General Plan and is below the growth management control point.
,- 1-4
CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDl /6-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEAtiOWS
NOVEMBER 6,1996
PAGE 4
The table below summarizes the relevant goals and policies contained in the General Plan and
discusses how the proposed project complies with these goals and policies.
GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE TABLE
ELEMENT
Land Use Element
RM Designation
DISCUSSION
The proposed residential project is designed with a density of 5.89
dufac.
(4-8 du/ac) (6 gcp)
Circulation Element The proposed project would provide adequate circulation
Streets & Traffic Control infrastructure to serve the projected population of the development
Pol. A-2 and the traffic to be generated.
Noise Element A noise study prepared for the project shows that the project would
General Policies C. 1 & not be subject to unacceptable levels of noise.
c.2
Housing Element The project would contribute to provision of a range of housing
Goal 3, Objective 3.5 1 opportunities in the City, including 4 affordable attached second
dwelling units.
Open Space & Recreation The project proposes to annex into the existing neighborhood
Element homeowners’ association for purposes of sharing the existing
Category 3 Open Space common recreation area.
for Outdoor Recreation
Public Safety Element The proposed project would provide adequate sidewalks, street
lights, and fire hydrants.
Parks/Recreation Element The proposed project would be required to pay park-in-lieu fees.
B. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
The proposed Tentative Tract Map complies with most, but not all, of the requirements of the
City’s Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed project would be required to construct the two
private streets within the subdivision and to provide sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants.
The design of the subdivision also would not conflict with any established easements. However,
the project design is not consistent with all applicable provisions of Title 2 1, therefore, cannot be
recommended for approval. (See Section E. Planned Unit Development of this report for a
detailed discussion of this issue.)
C. FtDM (RESIDENTIAL DENSITY - MULTIPLE) ZONE
The project site is zoned RD-M/Q. Because this project is a PUD, most of the development
standards of the RD-M Zone are superseded by the standards contained in the PUD regulations.
For those standards which are not superseded by the PUD regulations, the project complies with
the RD-M standards. The table below (RD-M Zone Compliance Table) summarizes the
CT 96-04/PUD 7 1 (B)/HDl- ;16-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
NOVEMBER 6,1996
development standards required by the RD-M Zone and the standards incorporated into the
proposed project design.
RD-M ZONE COMPLIANCE TABLE
Second dwelling units in the RD-M Zone are required to comply with the same development
standards as primary units. In the project proposed, the second dwelling units are attached to the
primary units, occupying a portion of the second stories (above the garages). The second
dwelling units comply with all applicable requirements of the RD-M Zone. (See Sections D and
G of this report for further discussion of the proposed second dwelling units.)
D. Q (QUALIFIED OVERLAY) ZONE/SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP)
In addition to the RD-M Zone, this site is also governed by the Q Overlay Zone. Development
of more than one single-family residence on property in the Q Overlay requires approval of a Site
Development Plan (SDP). This plan must show the plotting of homes on the lots, heights of
structures, architectural elevations, and floor plans, and the SDP application complies with these
requirements.
Any affordable housing project is also required to have an SDP. This project is required to
provide 4.35 affordable units. The applicant has designed the project to include four second
dwelling units to be attached to the primary units on Lots 10, 14, 20, and 21. The second units
contain a total of 393 square feet each and occupy a portion of the second story of each of those
primary units (above the garages). Each second unit has a private entrance.
E. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
The proposed project design complies with the PUD regulations in some respects but does not
comply in all respects. The table below summarizes the development standards contained in the
PUD regulations and the standards incorporated into the proposed project design. The items in
bold in the right-hand column are the areas in which the project does not comply with the
required standards. These areas of non-compliance are discussed in detail following the table.
The second dwelling units are also required to comply with the applicable requirements of the ii2 *
CT 96-04/PUD 71 (B)/HDI- ~6-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEAL)OWS
NOVEMBER 6,1996
PAGE 6
PUD ordinance, including lot sizes, setbacks, frontages, and building height. The proposed
second dwelling units are designed as a part of the primary units and comply with these
requirements.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE TABLE
1 sp uncov’d (tandem) (2n 2nd units: 1 sp cov’d or
1. Private
50,600 sf Total***
The setback is measured from the right-of-way line in the case of public streets and from the edge of the driveway, curb, or
sidewalk, whichever is closer to the structure, in the case of a private street or private driveway.
**The setback is measured from the property line.
***The PUD requirements for recreation area, RV storage, etc. do not apply to the 2nd dwelling units.
- -
CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDl- ~6-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
NOVEMBER 6,1996
PUD Non-compliance areas:
The following are the areas in which the proposed project does not comply with the requirements
of the PUD regulations.
la. The PUD regulations establish a requirement for a minimum distance between structures.
These regulations refer specifically to the distance between l- and 2-story structures and
between 2- and 3-story structures. The Planning Department relies on Administrative
Policy No. 16 in determining the minimum required distance between 2-story structures
when there are more than 10 such structures in a row. Also, City Council Policy No. 44
“Small Lot Single Family Guidelines” is utilized when reviewing such projects. This
policy defines the term “in a row” and includes additional design guidelines to be applied
to small lot single family projects. Applying these two policies, the minimum distance
allowed between structures on “A” Court would be 20’. The proposed project design
does not comply with this minimum requirement. The proposed project includes all 2-
story structures, with “A” Court containing more than 10 structures in a row. The
distance provided between these structures ranges from approximately 10’ to 1.5’ with
one exception: the distance between Structures 9 and 10, at the curve of the cul-de-sac is
22’. The majority of the structures are shown at 10’ apart. Therefore, staff believes that
the design is too intense for the site and the proposed lot sizes and results in a “crowded”
appearance which the required 20’ distance between structures is intended to eliminate.
lb. Council Policy No. 44 includes small lot architectural guidelines which would also apply
to the proposed small lot (~7500 square foot) project. These requirements are
summarized in the Architectural Guideline Compliance Summary table (attached). As
shown in that table, the proposed project complies with some of these requirements but
does not comply with Items 1, 3, or 5. The structures on Court “B” are -two-story units
and there are three units in a row. However, these structures do not provide the single-
story building edge required (Item 1). Also, the project does not provide the single-story
building edges or the varied building planes required by Items 3 and 5. Therefore, staff
believes that the project design, in addition to being too intense for the site, also provides
too little architectural relief to reduce this effect. The proposed design appears both boxy
and crowded.
F. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
A Hillside Development Permit is required for any project site which contains a slope of 15% or
greater and an elevation differential of greater than 15 feet. The proposed project generally
complies with the Hillside Development regulations. The grading volumes are within the
acceptable amount, and the maximum slope height created will be 16’. Although the site meets
the criteria of a hillside site, the majority of the site consists of gentle slopes. The steeper slopes
are along the perimeter of the property. The table below summarizes the requirements of the
Hillside Development regulations and the way in which the proposed project design complies
with the requirements.
CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDi- d6-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
NOVEMBER 6,1996
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE TABLE
perimeter to remam.
Maintain natural slopes with
structures and roofs,
Decrease building mass with
The building area of the site
contains no significant slopes.
G. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REGULATIONS
The proposed project would be required to provide 4 affordable housing units and to buy a .35
credit in the Villa Loma development to satisfy it’s affordable housing requirements. The project
is designed to provide 29 single family detached residences with an attached second dwelling
unit incorporated into four of those units. Each second unit contains 393 square feet each and
would have a private entrance. These units are contained within a portion of the second story of
the primary unit. Parking for the second units would be provided tandem in the driveways of the
primary units. Consistent with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, these second dwelling units
would be administered through an affordable housing agreement.
H. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6 in the Southeast
quadrant of the City. The impacts which would be created by this development on public facilities
and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized in the table below.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
STANDARD IMPACTS COMPLIANCE
Citv Administration 114.73 sf Yes
Library
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
Drainage
61.19 sf
33 EDU
.229 ac
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Circulation
Fire
330 ADT
Station #2
Yes
Yes
CT 96-04/PUD 7l(B)iHDh 96-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
NOVEMBER 6,1996
The approved 104-unit apartment project was approved prior to the adoption of Growth
Management regulations. Therefore, those 104 units were included as existing units in the
Citywide Plan. The proposed project reduces the total number of project units by 71. However,
in that the original 104 units were counted as existing units, the 71 unused units will not be
added to the excess unit bank.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project was reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was
determined to have no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was
issued by the Planning Director on August 26, 1996. The project qualifies as a subsequent
development to the City’s MEIR (MEIR 93-01) under Section 21083.3 of CEQA. The
environmental review also relied upon the MEIR for analysis of cumulative air and cumulative
traffic impacts. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has also been issued.
V. SUMMARY
After reviewing the proposed project, staff has concluded that the project is consistent with all
applicable policies of the General Plan but does not comply with all requirements of the PUD
regulations, Administrative Policy No. 16, and City Council Policy No. 44 (Small Lot Single
Family Guidelines). Because of these non-compliance areas, staff is unable to recommend
approval of the CT, PUD, or SDP. Although the project complies with the requirements of the
Hillside Development (HDP) regulations, the HDP cannot stand alone. Because staff believes the
project could be redesigned to be in compliance with all applicable regulations, we are
recommending denial without prejudice.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3999
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4000
Planning Commission Resolution No. 400 1
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4002
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4003
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Form
Architectural Guidelines Compliance Table
Reduced Exhibits
Full size exhibits “A’‘-“Q” dated November 6, 1996.
-_
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 96-04/PUD 7 1 (BYHDP 96-04/SDP 96-07
CASE NAME: Brookfield Meadows
APPLICANT: Okon Development Co.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: A 30-lot residential proiect including; 29 single familv detached units
J4 of which will include attached 2nd dwelling units). located on the south side of Xana Way between
Corintia Street and Alga Road
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 224 & portion of Lot 223 CT #84-23 Map No. 11241
APN: 223-02 1-l 8 & 223-353-27 Acres: 4.39 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 30/33
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RM
Density Allowed: 4-8 (6) du/ac Density Proposed: 5.89 dufac
Existing Zone: RD-M/O Proposed Zone: n/a
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements)
Zoning
Site R&M/Q
North RID-M/Q
South PU
East PC&OS
West PC
Land Use
Undeveloped
Residential
Undeveloped
Undeveloped
Undeveloped
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: San Marcos Water District: Vallecitos Sewer District: Vallecitos
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity):
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: November 15, 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Ix1 Negative Declaration, issued August 26. 1996
cl Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
0 Other,
EB:bk
- -,
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: CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 6 GENERAL PLAN: RM
ZONING: RD-Ml0
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Okon Develonment Co.
ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 577, De1 Mar, CA 92014
PHONE NO.: /619)755-7005 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 223-021-18 & 223-353-27
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 4.39 ac
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 114.73
B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = 61.19
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 33
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = .229
E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = n/a
Identify Drainage Basin = D
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
F. Circulation: Demand in ADT = 330
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 2
H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = n/a
I. Schools: SMSD
(Demands to be determined by staff)
J. Sewer: Demands in EDU 33
Identify Sub Basin = n/a
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: Demand in GPD = 7,260
L. The project was approved prior to Growth Management for 104 apartment units.
The proposed project represents a reduction in the number of units, but will not
provide excess units for the bank.
51
03/30/1994 06: 50 61923 ‘-57 BOCUZZOANDJL'-‘>
nay I 17 '36 1lrXB Emla aKr xEmuJwEw . . . m 61!3-Tssf 1 P. 3 - _..-. -
PAGEI 01
Citv of Carlsbad
I DISCLO$URE STATEMEUT
WPUlXWtltTA~~ w mi.6suf= OF CERtm ~6Rsl’ibt= iMTEFiEs= otd & ~PUCAJ-IONS !~vI=GH WKL REOUW blsCRmOWRY -N ON THE Pb.&t Of ME Crfv COUNc1L. @I ANY APWMJTED
~oAFIO. COMMISSION OR COHMIWEE
fh I lollowIng Irhmatlan must k dlacbad:
1.
IJet the n#1?08 uld ddt@88m ot P pua0198 hrvlng r llnar+ krkrmt in the appliition, . - fi Br okfield i
nvroflt mutual benefit carp.
2 m
I Uet tha nam#a Md addrm d d pamas hating uuy ownmhlp lntorlst in the proprrty involved.
3. HWmnon kJadlrrd pununtbo(l)oc (r) 8bovaIr a carp#rUon orpuMs~p.llsttbr namea ar adUr~~8 Or alI krdldduab owr3nQ mow tnUr 1096 of tf~ rhu.8 In thr OO~~XXCPD~O~ br own&~ eny partn@r$h kltrrsrt In mm pmtnuahlp.
nwpmocr- purau8nl to (1) w (2) 8nevo IO 8 rKmprom orpanizauorl or 8 mmt, fist ttw names w
~tWa8888 QI uy pcrpn wwing aa oflkw or dire&or d( the n0bpmrn org8ni28tion or 88 we0 or bw9ficb Qrth8trwt
t nmv Asso ciation
ElnrrnProfitq t COf I
z Steve Weston, President of .
nmv . Asdar I,! ion
03/30/1994 06: 50 6192?--'57. BOCUZZO MD J'l'-'9 PAGE 02
wry 17 '96 11:11 rawEl66s TEL 619-w P. 4 _. . . .-. - . . . . . ., . ,_ . . . . d .I . *da.....--
?
Dis9oetm St-- PPP, 2
5. Java you had man lh8n $260 worth of bwhw MnsacW with uiy mwd3ar of City slat& Boaros Commirsbnr. Comrn’Etoma and Council within lbo put twdvm months? Ysr - NO -ML tf y**, ploue lndcata pw8on(8)
I i -Ion. SocJd club, fralrrnal
municWW, dhici of dw pdhlcd sdUJuwarS or any ather fpmup Of 6wWnaion actlnp a5 a unit.*
[
I I
w: Atbch sddltknd pagem &a ne#u$ry,)
/ysgg&z~.,.,^ .&&& c+&G&?-~*&df~L:
siinatur. of bwnrrldnr slgnatwe of appllttiirtr
Steven S. Weston, President for Brookfield Owners’ Association 5-tciJiq 5. Lcks+wi
P&t or VP0 fmme of OwIuc
Steven S. Weston, President for Brookfield Owners' Association
PfMt ot typ name aI l pphnt
Explanatlone:
With respect to Number one, Applicant, the Brookfield Owners’ Association litate that it may have a financial interest if the proposed Brookfleld Meadowe development is ouccessfully annexed into the Brookfleld Owners ' Association upon its completion.
The financial interest is primarily the probable decrease in membership assessment obligations.
With respect to Number two, Owner. the Brookfiedl tiers’ AS6OCiatiOn states that it
may be an Owner if the proposed Brookfield Meadows development 16 successfully annexed into the Brookfield Owner6' Association. The Ownership interest would be primarily limited to the new common maintenance arears which the Brookfield Owners'
Aeeociatlon would be reaponslble to maintain if the Brookfield Meadows development 16 annexed into the Brookfield &mere' &sociatj,on.
4
*.3 3
DISCLOSCRESTATEMENT
AP%CAM’S STATEMEM OF 06CLOSU~E OF CE;TTAIN OWNERSHIP ‘MEPESTS ON AU APPC]aTIONS ‘&c(ICH +,,L~ ;IE,=~;;~
XCRRIONA~Y ACTION ON -E PAW Of mE Cm COUNCL OA ANY APPOINTEO BOARO. COMMlSSiCN CR C:MMI;~EE
, =‘case 0-m
The following information must be disclosed:
1. Amlicant
List the names and addresses of ail persons having a financial interest in the application.
OKCNDEWWPMINI CO, P.O. BOX 577
DEL MAR. CA 92014
2.
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. lzoGEIcliEsTINvEsIMENT,LTD
P.O. BOX 577
DEL MAR, CA 92014
3. If any person identined pukuant to (1) of (2) above is a corporation of partnership, list the names ar;c
addresses of all individuals owning more than 1096 of the shues in the corporation or owning any partnersn::
interest in the mftnofship. IRVING OKOVITA ALJ?REDsALM
POST OFFICE BOX 577 - 1440 ScARBoRo RD.
DEL MAR, CA 92014 MONTREAL, QUEBEC, H3P251
CANADA
4. If any peMn idonMod pwrurnt to (1) or (2) above ia a nonprofIt orgmization or a trust, list the names anI
addresses of any person s@fving u offioar 01 director of tha non-profit or&kzation or as trustee or beneficfar , . ofthetfust > 0 ,
FRM 13 4/93 Page 1 of 2jL#
2075 Las Palmu Drive l CarI8brd. Calilornir 920094889 0 (619) 439-l 161
Oisclosur~ Statemen!
{Over)
Page 2
5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, 3oarcs.
Commrssions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No _1L If yes, please indicate person(s)
Patmn aa Win84 u: ‘Any indiwdud. firm. cooutnonhio. ~OWRVOMWO. uroclation. SOC~ dub. fratomal org@ntzatifion. corporation. •~t~~~. !fas(, I
racwor. synemto. mm and uy OUWI county. citf and couf+ty. city munbclpur(y. Qmtnct or other polrticd ~&drvl~mn. or my emu grouo jr
combrwbon rctq u a unn’
(NON, Aft)cn actaillonal pagea aa nocasmy.)
Pnnt of fypa rwlla al appbcam
FRM 13 4/91
=
L 0
G
u
z
z
s
-
5 P
i
ii
-
v) .E
5
*
-
= m 5 c c .- .- 5 c .- -F :: s ;; 6 .- z
F z .- .- E
i? .- -0 . b: 2$ wo
+ G mr v)
6 = x
E
z .- .- E
c”
ul z
E tn E I-
r(Vm
ddd 222
E E
i .E .- .- E -2
UC0 x3 ‘G 0 %:” 09 m”z
8 0 0
5; E= :g E rG
2 0
s:
Yi z’s .a w E IO ‘=
$2
275 = 5 2;
;s .% + CO xc =$ “0 -e o-
TE bw mo E.$ P
EC 0 L 0 z- PC w” EE YJ ‘;‘E r” :g
-g E (0
t; ‘0)
WG? ‘Z w
kLr
$i;
nlil
vi E W =
Y. c:j-
ig
=;;i &:,r
2
UI
: .-j,
.$..I , .+ .: I,.
: El i
,‘i 43
1 I I
@
a ~ i---J 1 1 1 - z
1 ‘1 E =I .fq, -- ; T[
. .;; :, .‘:. -. i %a. . _ i. * _ ;- s-, , .
.:. r; ,!,.;; _ .: ._-. - I 1.
g 9 !Y W
%
i!
1
. . .:’ -. .1. _ .! 1:. i. . .:. t... . . ..‘. ._: . I-
.~.. ._ -,Li :-. . . . . . :,. -. _ ,-' - 1 . : . . . . . .: '. 1. _ i :... . .. . < . . 1 I ..-:;:~-.;.~,:~....i;~ : . * '_ ' -- .: '-:-';~.y:. ;.: ,,.. (.Z....!:. ;.'... .. . ::-.. _ ,.*- ;A;:! .,.. ;. , -7. : .‘::'.-J':,~*., .-..T, _.: ;r [ . : .. t';,;;; :[,$.y;;.$ :I :;-' IL :..:' -. . r-z: . . s:.. .; .;. : .,: :' :a : , . . :- :: .;_ :. ..:.. ., -. .: '.*-,. I . .,, : ..:..;,,: -. -.-
_.i. :. ‘..., - .i, -.--. . . . . .
4 ..T
,x it JIrJ ' ititr . :
'I$ ;cn ( 1 -;, :
? .
..: ‘>
;L. >
CT --
t
.- .I
‘Lj ‘ii :.- ,
,! -9
.,
.._. I
. ,.. ;-
_.
,_’ \
. .
r.. L
--~ ’ yy-.; PI>.. *-* I,.--,
- -.- a-.,., >W!XSS~ S!JJeH
-. . _
.- --
i
, _:--
i -ii;
,;I II ..___ //I3 ! Fq (Q&J \ [I ‘1, El
L \ n
B a -===I -1 4
? -- -; ii J
cl -4 cc,
g s i! 5 0 e
kn *3 ‘0 cJ3-r &P -0-l Qz
. i
2’
i
Z!
g:
I
g.+
5:: +I, ) 2,s
0, I i t. ?:s
B -a g
G’ q
i
i
i
/
i
$1
E. I ----\+---
I$ I I I , I I , 1 / r\ ; i I f 6
I t $ I I s .---. a ;, B 1
I , I I , I - I ;j ’ _I /
/
tj / ‘+-.- - -c I i , i I 1 I I
r-j
i /\
_” I 8 1 ’ i ! - I .i 9” mk
k
0”: -2 L;a
ii
B
5
iii I 5 I’
I I I z---r- \ , \ \ \ ! \ I
I / , ! r / z d I I I I I I /
,
II
I
I
I I
6 2
: I 6 , I 5. - -,-
; , 1 I Y ; 5 uk
3 s: I ‘10 !
1-J 23
I& ii 12
G, 1
! i”
z h s \
‘G L ? I 1 / 1 \ \ : ---- b
-
EXHIBIT 5
4. CT 96-04iPUD 71tBVHDP 96-94/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS - Request for
recommendation of approval of a Negative Declaration and Planned Unit Development
Amendment; and request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and
Site Development Plan to develop 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 second dwelling units
(attached), on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way between Corintia Street
and Alga Road.
Chairman Compas announced to the applicant, Commissioners and the public that if the Commission
recommends approval of this item, it will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration.
Chairman Compas opened the public hearing
Project Planner, Elaine Blackburn began her report by giving a brief review, including some of the history,
of this project. She spoke of this project as originally having been a part of a larger project in the early
1980’s; the bulk of which was then approved, amended and developed, leaving approximately 4.39 acres
still undeveloped. This smaller portion was to be used for a one hundred and four (104) unit apartment
complex but that project was never built. Ms. Blackburn stated that the applicant is now requesting to
amend the PUD to allow the apartment site to be developed with small lot, single family residential units.
After reviewing the project, Staff concluded that they cannot recommend it for approval as it does not
comply with all of the requirements of the PUD ordinance as clarified by the Planning Department
Administrative Policy #16 (requiring a minimum of twenty feet of separation between structures where
there are more than ten such structures in a row) and the City Council Policy #44 (requiring adequate
architectural relief). However, Staff does believe that the project could be re-designed to better comply
with the two (2) policy areas discussed, and therefore is recommending denial without prejudice. Ms.
Blackburn pointed out that “denial without prejudice” would allow the applicant the opportunity to make
some changes to the plan and come back with another application prior to the one (1) year waiting period
that would be imposed with a normal straight denial. Referring to the Staff Report, Ms. Blackburn
concluded her presentation by indicating that the project includes three (3) permit requests to be decided
by the Commission and two (2) permit requests to be decided by the City Council.
Chairman Compas invited the applicant to step forward.
MINUTES (2
PLANNING COMMISSION November 6, 1996 Page 5
Nick Banche, Attorney at Law, 715 Pier View Way, Oceanside, CA., representing the Okon Development
Co., and IN Okon, President, began his presentation by pointing out that fourteen (14) of the twenty-nine
(29) planned units are four (4) bedroom homes; not three (3) bedrooms as stated earlier, Mr. Banche
suggested that rather than look at the two areas of supposed non-compliance (as pointed out by Staff) the
Commission should be looking at the fact that this project is in total compliance with every other
requirement set forth by the City of Carlsbad and therefore should be given every consideration toward
approval of this request. Further, Mr. Banche pointed out that the neighboring residential area
homeowners are especially supportive of a single family project as opposed to the original plan for an
apartment complex.
On the subject of compatibility, Mr. Banche pointed out that there are several forms of compatibility and
went on to discuss some of them. He spoke about the project being legally compatible but not necessarily
within the “policy guidelines”. He advised that “policy guidelines” do not reach the dignity of subdivision
ordinance requirements and therefore this Commission has the ability to disregard that policy. Mr.
Banche alluded to the fact that staff was obligated to point out the deficiencies, just as he, the
representative of the applicant is obligated to point out the fine points of the plan and if the Commission
denies this request, he would have to consider it a “soft” denial. He also addressed the subject of the
architectural guidelines by saying that the project complies with 75% of the requirement and could be
made to satisfy 99% of the requirement, but only at a cost of livability in return for questionable aesthetics.
Mr. Banche told of having met with several of the homeowners from the neighboring subdivision and their
views regarding the building of this project. He said that they were immediately in favor of single family
homes and the fact that this project would hook into their common areas and help with association fees.
He also said that they expressed their opposition to having rental units built but most of all, they were very
specific about not wanting any houses built that would sell for less than their houses would sell for.
Mr. Banche spoke of Architectural Guideline # 3 and the 40% requirement. He pointed out that it is not
possible to reach the 40% requirement without “doing violence to the livability of the house”. To show how
hard the applicant has worked to comply, Mr. Banche pointed out that they have amended their
application and made architectural changes. Mr. Banche concluded by saying that the Commission may
disagree on the desirability of the project but asked them to, “please, don’t disagree and feel that this
applicant hasn’t tried very hard to submit a project that ought to be approved.”
Commissioner Monroy expressed his concern for the “second dwelling units” and asked if the applicant
would be willing to move the outside stairway to an inside location for better protection from the rain. He
also asked if there has been any provision made for laundry facilities in those second dwelling units?
Ken Discenza, Engineer, Site Design Associates, Inc., 7864 La Mesa Blvd., #201, La Mesa, CA 91941,
responded by pointing out that there is a provision for a washer and dryer in the front part of the garage,
for the main unit, and an area under the stairwell (outside) that could be used as a laundry area. As for
moving the stairs; Mr. Discenza pointed to the roof overhang which partially covers the stairs and said that
the overhang could be extended a little more. However, relocating the stairs would be impossible; there
simply is no available room. Mr. Discenza also pointed out that there is a closet, next to the pantry in the
kitchen, in the second unit where a “stackable” washer and dryer could be located.
Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Blackburn what the maximum allowable square footage is for second
dwelling units and was given a figure of 640 square feet. It was also added that there is no minimum
square footage for a second dwelling unit.
Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Banche why the applicant has to fit twenty-nine (29) homes into this
subdivision.
MINUTES l/j &-
PLANNING COMMISSION November 6, 1996 Page 6
Mr. Banche replied that the applicant had originally planned for thirty-five (35) homes in there and in the
process of trying to bring the project into compliance, reduced the number of homes to twenty-nine (29).
He added that if his client would be required to drop one (1) or two (2) more units, he would lose money.
Commissioner Heineman questioned the statement that the applicant would lose money if he reduced the
number to twenty-seven (27) or twenty-eight (28) units and asked how other builders made money when
they have had to reduce the number of units in their projects.
Mr. Banche answered that in most cases, builders are probably not faced with a situation of having a lot
that is approved for apartment units and then try to accommodate the desire for single family, detached
homes.
Commissioner Heineman stated that he is puzzled by the fact that the applicant is approaching the
Commission, asking for approval on a plan where there is 25% less distance between the structures than
what the regulations call for. He then asked why they even considered approaching the Commission with
a plan so “grossly out of regulation”.
Mr. Banche disagreed with Commissioner Heineman’s characterization and asked that he ask himself to
determine the purpose of the guidelines and then ask if it is a question of safety or a question of
aesthetics. He went on to state that he believes that Staff would agree that the spacing is a question of
aesthetics and the whole purpose is to prevent the houses from looking like row-houses. He then pointed
out that these houses do not look like row-houses because of the architectural treatment and that every
effort was made to provide an aesthetically pleasing project and satisfy the prohibition that the guidelines
were designed to provide.
Commissioner Heineman pointed out that there are many builders in Carlsbad, all the time, obeying what
Mr. Banche says does not have the force of law and questioned why Mr. Banche’s client can’t do the
same.
Mr. Banche replied by stating that he has to take his clients word regarding financial viability and he has
no reason to disbelieve him when he says that he can’t afford to lose a house. After all, he pointed out,
his client has already given up one hundred and four (104) units for twenty-nine (29) units and deserves
some credit for attempting to make this a viable alternative. Mr. Banche also pointed out that in the past,
the Commission has disregarded the policy in question and that the policy is not sacrosanct. He stated
that he is simply asking that the Commission weigh aJ the considerations and make a determination (in
good conscience) as to whether or not it can ignore it this time.
Commissioner Noble asked why the builder can’t move the second story off a bit, in order to meet the
requirements and was told that by doing so, there may be an aesthetic gain but there would certainly be a
livability loss. He then asked what the basic formula is for the number of requirements for four (4)
bedrooms.
Mr. Banche asked Mr. Discenza to answer Commissioner Noble’s question.
Mr. Discenza stated that there are three (3) floor plans. Plan No. 1 has three (3) bedrooms on two (2)
stories. Plan Nos. 2 & 3 are very similar with four (4) bedrooms. The No. 2 plan is the one with the
affordable housing unit where the fourth bedroom has been separated from the rest of the house and
made into the “Granny Flat”. Plan No. 3 is the one that can possibly be modified. It has four bedrooms
and in order to change the height of the roof, half of the master suite would be lost and it would be
necessary to use the space designated for the fourth bedroom to add to the master suite. The result
PLANNING COMMISSION November 6, 1996 Page 7
would be another floor plan with only three (3) bedrooms. Mr. Discenza explained that by making that
house a three (3) bedroom, they could satisfy the policy but the end result would be that all the houses
would become three (3) bedroom units, except the four (4) with the affordable units. He went on to point
out that since this is a family oriented project, compatible with the adjoining neighborhood, it is reasonable
to believe that there should be four(4) bedroom choices as opposed to all three (3) bedroom plans. In
addition, if the fourth bedroom is eliminated, it follows that the price of the house will also have to be
lowered causing an additional loss to the developer. Mr. Discenza also made reference to the wishes of
the neighboring homeowners by recounting their suggestions to not only match their architectural features
and design but to build homes that will be equal in value to their homes and not be likely to reduce the
value of their homes. Mr. Discenza also explained that if they dropped all of the units to three (3)
bedrooms (as opposed to threes and fours) then they will be lowering the overall income of the project. In
order to meet the guidelines, nine (9) of the twenty-nine (29) units would have to be changed from four (4)
bedrooms to three (3) and the resulting price differential would basically make the project economically
unfeasible. The same applies to the idea of dropping a lot. In planning this project, they tried to keep the
prices in line with the rest of the neighborhood while at the same time keeping the square footage, the
number of bedrooms in the houses, the square footage of the lots, the color schemes, etc., all comparable
to those existing homes.
Commissioner Noble commented that he appreciates the fact that the applicant wishes to maintain the
standard of the houses and ensure that they do not degrade the neighborhood but the fact is that if those
houses were being built today, they would not be able to conform with today’s requirements because the
rules have changed.
Chairman Compas opened the public testimony.
Steve Weston, 6830 Via Marinero, Carlsbad, President of the Brookfield Owners Association, began his
testimony by stating that Association Board as well as individual homeowners, are very pleased with the
Brookfield Meadows plan as it has been presented to them and to the Commission. Mr. Weston
expressed their support and encouraged the Commission and the City Council to approve the project.
Chairman Compas asked Mr. Weston if he, or those he represents, are concerned about the lack of
enough of a second story setback.
Mr. Weston responded that he feels that the front setback is more than adequate and is very similar to
what his neighborhood has. He also endorsed the architectural relief that has been provided for the rear
of the houses and made a favorable comment regarding the setback distance from the public sidewalk to
the garage doors which, in his opinion, is a very important factor.
Commissioner Savary asked Mr. Weston how his homeowner’s association feels about sharing their
recreational facilities.
Mr. Weston replied that the homeowners look forward to another twenty-nine (29) homeowners to help
with the expenses and they have plenty of room for them. He added that it is also possible that with the
additional financial help, perhaps they will be in a position to make some improvements.
Commissioner Nielsen asked how many homes are currently in Brookfield Meadows and how long Mr.
Weston has lived there.
Mr. Weston answered that there are two hundred and twenty (220) and that he has lived there for four (4)
years.
MINUTES :;I L,’ L’
PLANNING COMMISSION November 6, 1996 Page 8
Commissioner Nielsen then asked Mr. Weston if, when he moved into Brookfield Meadows, he had been
aware that a one hundred and four (104) unit apartment complex was planned for that area.
Mr. Weston explained that he had known about the apartment complex because it had been included in
the C.C. & R’s as the last phase of Brookfield. However, no one felt that it would ever be built because
some of the existing condos in the area are still vacant and have become economic disasters.
Kari Yem, 6851 Xana Way, Carlsbad. Ms. Yem lives in the house immediately next to this project and is
the Vice President of the Brookfield Owner’s Association. She pointed out that one of the reasons she
and her fellow residents are in favor of the twenty-nine (29) new homes, is that there will be less traffic
than there would be if a large apartment complex were to built there. She stated that she has owned her
home for two (2) years and, she too, had been told about the apartment complex but also felt that it would
never be built. She also added that if the apartments had already been there, she probably would have
bought somewhere else.
Mr. Banche once again addressed the Commission and pointed out that his client had done everything he
could possibly do, within reason, to accommodate the City. He made a brief summation and again asked
the Commission to weigh the aesthetic gain against the livability burden and to also consider asking Staff
if you (as a body) have the power to override the “guidelines”.
Chairman Compas asked Mr. Banche if he could provide the Commission with documented findings, as
they relate to this project, and what findings would he recommend.
Mr. Banche responded by saying that he could provide such findings but felt that it would be more
appropriate for Staff to provide them. He did say however, “I think that the basic finding that the project
promotes and satisfies essentially the spirit of the policy and that it promotes the health, safety and
welfare of the population.” Mr. Banche then informed the Commission that if they agree with what he has
said in this meeting, to please not let findings bother them because, as a lawyer, he is sure that this one
could not be attacked successfully on the basis of inadequate findings. He then reminded them that they
are talking about a policy not a legal requirement of an ordinance.
Chairman Compas closed the public testimony and opened Commission discussion.
Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Blackburn to elaborate on the policy concerning the “number of
houses in a row” and “the distance between each home”.
Ms. Blackburn explained that the PUD ordinance identifies minimum required distance between
structures, for certain types of structures. It refers to one (1) story, two (2) stories, etc., but does not
address all the possible combinations of stories. Therefore, the City has Planning Administrative Policy
No. 16, which says that when you have two (2) story structures and you have more than ten (10) in a row,
you have to provide twenty (20) feet between structures.
Commissioner Welshons asked if that policy only applied to house #lO and house #l 1.
Ms. Blackburn’s answer was “no”, that it is intended to provide distance between all of those structures.
Chairman Compas inquired; if there were only nine (9) structures, what would the distance between them
have to be?
Ms. Blackburn responded by saying that if they were all two (2) story, she believes the distance to be
fifteen (15) feet, under the PUD. She also said that she thought there may be a gap there and the PUD
-
PLANNING COMMISSION November 6, 1996 Page 9
does not specifically address two (2) story structures; it talks about two (2) AND three (3) story
Assistant Planning Director Gary Wayne advised that the PD ordinance does not address less than ten
(10) structures in a row. He went on to say that under the policy, if you have ten (10) in a row, the
minimum between a two (2) story and a one (1) story is fifteen (15) feet; two (2) and three (3) story is
twenty (20) feet; it is silent on the distance between two (2) and two (2); and the distance between a one
(1) story and a one (1) story is ten (10) feet. Regarding structural separation, Mr. Wayne also explained
that the PD ordinance is really silent on it except that you generally need a minimum of five (5) feet for
positive drainage on the side of a house. By adding together the five (5) feet from each house, the ten
(10) foot distance is accomplished.
Ms. Blackburn continued by pointing out that if you refer to the Small and Single Family Guidelines, which
is City Council Policy No. 44, you will find that it specifically defines what constitutes ten units in a row. It
specifically says that the structures are in a row until there is a 90” turn or an intersection and any curve
less that a 90” curve does not constitute an adequate break and is still considered to be in a row.
Commissioner Welshons, referring back to the PD ordinance, interpreted its meaning as: they meet the
PD ordinance because it is silent on two (2) story units, side by side, and they meet the minimum distance
of ten (10) feet. She then asked if Staff is falling back on the Small Lot Council Policy that is more specific
regarding two (2) story houses, side by side, as needing twenty (20) feet between them.
Ms. Blackburn responded by saying that Staff is relying on both Policy No. 16 and Council Policy No. 44.
She explained that Council Policy No. 44 identifies what degree of curvature in a street or intersection in a
street constitutes not having units in a row and it says that units are in a row until you come to a 90”.
Commissioner Welshons pointed out that when you go back to Policy No. 44 the PD ordinance still
doesn’t say “two (2) story units.”
Ms. Blackburn agreed and said that that is where they rely on Planning Department Administrative Policy
No. 16 for the twenty (20) foot requirement between two (2) story units when there are more than ten (10)
in a row.
Commissioner Savary asked if there are various elevations within the project site and was given an
affirmative answer. Additionally, she asked if the variation in elevations would have any effect on the
aesthetics and would help give the sense that its not all on a flat and the same on both sides of the street.
Ms. Blackburn answered that the changes in elevations are not great and there is no specific allowance in
the policy that would direct that those elevation changes would be a factor. Commissioner Savary pointed
out that both sides of the street are not the same.
Commissioner Noble asked to have Assistant City Attorney Rich Rudolf expand on Mr. Banche’s
statement regarding policy versus guidelines.
Mr. Rudolf replied that Section 21.45.090 is entitled Development Standards. And a standard is a
standard - its not a policy, its not a recommendation, its not desirable, its not preferred, its a standard.
That means you have to meet it. It can’t be waived unless there is provision for waiving it, like provisions
for affordable housing or in some other way, or a variance. That’s the “hard” part. The “easy” part is
guidelines. You have guidelines in the landscape manual and design manual, and those are
recommended or preferred but they are usually set out in an array of choices with a level of ascending or
descending preferability. But, any of them are O.K. and they are only guidelines and they can all be
waived or not met, and they are still O.K. Undermining that clarity of distinction between “standard” and
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION November 6, 1996 Page 10
“guideline,” you have this language with regard to the design guidelines manual in Section 21.45.075
which says, “no project which is inconsistent with the design guidelines shall be approved”, which nicely
confuses the matter by raising the guidelines to the level, almost, of a standard. So, where do you draw
that line? Mr. Banche will then argue, “a guideline is a guideline - you can waive it - you can throw is out -
its just something to give you a direction and give you a focus. And you try to get there but if you can’t get
there, and there are good reasons for not getting there, its O.K.” And in most instances, that’s probably
O.K. And here we are applying a departmental policy and City Council adopted policy to interpret an
ordinance which establishes a standard. So, you’ve got it about as confusing as you can possibly get, to
try to come up with something you can hang your hat on. I think there’s enough flexibility there because
of the confusion, the overlapping of the language, the imprecision of it, that you could go either way and
you could find that the Staff and the Council’s interpretation of the standard are just policy matters and
that they are flexible enough to be bent, not met, gotten close to but don’t have to be absolutely met. If
you do that, you can still meet the standard. Or you can conclude it is a true standard and it has not been
met. I think it is in the Planning Commission’s purview to make the initial call as to what you think that
standard is. Does the guideline get raised to a standard, and therefore the Staff interpretation that where
the ordinance is silent you fill in with this past administrative interpretation and practice, and the courts will
honor it, if its reasonable. If it says twenty (20) feet, its twenty (20) feet, and if that’s what you conclude, a
court is probably going to buy that. If you conclude its a guideline, its guidance, its flexible, we can waive
it, we can modify it, its not absolutely binding and that’s your belief and your conclusion, I think a court will
follow that too.
Chairman Compas stated that his interpretation of what Mr. Rudolf had just said is that if the Commission
wants to approve this project, that they can come up with findings that will support it.
Mr. Rudolf agreed with Chairman Compas’ interpretation.
Commissioner Welshons expressed her uneasiness with the staff report and the confusion has left her
feeling very uncomfortable. She said that she understood that they could go in either direction but
because of all the confusion she does not feel confident in going in either direction.
Chairman Compas reassured Commissioner Welshons that they could be comfortable, either way.
Commissioner Welshons replied that she may feel comfortable, but she would have to lay some ground
work if she is going to make a finding in the other direction.
Chairman Compas stated that whatever direction they decided to go in, they would be able to come up
with findings that support them.
Commissioner Welshons said that her unrest is not only with the findings but with the differences between
the policy and the standard, unless there’s another version of the same interpretation.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that it is his understanding that it is legally defensible, either way, therefore
they can be comfortable no matter which way they go.
Commissioner Noble, asking Mr. Rudolf for a “yes” or “no” answer, made an analogy and was given a
“YES” answer.
Commissioner Monroy again voiced his concern over the fact that there is not a specific place for a
washer and dryer in the second dwelling unit and also about rain protection over the stairway. He pointed
out that if the closet is used for a stackable laundry pair then the closet probably won’t meet the standard.
He also pointed out that the closet in question is not indicated on the plans.
MINUTES
-
PLANNING COMMISSION November 6,1996 Page 11
Mr. Discenza stated that it is his opinion that it is possible to put a stackable washer and dryer in there
and still have a decent sized wardrobe.
Commissioner Heineman commented that it is his impression that this project came very close to approval
and this is why Staff is recommending denial without prejudice and asked what it would take for it to meet
the regulations. He continued by asking if the houses must be twenty (20) feet apart, if the project must
be architecturally redesigned, and if there is a middle ground where they could meet and obtain approval.
Ms. Blackburn stated that given the non-compliance, it would be very difficult for Staff to come forth with a
fully comfortable recommendation of approval. A recommendation of approval, typically, comes when a
project meets each and every criteria. She did say that they were very close in many respects.
Chairman Compas opened Commission discussion.
Commissioner Noble, speaking for the record, reported that he had talked with Mr. Banche on Tuesday,
November 6, 1996, and that Mr. Banche had asked him if he had any problems with the project. He went
on to say that he told Mr. Banche that he had “heartburn” with the box type thing but that was basically
the sum of his concerns with the project. He then stated that he thinks it is a good project even though
there are some small problems with it. He pointed out that in view of the economy of the day and the fact
that there has been a cry for more four (4) bedroom homes, he is of the opinion that the Commission
should overlook those things they are empowered to overlook and approve the project. He then voiced
his support for the project.
Commissioner Welshons voiced her appreciation to Commissioner Noble for raising the questions for Mr.
Rudolf and helping to clarify some points. As a result, she agreed with Commissioner Noble’s
assessment of the situation. She continued by saying that in using their discretion, the Commission is
saying that this project meets the spirit of the Planning Department Administrative Policy No. 16 and
Council Policy No. 44. Ms. Welshons summarized the testimony of the evening and announced that she
would vote for approval.
Commissioner Heineman voiced his concern regarding the quality of the second dwelling units and the
distance between the units and said he could not see where any minor changes could be made. He
stated that it is his opinion that they need to reduce the size by one or two lots in order to create the
twenty (20) feet between each house and as it stands now, he cannot vote for approval.
Commissioner Monroy made known his concern for setting precedent. Once again he said that he was
not happy with the fact that the second dwelling units do not have specific laundry areas and that the
stairways are not adequately protected from the elements and in inclement weather could be considered
unsafe. He spoke of his dislike for the architectural look of the homes. Mr. Monroy also stated that the
Planning Commission does not make policy and if policy is to be changed, it will have to be changed by
the City Council. He then stated that he cannot support the approval of this project.
Commissioner Nielsen disagreed with taking the apartment complex out and replacing it with single family
homes. His contentions is that currently there are no apartments in La Costa and if the City expects to get
affordable rental units someplace, they can’t approve rental projects and then not have them built. He
voiced his agreement with Commissioner Heineman regarding the distance between the houses and said
he could not vote for approval.
Chairman Compas recognized Assistant Planning Director Wayne.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION November 6, 1996 Page 12
Mr. Wayne said that if the desire of the Commission is to approve the project, it can’t actually be approved
at this time without Conditions for Approval. He advised that the Commission direct Staff to return to the
Commission with Conditions AND Findings for Approval. He also said that Staff would come back with
Findings based on the Commission’s discussion.
Commissioner Savary admitted that she is still not absolutely sure about this project but that she feels that
she should support Staffs recommendation for denial without prejudice, mainly because of the close
proximity of the houses.
Chairman Compas voiced his support for the project, with some reservations.
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, recommending
approval of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and
adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4000, 4002 8 4003
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE CT 96-04, HDP 96-04, and SDP 96-
07, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4001,
RECOMMENDING DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE of PUD 71(B)
based on the findings contained therein.
4-3
Monroy, Nielsen, Savary and Heineman
Compas, Noble and Welshons
None
Chairmen Compas closed the public hearing and thanked all who had participated.
Chairman Compas closed the public hearing and thanked Ms. Blackburn for performing “yeoman’s duty”
this evening.
ACTION: Minute Motion, by Commissioner Noble requested that, in an effort to
erase some of the confusion between City Council Policy No. 44 and
Planning Department Policy No. 16, that the City Council help Staff look
into some means or method of trying to get these items a little closer
together. Also, would the City Council entertain the possibility of
considering that the setback requirements, in a tiered project where the
houses have varying degrees of setback, be used in consideration of
approval.
Commissioner Welshons stated that her understanding of the Minute Motion is that it is, basically, asking
Council to provide more clarification on the Planning Department Administrative Policy and the City
Council Policy.
Commissioner Noble confirmed that Ms. Welshons was correct in her understanding and further detailed
the reasons for the motion. He specifically alluded to the confusion brought about by the policies and
standards regarding one (1) and two (2) story; three (3) and four (4) bedroom homes.
The motion was not seconded and therefore no vote was taken.
Chairman Compas also asked the Planning Department to look into somehow correcting the “silent” PD
Ordinance regarding the spacing between two (2) story homes and whether or not there should be a
minimum of twenty (20) feet between them.
Mr. Wayne stated that the Planning Department has already spent considerable time on this subject and
have concluded that their interpretation is a “reasonable interpretation of the standard.”
Commissioner Welshons suggested that maybe the Commission needs to have another “workshop”
where they can possibly iron out some of these problems.
Mr. Wayne reminded the Commission that the last time they had a workshop, they asked the Planning
Department to go to the Council with these same questions. He went on to recount the fact that they had
taken this issue to Council and Council told them to look at the ordinance and then told Staff that
everything is fine.
Commissioner Nielsen suggested that the Administrative Policy be modified by the Planning Director.
Mr. Wayne repeated the Planning Departments interpretation and inferred that there is no need for
modification.
Commissioner Nielsen cited that there is no standard and therefore it is not enforceable.
Mr. Rudolf interjected here and said that what he was hearing from the Commission is that they want
clarification from the City Council as to what the Council wishes the standard to be, in the ordinance, as
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION November 6, 1996 Page 17
opposed to leaving this hole that the Commission and the Staff have to grapple with.
Mr. Wayne further pointed out that the Commission could pass a simple resolution of intent, as well, to
amend the PD ordinance.
Mr. Rudolf agreed that was all his (Commissioner Noble’s) motion was, a minute motion to request the
Council to give the Staff direction with regard to re-examining the policies (one the Staff policy and one the
Council Policy), and I suggest that you include a potential amendment to Section 21.45.090(b)(5)
Commissioner Welshons seconded Commissioner Noble’s motion as phrased by Attorney Rudolf.
Commissioner Monroy asked if Commissioner Noble and Welshons would include in their motion, an
acceptable minimum regarding a second dwelling unit. He indicated that this is really a policy decision but
pointed out that while there is a maximum, there is no minimum as there should be.
Following discussion it was agreed to split the second dwelling unit minute motion off as a second
unrelated item. Chairman Compas called for a vote on Commissioner Noble’s motion, as phrased by
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf.
VOTE: 7-o
AYES: Compas, Nielsen, Monroy, Noble, Savary, Heineman and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Monroy moved that the Commission adopt a minute motion requesting the Council to
establish a “minimum” size for second dwelling units.
Chairman Compas seconded the motion and called for a vote.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
7-o
Compas, Nielsen, Monroy, Noble, Savary, Heineman and Welshons
None
None
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
bd. 11 19%
EXHIBIT 6
TELEPHONE
(619) 434-2808
-- . 4:; ‘i L .
r ..,
$Q
ct-
2
c
: i’:
It
e-
, :’ /’ \ . \ \\ 4,
” L.--.
c ‘,. c ‘:(q _ _ __, . . \ .,, :
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council
within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item
will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by
all parties.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council
Meeting of .
.‘x. _ \ - ..,
‘i I,“\
i ; _’ I, L . I
i:
Signature Date
~. -City C+arlsbad of
1 (We) appeal the following decision of the _
fl - c. (I /I I rq c. i, Cri /37 in iJj/c-fl - to the City Council:
Project Name and f4urr&r {w subject of appeal): ._
. ..a --- -- -.v_cc-
Oate of Oeclsion: Ii 1., i'i'! d. - ---
Reason for Appeal: -
. . . -.vm*-
3 rL’1l-r’ (g&i~,jQ -----
GGF@iGscLirint)
WI9 Pifi-77i’I
T~lephonc Nundxr
---. . . v--w.., ..- --*.-I- ._.. ..-... . . ..----*-s.. --*
1 PC0 C~l’lSbi>d Vill:~ge r)rcVt? l Ct~r’lS~W, C:alilwnid ~G?Oi78- lQB9 l (6 18) 434 -7ChXi
.._ . .---.. ___ _ . ^ - L . . .- ! . .
A CITY,QI, CARLSBAD ”
1200 CARLSBAD C ,LLAGE DRIVE r. CARLSBAD, Cc.JFORNIA 92008
* 434-2867
REC’D FROM ~&J c /v%r//m DATE / /* / 2 76
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION
/% -I d /l/ f /J 6
i
( 0 /“f//l/ I I I
7876. l.L’L!,?/% 9002 01
HISC
05 i 4 .n
: : It ‘h ,
2 .: .!. .:I: \ I -r : LY
0, N 1 cc:/ : (P, ‘! p ? ! ,. , I: : c q’! : &b/ : I : I I
RECEIPT NO. 34491 NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY TOTAL @ Printed on rayckd paper. CASH REGISTER
Presented by Mr. Nick Banche during presentation on Item {Ill,
Brookfield Meadows, at Council meeting of 1/28/97.
JANUARY 22, 1997
TO: CITY COUNCl L
VIA: City Manag
FROM: Planning Department )@&-
CT 96-04/PUD 7 1 (B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
The above-referenced project was recommended for denial without prejudice by
staff, and the CT, HDP and SDP were subsequently denied without prejudice by the
Planning Commission. If City Council decides to approve the project, it will be
necessary to send the project back to staff to have conditions of approval prepared
and to revise the environmental document previously prepared for the project.
Because the applicant did not disclose to staff the potential for certain
environmental impacts, the current environmental document would not be
adequate. If the Council decides to deny the project and uphold the Planning
Commission decision, it would not be necessary to revise the environmental
document.
Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-4LPUD-71 (B) /HDP 96-4ISDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
_-
Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-4/PUD-71 (B) /HDP 96-4./SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
Name -
I
Address Signature
c i.J
Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-4/PUD-71 (B) /HDP 96-4/SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
PROMENADE AT LACOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-4/PUD-71 (B) /HDP 964SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer‘s Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
b
PROMENADE AT LACOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-flUD-71 (B) /HDP 964SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
PROMENADE AT LACOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
Name Address Signature 3m rM\LLS (ob13 COQTE~&#C * -
cffQc%AD cFfv.009 --
CT 96-WUD-71 (B) /HDP 964SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
.- A
PROMENADE AT LBCOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 964PUD-71 (B) /HDP 964SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
PROMENADE AT LACOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-WUD-71 (B) /HDP 964SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
.-
Name
g\cL myl-w
PROMENADE AT LACOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
Address Signature
m- 3Lf7-7 Cw-\hi) LlxLflc-L c-. \i L .;e(-
CT 96-4/pUD-71 (B) /HDP 96=4/SDP 96-7
PROMENADE AT LACOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 964PUD-71 (B) /HDP 96-4SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer‘s Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
PROMENADE AT LACOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-4/PUD-71 (B) /HDP 964SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
Name I Address 1 Signature
PROMENADE AT LACOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-WUD-71 (B) /HDP 964SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
PROMENADE AT LACOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 964PUD-71 (B) /HDP 964SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
Name Address
PROMENBDE AT LBCOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-WUD-71 (B) /HDP 964SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
PROMENADE AT LACOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 964PUD-71 (B) /HDP 964SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on propertymgenerally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-4/PUD-71 (B) /HDP 96-USDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
Name I Address I Signature
I I
I I W
/ I
Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-WUD-71 (B) /HDP 964SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
Name I Address Signature
Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-WUD-71 (B) /HDP 96-USDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
Name
n
1
Signature
c
PROMENADE AT LACOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-WUD-71 (B) /HDP 96-4SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
Name I Address I Signature
PROMENADE AT LACOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-4/PUD-71 (B) /HDP 964SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
Address I Signature
PROMENADE AT LACOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-WUD-71 (B) /HDP 964SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
PROMENADE AT LACOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-4/PUD-71 (B) /HDP 964SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
Name
PROMENADE AT LACOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-WUD-71 (B) /HDP 96-4SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
PROMENADE AT LACOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-4/PUD-71 (B) /HDP 964SDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
c
PROMENADE AT LACOSTA Brookfield Meadows Appeal
CT 96-4/PUD-71 (B) /HDP 96-4ISDP 96-7
We, the undersigned, wish to register our support of the Developer's Site
Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached second
dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way,
between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
We urge the City Council to approve the Negative Declaration.
I 1
December 23, 1996
Members of the City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
Re: Brookfield Meadows
CT 96-04/PUD71(b)/HDP96-04/SDP96-07
Dear Council Members:
The following summary of the above-referenced project is provided to assist the Council
in its deliberations of the Brookfield Meadows Project. We thank you for your
consideration.
Introduction
The site of the proposed Project received discretionary approvals for a 104 unit
apartment project per Site Development Plan SDP 84-8. Subsequently, the SDP was
amended in 1986 to reduce the Project to 100 apartment unit. The site was originally
Phase VI of a master development plan, PUD-71, which consisted of a 43.6 acre
subdivision with 220 single-family residences and the 104 apartments.
The proposed Project, Brookfield Meadows, evolved as a result of deliberations with City
staff (Staff) and members of the adjacent Brookfield community, who both preferred a
less intensive development on the site. Since early 1995, the applicant has worked with
Staff and the Brookfield Owner’s Association (BOA) to design a single-family home
project that would be in conformance with the City’s general plan, PUD ordinances,
architectural guidelines, and still be compatible with the existing community.
After several preliminary Staff reviews and redesigns, the Project was reduced from 35
to 29 single-family detached homes with four affordable second dwelling units and
formally submitted for City approval in early 1996. Because the site was part of PUD-71,
both the applicant and BOA (who endorsed the Project and invited its annexation into
the master association) applied to amend the PUD for the apartment portion to provide
for the single-family homes. After submission, the applicant continued to revise the
Project in response to additional issues raised by Staff. All issues were resolved with the
exception of the two raised in Staffs report to the Planning Commission.
P.O. Box 577 ’ Del Mar California 92014 (619)755-7005 Fax(619)755-6080
Members of the City Council
City of Carlsbad
Page two
December 23, 1996
On November 6, 1996, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 3 to approve Staffs
recommendation of denial without prejudice. The split vote was representative of the
difficulty that existed in interpreting the PUD regulations and design guidelines with
respect to the two areas of the Project that Staff considered to be in non-compliance.
Minimum Distance Between Structures on "A" Court
PUD regulation 21.45.090(D)(5) (see Exhibit "A") establishes a minimum distance
between one- and two-story and between two- and three-story structures in cases where
there are more than ten structures in a row on a street. Since the PUD regulation did not
establish a minimum distance between two- and two-story structures when there are more
than ten in a row, Staff relied on Administrative Policy No. 16 (Policy 16), (see Exhibit
"B"), in determining a minimum distance of twenty feet.
Additionally, since the PUD regulation did not define the term "in a row", Staff utilized
Council Policy No. 44 (Policy 44), (see Exhibit 'IC"), to define its meaning. As a result,
Staff determined that the number of structures along "A" Court was greater than ten in
a row and did not comply with the minimum distance. While Policy 44 defines "in a
row" to include curves and terminate at a 90 degree intersection, Policy 44 provides
guidelines for architectural elements of structures when there are three two-story
structures in a row of less than 15 feet apart, and between 15 and 20 feet apart.
This issue first arose in one of the applicant's early designs, which resulted in the
applicant totally redesigning the Project to its current design. While Staff initially
concurred that the redesign would satisfy the intent of the "more than ten in a row"
policy on "A" Court, they later deferred the final interpretation to the Planing
Commission, who were unable to reach a consensus.
It is the applicant's belief that the intent of PUD Regulation 21.45.090(D)(5) is to deter
the appearance of row-like housing which is crowded along a street. The proposed
Project specifically incorporated several design features to limit such an appearance.
While the majority of structures on "A" Court are between 10 and 15 feet apart, the
structures were designed to provide the greatest setback on the entryway side, which
exceeds 20 feet, in most instances. To further reduce a row appearance, the front yard
setbacks were staggered, and the 13 foot elevation difference between Lots 1 and 13
provided additional visual relief. Additionally, by severely curving the road, the distance
between structures on Lots 9 and 10 was increased to 22 feet at the front, and 38 feet at
the rear. This offset the structures on Lots 9 to 13 from the first nine units.
Members of the City Council
City of Carlsbad
Page three
December 23, 1996
Furthermore, Lots 11 through 13 are technically on a cul-de-sac and not on the street.
As a result, a reasonable interpretation can be made that there are not over ten structures
in a row on the street.
Architectural Guideline Compliance
Policy 44 was adopted to encourage the quality development on lots of less than 7,500
square feet. The Guidelines Co'mpliance Summary included in the Staffs report describes
the Project's conformance with the guidelines. The Project's original architectural design
met or exceeded the minimum policy requirements on three of the six applicable
guidelines and was in partial compliance with a fourth.
The applicant has since redesigned the rear elevation to comply with Guideline item 5,
(see building type 3), which was presented to Staff at the DCC meeting and is included
in this packet. As a result, the Project fails only to meet Guideline item 1 in its entirety.
The single-story edge requirement cannot be achieved without compromising the interior
living space and the loss of one bedroom, space which is essential in the family
neighborhood. The Project's overall design and topographical features ensure a quality
development. An important consideration of BOA was that the Project be designed to
be consistent with the architectural character of the adjacent community and to be of the
size and quality that would enhance values of the existing development. We believe the
Project, as designed, fulfills these goals.
Staffs position that compliance with every guideline must be met before they could
recommend approval was deliberated by the Planning Commission, who questioned,
without conclusion, as to whether or not the guidelines were merely guidelines or
standards. However, with the Council's adoption of Policy 44 as "architectural
guidelines", it would seem to support the fact that the Council recognized that all sites
are not similar in shape or utility, and that the architectural design will vary given the
character of the site, lot dimensions, and the needs of the local market. In the case of this
Project, the triangular shape, slopes, and reduced access points from those previously
approved with the apartment site, required a design that would fit the physical
constraints as well as economic considerations.
Summary
This Project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan, with all requirements of
the PUD regulations, and in substantial compliance with Policy 44. While Policy 16 may
be considered in determining the PUD regulation on minimum distance between
structures, the applicant believes that the Council can determine that there are not ten
Members of the City Council
City of Carlsbad
Page four
December 23, 1996
structures "in a row" on "A" Court. Also it can be determined that the Project conforms
to Policy 16's intent and is consistent with the neighborhood.
Respectfully submitted,
OKON DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Irving Okovita, President
IO/llS
01-487-1.170
- EXHIBIT "A"
21.4S.090
k
(3) Comer tots. Comer lots shall have a ten foot
side yard setback from the meet unless the garage
faces onto the smet side yard; in this irrstance a
twenty-foot setback shall be maintained to the ga-
rage.
(4) All setbacks shall be measured from the
property line. or in the case where individual prop-
erry lines an not present. at the edge of rhe stCCCt
curb or sidewalk. whichever is closest to the suuc-
mre subject to thc setback
(5) The distance beween singie-story strucmres
shall not be less than ten feet When more than ten
SVUCN~S in a row front or back on a spfct. the
distancc benveen two and thrte-story svucturcs shall
not be less than twenty-feet and tht disrance be-
tween two-story and one-story smcturcs shall not
be less than fifteen feet Fireplace suuctum. comic-
es. eaves. belt coucses. sills. bunrtsses. and other
similar archittcnval features projecting €tom a build-
ing may intrude up to two feet into the required
distance between buildings. Second and third-story
open balconies or cave projections over driveways
an: allowed if such inuusions do not inhibit traffic
circularion. provision of safety, sanitary or other
services. or arc not companble with rhc design of
(c) Resident Parking. All units must have at lcast
two full-sized covered residential parlung spaces.
except for studio units which shall be provided with
a mo of 1.5 spaces per unit for which one space
per unit shall be covered. and second dwelling units
which shall be provided with one space (covered or
uncovered) per second unit The ParLing space for
the second dwelling unit may be provided through
tandem parking (provided that the covered parking
spaces for the primary dwelling are locatcd within
a twocar garage and tie garage is set back a mini-
mum of twenty feet from the property linc) or in the
front yard setback In cases wkre a fractional park-
ing space is required. the required number of spafes
shall be rounded to the nearest highest whole num-
ber.
the project.
(d) Visitor Parking.
(1) Visitor parkrng shall be provided as follows:
No. of UNts
10 dwelling Units or less
Greater than 10 dwelling
units
Amount of Visitor
Parking
1 space for each 2
dwelling Units or frac-
tion thcrtof
5 spaces for the 10
units. plus 1 space for
each 4 dwelling units
above 10 or fixtion
thereof.
(2) Up to forty-five prum of the visitor pamg
may be provided as compact spaces (eight feet by
fiftten feet). No guest parking cndit shall be gven
for tandem pariring in front of garages except for
existing duplex lots. These existing lots may provide
their required guest parking space as a tandem park-
ing space in front of the garage if the garage is set
back a minimum of twenty feet from thc front prop
(3) Credit for visitor parking may be given for
fmnrage on adjacent local svctfs for detached
single-family or duplex projects subject to the ap
proval of the pianning commission; not less than
twenty-four lineal feet per space exclusive of drive-
way entrances and driveway aprons shall be provid-
ed for each pariung space. except where parallel
parking spaces an Id immediately adjacent to
driveway aprons. thcn twenty lineal feet may be
provided. Smea used for on-street visitor parking
must meet or ex- thc city's minimum width
erry line.
r#luircments.
(e) Building eks from open parking
shall not be less than five feet.
(f) Scxuning of Parking Areas. All open parking
ams shall be sacend from adjacent residences and
plblic rights-of-way by either a view-obscuring wall
or landscaping subjta to the approval of thc plan-
ning dimtor.
(g) Recreational Sm.
(I) Open spaaz mas designated for rccmcional
use strrll be provided for all residential develop
maus at a racio of tyo hundred square feet pr unit
All projects except for time in
7 14
-.. KXHIBIT "B"
Policy No. 16 Effective Date: 11/28/88
Planning Department Administrative Policy
SeDaration Between Two Storv Structures - PD Ordinance - On an
interim basis, until Section 21.45.090(D) (5) of the Planned
Development Ordinance is formally reviewed by the Planning
Commission, the distance between two story structures shall be 20 feet.
Approved By:
Y MICHAEL J. HOLZMYLLER
Planning Director
EXHIBIT "C" I
OF CARLSBAD c 7 --.r licy No. 44 I--
Date Issued 10/10/89 COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: SMAU LOT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Effective Date 10/10/89
Specific Subject: Cancellation Date ESTABUSHING GUIDELINES FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL LOTS I Supersedes No.
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and
Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
PURPOSE
To provide guidelines to encourage the quality development of small-1st (less than 7500 sq.ft.)
single family projects. The intent of the guidelines is to ensure that units have building
articulation on all four sides and will not appear as "row" housing. They are primarily designed
, to apply to projects where there is a predominance of two-story units.
POLICY
Guidelines for Small-Lot Sinqle Family Projects
1.
2.
3.
4.
In projects where there are three 2 story units in a row situated less than 15 feet apart,
at least one of the three units shall have a single story building edge, The depth of the
single-story edge shall not be less than 10' and shall run the length of the building pad.
The roof covering the single story element shall be substantially lower than the roof for
the 2 story element to the unit (this is not intended to preclude long shed-type roofs
falling to a single-story element).
In projects where there are three 2 story units in a row situated between 15 and 20 feet
apart, at least one of the three units shall have a single story building edge with a
depth of not less than 5 feet running the length of the building pad. The roof of the
single story element shall be substantially lower than the roof for the two SioV element
of the building (this is not intended to preclude long shed-type roofs falling to a single-
story element).
On a project basis, thirty-three percent (33%) of all units shall have a single story edge
for forty percent (40%) of the perimeter of the building. For the purpose of this
guideline the single story edge shall be a minimum depth of three feet (3'). The units
qualifying under the 33% shall be distributed throughout the projest. The main purpose
of this guideline is to ensure some building relief on the front and sides of each unit.
For at least 50% of the units in a project, there shall be at least three separate building
planes on street side elevations of lots with 45 feet of frontage or less, and four
separate building planes on street side elevations of lots with a frontage greater than
45 feet. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include but not be
limited to building walls, windows and roofs. The minimum depth betwken the faces
of the forward-most plane and the rear plane on the front elevation shall be 10 feet and
a plane must be a minimum of 30 sq. ft. to receive credit unda this section.
I -Policy No. 44 CITY OF CARLSBAD
Date Issued 10/10/89
Effective Date 10/10/89
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
C 0 U 14 C I L P 0 L I C Y STAT E PIEN T
General Subject:
Specific Subject:
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and
Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Rear elevations shall adhere to the same criteria outlined in number 4 above for front
elevations except that the minimum depth between front and back planes on the rear
elevation shall be 3 feet.
At least 50% of the units in a project shall have one side elevation where there are
sufficient offsets or cutouts so that the side yard setback averages a minimum of 7
feet.
Projects with an average lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. or less shall limit the number of units
with three car garages to 75% of the plans in the project. Project units with three car
garages shail t)e a mix of two door garages, three door garages, and offset (2 planes
min. 12') two door garages.
Fifty percent (50%) of exterior openings (doors/windows) shall be recessed or projected
a minimum of 2 and shall be with wood or colored aluminum window frames (no mill
finishes) .
The predominant roof framing for each floor plan in a project shall exhibit directional
variety to the other floor plans and to the street.
Notes: a) For the purpose of these guidetin& a single story element shall
be defined as a plate line maximum of 12 feet (10 feet preferred).
b) In addition, when a percentage of units is described in the
guidelines the intent is to have that percentage spread throughout
the entire project.
"In a row" shall include curves and shall terminate at a 90 degree
street intersection. 4
- I . -----.-.-
I
I
I
l
-- -..
I- c"ANDAR3
2-STORY aox 3 FZET MINIMUM
SISGLS STORY SLEMENTi
tt
1
I I ! i
i i
!
I
i I ! I
1
I
!
i
I
i
i
i
I ! i I
I LOT WIDTH
45 FEET OR LESS
p I
'r;i r-- -- 1
LOT WIDTH GREATER THAN
45 FEET
!
I
I
I
I
I
7 FEET. AVERAGE
L * I
3 IC )___ I
2 300R 3 DOOR 2 DOOR, OFFSET:
I
SOOF LINE'VARIATION .
I - I
0 h I
1 'I I I .P-.U 8-$9 .9-.Z
0
'0
0 - L
I Lo 07
6.' ,
.. - __i .
.. . .,. .
c u
U
D
87
m
z 0 4 W -I W
U
W U
a
z 0 4 W -1 W
W
v)
I- I
e
P a
z 0
5 5
W
W
v)
I- LL W .A
0
L
II II
r
/
7
'I I
I I
I-
!
I I 1 .9-.9c - D-.s " .PSI
d I u) 0-J
z 0 5 W J W
a W (1:
a
z 0 F W -I W
W
v) P
P .a
2
.- - Lf
a
nln
z 0 k W J W
W
UJ P
t W J
..
.t-m .o-<s
1 1 1 .O-.IK - .o-.t - -9-.E - .9-,Ol
I
IB n
0
z
t- 4 > W -I W
K 4 W K
0
z 0 2
2 >
W
W
u) w I
K
e
(3
J
-I W
I- Z 0 ::
PROOF OF PUBLIC. .10N
(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 171 349 (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:
January 17, 1997
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Oceanisde
Dated at California, this 17th day
of Jan. 1997
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space is Idr the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
-1 .-
'I YOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you because your Interests may be affected that the xitj Cwncll of the CiIy of C'arisbad will hold a public hearing at the City'Coundl vhambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, Callfornla. at 6:W p.m., on Fuesday Janua 28 1997 to cunslder a request for approval of a Declaratinn, 2nd an ap a1 $the bland Commission dental (wlthwt pre udlcey therequestfora rentative %ct Map, Plann3Unit Development Amendment~lllslde Develmment Permit I mnd Site Development Plan for 29 singlefamily dwelllng unL and 4 a&hed swmd Miling units on p located on the south side of Xana Way, between Zorintia streetandE& Road, a J more pattkularly described as: rty general
I at 224 and a don of Lot 223 Carlsbad Tract No. 84-23 In the C of Carisbad County &S.anDiego,&teofCsllfomldaccwdlng toMap thereof No.11?41. Inthe Mm of the San Diego County Recorder.
f vou have anv ouestlons re- 1ardtT this m&, please call dalne lackburn In the Plannl JeDarbnent at 1619) 438-112. bxtbnslon 4471.' '
f ycu challenge the Negetive Waration Tentative Tract Map slanned uh Development Amend: ]lent, Hillside Development Permit ind/or Slte Development Plan in htt, you may be limited to aising only those issues raised
iy yw or someone else at the Iublic hearing described In this @Ice, or In mitten corres ndence [etivered to the city oPOCarisbad Clerk's OfRm at, or rior to the %c hearing. The {me wlthln vhlch you may judicially challenge his N atlve Waration. Tentative rrad 7 aD. Planned Unit Develoo- bnt Amendment, Hlllside Devel6 writ Pennit and/or Sb Develop nent Plan, if approved, Is estab !shed by state law and/or clty rdlnance, and Is very short. BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
YPLICANT: Irving Okovita ARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL CT 96-WPUD 7l(By
HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07
?I 49157 Januaw 17.1997
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
CT 96-4/PUD-71 (B) /HDP 96-4/SDP 96-7
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest 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:OO p.m., on Tuesday, January 28, 1997, to consider a request for
approval of a Negative Declaration, and an appeal of the Planning
Commission denial (without prejudice) of the request for a Tentative Tract
Map, Planned Unit Development Amendment, Hillside Development Permit and
Site Development Plan for 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 attached
second dwelling units on property generally located on the south side of
Xana Way, between Corintia Street and Alga Road, and more particularly
described as:
Lot 224 and a portion of Lot 223, Carlsbad Tract
No. 84-23, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 11241, recorded in the Office of the
San Diego County Recorder.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Elaine
Blackburn, in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, Extension 4471.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Planned
Unit Development Amendment, Hillside Development Permit and/or Site
Development Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City
Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing. The time within which
you may judicially challenge this Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract
Map, Planned Unit Development Amendment, Hillside Development Permit and/or
Site Development Plan, if approved, is established by state law and/or city
ordinance, and is very short.
APPELLANT: Irving Okovita
PUBLISH: January 17, 1997
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
@ NORTll
BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/
HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07
TO: C1T.Y CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: Planning Department
RE: PU8LIC”HEARINC REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
APPEAL Brookfield Meadows - CT 96-04/PUD 71 (6) /HDP 96-041SDP 96-07
for a publlc hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of d4,
4
Thank you.
January 6, 1997 Date
NOTICE OF PUBLIC 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:OO p.m. on
Wednesday, November 6, 1996, to consider a request for approval of a Negative
Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Amendment, Hillside
Development Permit and Site Development Plan to develop 29 single-family dwelling
units and 4 second dwelling units (attached), on property generally located on the south
side of Xana Way between Corintia Street and Alga Road and more particularly
described as:
Lot 224 and a portion of Lot 223, Carlsbad Tract No. 84-23,
in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to map thereof No. 11241 , recorded in
the office of the County Recorder of said County
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after October 30,
1996. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning
Department at (619) 438-1 161 , extension 4471.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map, Planned
Unit Development Amendment, Hillside Development Permit and/or the Site
Development Plan, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is
very short. If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development
Amendment, Hillside Development Permit and/or the Site Development Plan in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 96-04/PUD 71 (B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07
CASE NAME: BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
PUBLISH: OCTOBER 24,1996
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
@ 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 9'2009-1576 - (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-0894
1200 ELM AVENUE OARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
DATE :
TELEPHONE (61 9) 434-2808
RE :
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council
within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item
will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by
all parties.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council
Meeting of
S i gna t u r e Date
1 . .C
Bp-
. .. -.--.I_ -- 1-
. .. I
i ...
CITY, QF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
434-2867
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION 1 AMOUNT
RECEIPT wo. 34491
@ Rinltd 011 rscyc~ pp~.
NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY
CASH REGISTER TOTAL I
.. .
c
rn
1
JENNA GROUP INC
2075 W BALBOA BLVD
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663-4300
JENNP. GROUP INC
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663-3834
REAL ESTATE COLLATER
CARLSBAD CA 920 1 8
3 103 VILLA WAY PO BOX 9000-685
RlCHARD KANN
6830 VIA VERANO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-601 7
KEVIN CLARK
6819 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6029
STEVEN FESSEL
6821 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6029
JOANNE CLANCY
6823 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6029
ROBERT & MICHELLE FITZGERAL
6825 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-603 1
CAROL APGAR
6827 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-603 1
JOHN & BINA KOZAK
6829 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-603 1
ROBERT & LORA WITTON
6831 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009403 1
RICHARD & KIMBERLY SALPIETRA
6833 XANA WAY OLD RECTORY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-603 1
SUSAN HENWOOD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
MICHAEL JENKS
24336 TITUS DR
DANA POINT CA 92629- 1088
FELIX & JOSEPHINE BUCELLI
6839 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-603 1
PAOLO FRESA
6841 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-603 1
MICHAEL & KAREN SPOHR
6843 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6033
STEVEN & RHONDA KNIGHT
GO2 NAVIGATOR CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5402
NICOLAS & CLAUDlA VAZQUEZ
6847 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6033
MICHAEL ARCHIBALD
6849 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6033
DOUGLAS & CARRIE YlM
6851 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6033
LISA BE
6848 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6032
MARK & LISA JAGELS
6846 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6032
JACK & MARY ARMSTRONG
6844 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6032
MICHAEL & LAURA STUBER
6842 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6022
DAVID & MELISSA BOOKER
6838 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6030
.-
SHANNON BARON1
6836 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6030
THOMAS GAASCH
6834 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6030
SCOTT MILLER
6830 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6030
WILLIAM & DIXIE JACOBSON
6828 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6030
BRANT & KAREN BASS
6826 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6030
GORDON & SUSAN BARNES
6824 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6030
TONI DECARLO
6822 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6028
WADE & LYNN KONIAKOWSKY
6820 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6028
WILLIAM & CHRlS FERRARA
68 I8 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6028
MARK & DEBRA FOSTER
6821 CAMINITO SUENO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6003
RANDALL UMPHLET
6823 CAMINITO SUENO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6003
ALLEN LEMARIE
275 LA COSTA AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024- 1 1 IO
THE BREHM FAMILY
2424 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-730 1
K RANDALL MAURER
151 1 MARIA PL
CORONADO CA 92 1 1 8-26 13
LAWRENCE & SHEILA BULLOCK
683 1 CAMINITO SUENO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6006
MATTHEW & SARAH WILSON
6833 CAMINITO SUENO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6006
THOMAS & THERESE HAZELTON
6835 CAMINITO SUENO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6006
THE ANKENEY FAMILY
6837 CAMINITO SUENO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6006
RICHARD TAMBURRO
6839 CAMINITO SUENO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6006
HAROLD & SANDY KALOOGIAN
6838 CAMlNlTO SUENO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6005
MICHAEL & PAMELA GUY
6836 CAMINITO SUENO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6005
KENNETH CLEMENS
6834 CAMINITO SUENO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6005
STEVEN KIM
6832 CAMlNlTO SUENO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6005
PATRICIA WILLIAMS
6830 CAMINITO SUENO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6005
GARY & CAMILLA MCCOOK
6828 CAMlNITO SUENO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6004
MICHAEL & RUTH ANDERSEN
6824 CAMlNlTO SUENO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6004
STEVEN & SUSAN GOE
442 HILLCREST DR
ENCINITAS CA 92024- 1529
DERRICK & JEAN CHUNG
6820 CAMINITO SUENO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6004
JOHN KINSTLE
68 19 VIA MARINER0
CARLSBAD CA 92009-604 3
ANTHONY & KIMBERLY SILVA
5762 NW LANDING DR
PORTLAND OR 97229- I 076
i-
DALE & TENA UMPHREY
6823 VIA MARINER0
CARLSBAD CA 92009-60 13
STEVEN WESTON
6830 VIA MARINERO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6014
ROBERT & SUSAN AZINGER
6824 VIA MARINER0
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6014
WILLIAM NOTT
6835 VIA VERANO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-60 18
RICHARD & MERRILY BOULT
1699 NEWPORT AVE
GROVER BEACH CA 93433-1825
THE GRAWIN FAMILY
460 SANTA BARTOLA
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075- 1504
DANNY & MELINDA NEAL
6868 VIA VERANO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-602 1
JACK & JOANNE TOLLENAAR
6862 VIA VERANO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6021
GEORGE CHANG
34 ARCHER CIR
TAUNTON MA 02780-1 164
BARBARA HANSEN
6850 VIA VERANO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-602 1
BROOKFIELD OWNERS AS
2835 CAMINO DEL RIO S
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-3825
ROSEMARIE BYE
6828 VIA MARINERO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6014
JOYCE HECK
6822 VIA MARINERO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-60 14
GERALD MYERS
PO BOX 232283
ENCINITAS CA 92023-2283
ALAlN LARCHER
6847 VIA VERANO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6020
OLGA PILLAI
6867 VIA VERANO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6020
ANNY CHEUNG
349 WILLOWSPRING DR N
ENCINITAS CA 92024-3 130
BROOKFIELD OWNERS AS
2835 CAMINO DEL R10 S
SAN DIEGO CA 92 1 OS-3S25
JOHN ADAMS
6826 VIA MARINERO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-60 14
STEPHEN & LAURA SCHMUCKER
683 1 VIA VERANO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-60 1 8
SANG TRAN
6839 VIA VERANO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6020
STEPHEN GAGLIANO
6853 VIA VERANO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6020
MICHAEL JENKS
6870 VIA VERANO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-602 1
RANDALL YEE
6864 VIA VERANO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-602 1
FRANK & APRIL MASKIEWICZ
4 1997 CAMINO CASANA
CONG DUC PHAM
PO BOX 1634
TEMECULA CA 92592-6361 SOLANA BEACH CA 92075-7634
TIMOTHY HUGHES
2259 VIA TIEMPO
DANIEL & DEBORAH HAYS
4057 RIVERTON PL
CARDIFF BY THE SEA CA 92007-12 16 SAN DIEGO CA 92 130- 1288
DONALD & BARBARA LUPRO
6848 VIA VERANO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6QI 9
ROBERT & LAURl BALDINO
2371 TERRAZA RlBERA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6634
r.
.*
EDNA BUCKLES
6844 VIA VERANO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-60 19
PAUL0 RIBEIRO
PO BOX 552
CARDIFF CA 92007-0552
BRADLEY SHOEN
83 I3 SLATE HARBOR CIR
LAS VEGAS NV 89128-7746
JANET E THOMAS MASS
2851 TORRY COURT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KENNETH ROBINSON
6842 VIA VERANO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-601 9
DUANE & JANET NEVITT
6840 VIA VERANO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-60 19
CHRISTOPHER & LAUREN BUONOCOR
6836 VIA VERANO
BRADLEY & LINDA BARTLETT
1105 W LlNCOLNWAY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6017 JEFFERSON IA 50 129- I60 1
SITE DESI& ASSOCIATES INC
SIE 201 Po Box 577
7863 LA MESA BLVD LA MESA CA 91941-3657
OKm DEVELOPMENT
DEL MAR CA 92014
ELAINE BLACKBURN
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A notice has been mailed to all property owners/occupants
listed herein.
Date 1; , .’ 1, -
Signature ” / .,/