HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-05; City Council; 14299; Pacific View Estates- ?
ZITY OF CARLSBAD - AGEWA BILL
AB# +ciS TlfLE
MTG. 8/5/97 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON
PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
DEPT. PLN f& CT 96-03/PUD 96-031HDP 96-03/SDP 96-04 CITY MGR-&?
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 93-54 / UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S APPROVAL of Pacific View Estates CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 96-03/SDP 96-04.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On June 18, 1997, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted 6-O (Heineman
absent) to approve a Tentative Tract Map (CT 96-03) Planned Development Permit (PUD 96-03,
Hillside Development Permit (HDP 96-03) and Site Development Plan (SDP 96-04) for the project
known as Pacific View Estates.
The Planning Commission’s approval of the Pacific View Estates project was appealed by Nick
Giovinazzo, who is a resident of the Hillgate Estates neighborhood. The Hillgate Estates
neighborhood is located on the northern boundary of the Pacific View Estates project, Mr.
Giovinazzo is appealing the Planning Commission’s decision approving the projects’ Wintergreen
Drive through-connection to Carlsbad Village Drive, for the following reasons: (1) he believes that
the traffic study dated January 22, 1996, concludes that a through-street will have a definite
negative impact on the residents; (2) he has determined that 602 households exist on Hosp Way
with a potential impact of 1,200 cars, and that ten percent of those cars, using the “short cut”,
would increase traffic on Wintergreen Drive by 600%; (3) he believes that none of the 867
residences within a two mile circumference of the project have a through street, and that approval
of a through street for the Pacific View Estates project is selective enforcement; (4) he believes that
the Fire Department emergency response time study concluded that there was no significant
advantage in connecting the streets; (5) he believes that all homeowners are entitled to the quiet
enjoyment, peace, tranquillity and safety of their home; and, (6) Mr. Giovinazzo believes that the
installation of a knox gate at the current terminus of Wintergreen Drive would be an acceptable
alternative.
Wintergreen Drive is a 40-foot wide public street which is the primary road serving the housing
units of the Hillgate Estates neighborhood. The road currently terminates at the southern end of
the Hillgate Estates project. The circulation system for the Hillgate Estates and Pacific View
Estates neighborhoods, (including the extension of Wintergreen Drive), was planned in 1988, as
part of the design of the Hillgate Estates development. When approved by the City in 1989, the
final map for Hillgate Estates included numerous references and specific reservations for extending
Wintergreen Drive. Accordingly, the existing terminus of Wintergreen Drive was constructed with a
barricade structure, rather than a standard cul-de-sac bulb, in anticipation of this street extension.
The Wintergreen Drive connection has been designed to provide optimum and convenient
circulation for both the Hillgate Estates and Pacific View Estates projects, thereby avoiding
circuitous traffic movements, and providing a secondary access point for the neighborhoods in the
event of an emergency. Without this connection, Wintergreen Drive would remain as an over
length cul-de-sac street, exceeding the maximum 1,200 foot street length currently allowed by City
engineering standards.
The appellant has expressed concerns regarding traffic volumes on Wintergreen Drive. Traffic
volumes on Wintergreen Drive will increase, due primarily to the conversion of Wintergreen Drive
from a dead-end street to a through street. It is anticipated that the new roadway connection would
/
PAGE 2 OF AGENDk i3lLL NO. /q, a99
be used primarily by the residents of the Hillgate Estates and Pacific View Estates neighborhoods.
Although it is difficult to verify the accuracy of the appellant’s traffic forecasts, Wintergreen Drive, a
local street, has been designed to accommodate up to 1,200 vehicular trips per day. The traffic
volume which is estimated to be generated by the Hillgate Estates and Pacific View Estates
neighborhoods is 620 vehicle trips per day.
The alternative of installing a gate at the current terminus of Wintergreen Drive is unacceptable, as
Engineering Department standards do not permit the gating of a public street. Although the
through-connection of Wintergreen Drive will not significantly improve fire and emergency response
times, it will provide needed access during an emergency. The Fire Department has indicated that
secondary access is needed for events which result in the primary access point being blocked by
emergency vehicles and equipment during an event. Furthermore, the Fire Department has
indicated that a gate will impede their response time by up to one minute.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Neither an approval nor a denial of the appeal will have a fiscal impact on the City.
EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
City Council Resolution No. 9 7-5b( upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to
approve CT 96-03, PUD 96-03, HDP 96-03, and SDP 96-04
Location Map
Planning Commission Resolution Nos.4099, 4100, 4101, 4102 and 4103 approving CT 96-
03, PUD 96-03, HDP 96-03, and SDP 96-04
Planning Commission Staff Reports, dated May 21, 1997, June 4, 1997 and June 18, 1997
Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated May 21, 1997, June 4, 1997 and June 18,
1997
Planning Commission Decision Appeal from Nick Giovinazzo.
d
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 97-561
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPELLANT’S
APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. CT 96-03, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. PUD 96-03, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. HDP 96-03,
AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. SDP 96-04 TO
SUBDIVIDE 8.52 ACRES INTO TWENTY SIX SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS, THREE LOTS TO PROVIDE LEGAL ACCESS
TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND FOUR OPEN SPACE
LOTS FOR A TOTAL OF 33 LOTS ON THE SITE (FOUR OF
THE SINGLE FAMILY UNITS ARE PROPOSED TO INCLUDE
SECOND DWELLING UNITS) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE
DRIVE AT DONNA DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
CASE NO: CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 96-03/SDP 96-04
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on May 21, 1997, June 4, 1997 and
June 18, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said
application for a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Hillside Development
Permit, and Site Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 1997, the Carlsbad Planning Commission did, after
hearing and considering all evidence and testimony of all people desiring to be heard adopted
Resolutions No. 4099,4100,4101,4102, and 4103 approving a Tentative Tract Map (CT 96-03),
Planned Development Pexmit (PUD 96-03), Hillside Development Permit (HDP 96-03), and Site
Development Plan (SDP 96-04) to subdivide 8.52 acres into twenty six single family lots, three
lots to provide legal access to adjacent properties and four open space lots for a total of 33 lots on
the site (four of the single family units are proposed to include second dwelling units); and
WHEREAS, an appeal of this approval was timely filed on June 24, 1997; and
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 h
WHEREAS, on the 5th day of August, 1997, the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said appeal of the
Planning Commission decision; and,
WHEREAS, upon considering the request, the City Council considered all factors
relating to the Pacific View Estates appeal; and
WHEREAS, upon considering all the evidence, testimony, and arguments of those
persons present and desiring to be heard, the City denies the appeal and upholds the Planning
Commission’s decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolution Nos. 4099, 4100,
4101, 4102, and 4103, on file with the City Clerk, and incorporated herein by reference,
constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter.
3. That the Planning Commission’s approval of CT 96-03, PUD 96-03, HDP 96-03,
and SDP 96-04 is hereby confirmed, except that Condition No. 58 of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 4100 is revised as set forth below, and the appeal of that decision is denied
based upon the facts set out in the Planning Department Staff Reports dated May 2 1, 1997,
June 4,1997 and June 18,1997, Planning Commission Addendums #l, #2 and #3, dated June
18, 1997, the evidence before the Planning Commission, the evidence as set forth in City
Council Agenda Bill No. 14,299, and the testimony before the City Council, all of which are
incorporated herein by reference.
4. That Condition No. 58 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 4100 is revised to
read as follows: “Construct a traffic signal at Donna Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive prior
to occupancy of the first unit constructed in Phase II or III. The City shall reimburse the
developer for 75% of the cost of signal installation.
5. That the appeal is denied without prejudice since no procedural error occurred and
the through-street connection between Carlsbad Village Drive and Wintergreen Drive is
consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements, Engineering
Department Standards and Fire Department Standards.
-2-
f
7
E
S
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.-
6. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial Review”
shall apply:
. . .
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by
the Code of Civil Procedures, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the
City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other
paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court no later than the
ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if
within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the
proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in a amount sufficient to cover the
estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may
be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on
which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of
record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the
proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village
Drive, Carlsbad California 92008.”
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad
City Council held on the 5th day of AUGUST 1997, by the following
vote, to wit:
AyES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Nygaard, Kulchin, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
uz?!dA-
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRAN Z, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-3-
EXHIBIT 2
PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
CT 96=03/PUD 96-031
HDP 96=03/SDP 96-04
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. 4099
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN
AMENDED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO SUBDIVIDE 8.52 ACRES INTO
TWENTY SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, , THREE LOTS TO
PROVIDE LEGAL ACCESS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES
AND FOUR OPEN SPACE LOTS FOR A TOTAL OF 33 LOTS
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AT DONNA DRIVE
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
CASE NO: CT 9603/PUD 96-03kIDP 96-03/SDP 96-04
WHEREAS, Pacific View LTD, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of
Carlsbad regarding property owned by Daniel W. Ryan, “Owner”, described as
A Portion of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of
Section 32, Township 11 south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino
Base and Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of May 1997, 4th of
June 1997, and the 18th of June 1997, 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 amended Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
.18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby APPROVES the amended Mitigated Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated January 22, 1997, and “PIP and related
Mitigation Monitoring Program dated January 15, 1997, attached hereto and
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
FindinPs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
4
4
Minutes of public hearings; and
Matters of common knowledge to the City of Carlsbad which they consider,
including but not limited to, the Carlsbad General Plan, Carlsbad Zoning
Ordinance, and Local Facilities Management Plan, which may be found at
City Hall located at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive and the Community
PC RESO NO. 4099
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered the amended Mitigated Negative Declaration dated January 22, 1997, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments thereon, and
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department,
prior to approving 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 hereby APPROVES the amended Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
The Planning Commission does hereby find that the amended Mitigated Negative
Declaration dated January 22, 1997, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the
City of Carlsbad.
The Planning Commission finds that the amended Mitigated Negative Declaration dated
January 22, 1997, reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of
the City of Carlsbad.
The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of the following:
4 The report, CEQA Findings, EIA Part II, dated January 22, 1997, and the
Mitigation Monitoring Program;
4 All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning
documents prepared by the project applicant and the City of Carlsbad that
are before the decisionmakers as determined by the City Clerk,
Cl All documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies in
connection with the Mitigated Negative Declaration on the project;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Development Offke located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive in the custody of the
City Clerk and Director of Planning.
The Planning Commission finds that this project qualifies as a subsequent development to
the City’s MEIR (MEIR 93-01) under Section 21083.3 of CEQA for analysis of
cumulative air quality and traffic impacts and that all feasible mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this
Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project..
The initial study shows that as mitigated there is no substantial evidence that the project
may have a significant impact on the environment.
The site contains disturbed habitat (4.37 acres), low quality coastal sage scrub (1.95
acres) and southern mixed chaparral (2.2 acres). The project has the potential to
significantly impact endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats unless
mitigation is incorporated into the project. To reduce potential impacts to less than
significant, the project has been conditioned to mitigate for impacts to coastal sage
scrub, the habitat of the California gnatcatcher which is a listed species under the
Endangered Species Act.
The project site is located adjacent to Carlsbad Village Drive, a secondary arterial.
A noise study was completed for the project which concluded that noise could be
mitigated to meet the City standard of 60 dBA CNEL exterior and 45 dBA CNEL
interior with the placement of a 5 112 ‘ noise wall along Carlsbad Village Drive and
the installation of STC 32 windows on the second story for Lots 25 and 26.
The topography of the site is varied, consisting of gently sloping to steep hillsides
which generally slope from the center of the site downward to the east and west.
The proposed 64,500 cubic yards of grading for the project will not result in any
unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards. ’
The cultural survey prepared for the site identified one potential cultural resource
site which the study concluded was not significant. Potential impacts to
paleontological resources which could occur during grading shall be mitigated
pursuant to the mitigation monitoring program .
Planninp Conditions:
1. This project shah comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the approved amended Mitigated Negative Declaration as contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4099 and contained in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program for Pacific View Estates attached hereto as Exhibit “Z” and made a part
hereof.
PC RESO NO. 4099 -3- 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
2. The Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of, the Pacific
View Estates Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
3. The applicant shall apply for a 4(d) “Take” permit following submittal of
application for grading permit and prior to the issuance of that grading permit, the
applicant shall obtain approval of the 4(d) “Take” permit by the Carlsbad City
Council.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of June 1997, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Monroy, Noble,
Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman
ABSTAIN: None
ROBeRT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLAmING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4099 -4-
AMENDED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Located on the north side of Carlsbad Village Drive .at Donna
Drive, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
Project Description: Request for a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit,
Hillside Development Permit and Site Development Plan to
subdivide an 8.52 acre site into 26 single family residential lots. 3
lots to provide legal access to adjacent property, and 4 open space
;lots for a total of 33 lots on the property. The residential units on
the 26 lots would be two-stories, 30 feet in height and be 2,105 to
2,820 square feet in size. Four of the units are proposed to contain
460 square feet, first floor, second dwelling units. The project will
also contain a recreational area and RV storage facility.
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 thirty (30) days
of date of issuance; If you have any questions, please call Teresa Woods in the Planning
Department at (619) 438-l 161, extension 4447.
DATED: JANUARY 22.1997
CASE NO: ‘CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 96-03/SDP 96-04
CASE NAME: PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 22,1997 .
MICHAEL J. HOxZMll%ER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (619) 438-11610 FAX (619) 438-0894 I.1
@
REVISED - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 96-03/PUD 96-03HDP 96-03/SDP 96-04
DATE: Januarv 15. 1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Pacific View Estates
2. APPLICANT: Pacific View. LTD.. Contact: Don Jack
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: PO Box 2 198. Carlsbad, CA 92018
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 25.1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reauest for a tentative tract man, planned develonment permit,
hillside develonment permit. and site develonment plan to subdivide an 8.52 acre site into 26
single-family residential lots, 3 lots to orovide legal access to adiacent pronertv. and 4 onen
snace lots, for a total of 33 lots on the oronertv. The residential lots range in size from 7.002 to
29.468 sauare feet. The residential units on the 26 lots would be two-stories, 30-feet in height,
and be 2.105 to 2.820 sauare feet in size. Four of the units are DrODOSed to contain 460 square
foot, first-floor, second dwelling units. The nroiect will also include a recreational area and
recreational vehicle storage facilitv.
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.
q Land Use and Planning
q Population and Housing
q Geological Problems
(x1 Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
q Biological Resources n Utilities & Service Systems
0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
Ix) Water
a Air Quality
cl Hazards Ix) Cultural Resources
Ix1 Noise cl Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
- .-
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Cl
El
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 EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
~U2XU---
Planner Signature Date
Planning Director% Sign&&-e I/7- Date 1’ 1”’
-.
Rev. 03/28/96 /3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
a A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to. or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
l “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
a Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but @ potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately, in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
l When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
l A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that -.
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03128196 14
l If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL. EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96 /a-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a)
W
cl
4
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vi&r&y?
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
established community (including a low-income
minority community)?
an
or
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed offkial 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
4
e)
f)
8)
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#5)
Seismic ground shaking? (#5)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#5)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#5)
Landslides or mudflows?.(W)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#5)
Subsidence of the land? (#5)
Expansive soils? (#5)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#5)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
4
b)
c)
d)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
Potentially Significant Impact
III
cl
cl
0
cl
0
cl
0
cl q cl cl cl cl
cl cl cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
-
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
El
cl
0
0
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
•J
Cl
0
cl
IXJ
cl
,o
0
Less Than Significan t Impact
El
Cl
0
cl
cl
El
(xi
cl
IXI
Ix1
IXI
cl
cl
Ix1
lzl
Ix1
cl
cl
III
cl
cl
No
Impact
cl
txl
El El
Ix1
cl
cl
El
cl
cl
cl IXI El III
•J 0 Ix1
cl
IXI
Ix1
lx -’
5 Rev. 03l28l96
.C
Issues (and Supporting InformatIon Sources).
4
f)
I31
h)
0
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? (#lo)
Expose sensitive recepto& to pollutants? (# 10)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (# 10)
Create objectionable odors? (#IO)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a)
b)
c>
4
e)
f-J
g)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#IO)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#9)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#9) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#9)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#9)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#9)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#9)
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? (#6)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#6,
#4) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#6)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
WI Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#6; #7)
Potentially Significant Impact
Cl
El
cl
cl
cl
IXI,
cl
cl
cl
El
El
El
Cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incornorated
b
cl
El El
cl
cl
cl cl
cl
q q
0
cl 0 cl
cl
Ix1
El
El
cl
cl
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
cl
q
Cl cl cl
cl
cl q
cl
cl q
cl
cl cl cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
No
Impact
lxl
Ix1
lz
Ix)
Ix)
cl
lx
El
El
El
IXJ
lxl
[XI
El
Ix)
IXI
cl
cl
cl
1x1
(x1 -
6 Rev. 03128196
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VIII.
a)
b)
cl
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
cl
4
e>
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards?
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#2, #3)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (##2, #3)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
a)
W
c>
4
e)
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
Other governmental services?
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
4
b)
c)
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas?
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
4 Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
0 Solid waste disposal?
Et) Local or regional water supplies?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Potmtially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorpcratcd
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
5 -.
5
5
Rev. 03/28/96 /8
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a> Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
cl Create light or glare?
XIV.
a)
b)
c)
4
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#8)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l)
Affect historical resources?
e)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
XVI.
a>
b)
c)
XVII.
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
Affect edsting 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.
Sign&&
impact
Cl 0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Cl
0
0
5 0 0 0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significan t Impact
0
5
5
0
5
0
0
0
El
0
5
0
0
No
impact
5 0
0
0 ’
0
5
El
5
0
5
0
5
5
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative _.
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identifjl the
following on attached sheets:
8 Rev. 03128196 /Q
a) 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.
cl 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.
9 Rev. 03/28/96 40
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The 8.52 acre site is located on the north side of Carlsbad Village Drive at Donna Drive.
Topographically, the site consists of hilly terrain containing a hilltop which generally falls away
on all sides. Elevations on the site range from approximately 200 feet to 288 feet above mean
sea level. The primary soil type on the site is Santiago Formation. The Santiago Formation is
characterized by a thin base1 conglomeration that is overlined by fine-to-medium-grained, gray
green or brown to buff sandstone. The site is presently undeveloped and has been previously
disturbed. The majority of the project site contains disturbed habitat (4.37 acres). Low quality
. coastal sage scrub (1.95 acres) exists within the central portion of the site. Approximately 2.2
acres of the site is occupied by southern mixed chaparral. No wetland plant communities exist
on the site. .
1. LAND USE PLANNING
w The project site has a RLM (Residential Low-Medium) General Plan Designation, which
has a density range of O-4 dwelling units per acre and a Growth Management Control
Point of 3.2 du/ac. Under the existing General Plan Designation, with a 3.2 du/ac Growth
Management Control Point, this project would be permitted 24 residential units. As may
be allowed under Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the applicants have
requested to exceed the Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 du/ac on the site. As
proposed the project would contain 30 dwelling units (26 market rate and 4 affordable) at
a density of 3.97 du/ac, which is within the RLM Range of O-4 du/ac. The project
proposes to provide 4 second dwelling units as affordable. The project is compatible with
the small lot single family projects to the north and west, Multiple family apartment
project to the east and single family development to the south across Carlsbad Village
Drive. There is vacant property to the west that is designated by the General Plan for RM
residential densities which permits a range of 4-8 du/ac with a Growth Management
Control Point of 6 du/ac, with which the proposed project would be compatible. There
are three parcels located to the north of this site which range in size from .78-l acre in
size. Each of these parcels currently contains one single family home and could be
further subdivided in the future. These parcels are designated RLM in the Carlsbad
General Plan. The proposed single family residential development will be compatible
with these properties.
b) The proposed project will be consistent with all existing environmental plans and policies
adopted by other agencies including Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act (4(d)
Rule).
c> The proposed project is an infill development. The site has not been used for agriculture
in the recent past. There are numerous mature eucalyptus trees on the site which
evidence the lack of farming of the site over the years. Therefore, there are no anticipated
impacts to agriculture from this project.
4 The project site is currently surrounded by residential development. The proposed
project will be compatible with the surrounding developments. The project will provide
improved access to the developments to the north. As designed, the project will not pose
10 Rev. 03/28/96 21
2.
a-b)
c)
3.
a-e)
4.
-
as a barrier to nearby developments. Accordingly, the proposed 30 unit residential
project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
The City of Carlsbad’s Growth Management Program established performance standards
for public facilities, a population limit of approximately 135,000 persons and a housing
limit of approximately 54,600 dwelling units at buildout of the City. The proposed
project will exceed the Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 dwelling units per acre.
The project site would be permitted 24 units based on the 3.2 du/ac Growth Management
control point. The applicant has requested to exceed the Growth Management Control
Point as may be permitted under Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The
project would exceed the Growth Management allocation for the site by 6 units. The
Citywide Growth Management dwelling unit and population buildout caps will not.
however, be exceeded due to the fact that there have been sufficient developments
approved in the quadrant at densities below the control point to cover the units in the
project above the control points so that approval will not result in exceeding the Quadrant
limit.
Although this 30 unit project will increase the density of the population within the
immediate area, this population increase is not regarded as significant in view of the fact
that there are adequate dwelling units within the Quadrant to allocate to this project
without exceeding the dwelling unit cap of the northwest quadrant and public facilities
and services are available to meet the anticipated demand. This project is compatible
with the surrounding area and will not result in growth inducing impacts to the area.
In that the project site is currently undeveloped, no existing residents will be displaced.
The project will however provide 4 units of affordable rental housing.
GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
The proposed 64,500,cubic yards of grading for the project will not result in any unstable
earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards. The
proposed project is subject to the Hillside Development ordinance. At 7,460 cubic yards
of grading per acre the project is within the acceptable range of grading for a hillside
property. A large portion of the grading proposed is necessary to provide public street
access to an existing development to the north. The proposed new street will provide
safe, convenient secondary access to Carlsbad Village Drive for the neighborhood to the
north. As a result of the grading no unique features will be eliminated.
The project site is not subject to significant seismic hazards which would restrict
development of the property for residential use.as proposed.
WATER
a/c/d) Development of the project would create impervious surfaces which reduce absorption -’
rates and increase surface runoff and runoff velocities. In addition, drainage from the
project’s roofs, driveways, parking areas, slopes and open areas would constitute a
potentially significant impact to water quality due to potential pollutants in the “non-point
11 Rev. 03/28/96 aa
b)
f-i)
e>
5.
source” urban runotf. Prior to the approval of a grading permit for this project the
applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The proposed project will provide all
necessary erosion control measures including landscaping, adequate‘ drainage facilities
and proper soil compaction to reduce water quality impacts to below a level of
significance. Grading permit standards of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan
require adequate drainage facilities to service the site. These items are all required by the
Engineering Department prior to approval of the grading permit.
The project site is not located within a floodplain or within an area which is subject to
flooding. Therefore, no portions of the property or future project residents would be
exposed to flood hazards.
No potable ground water basins exist within the City. During testing on the site, no
groundwater was encountered. Due to the relatively deep groundwater table, no
significant impacts to groundwater quality, quantity, or rate or direction of flow are
anticipated. ! .
No water courses exis; on the site. Therefore, this project will not result in the change of
currents or direction of water movement.
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 SanDiego 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.
In that sufficient projects have been approved below the Growth Management Control Point in
the Northwest Quadrant, the Air Quality Impacts of the additional 6 dwelling units proposed with
this project have already been considered in the Master EIR for the Updated 1994 Carlsbad
General Plan. Consequently, with respect to air quality impacts, this project is regarded as a -.
.subsequent project which is consistent with the analysis and findings of the Master EIR for the
updated 1994 Carlsbad General Plan This project is nevertheless implementing various air
quality mitigation measures including: locating affordable units along major transportation
12 Rev. 03/28/96 a3
corridors, providing affordable units near commercial services and recreational amenities.
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.
Construction activities associated with the project would result in potential short-term air quality
impacts. Principal pollutants from these activities including fugitive dust particles due to grading
and transportation of construction materials and, to a lesser degree, emissions from construction
vehicles. The Grading Ordinance contains provisions to minimize the release of construction
related pollutants; therefore, air quality impacts resulting from future project related construction
activities would not be considered significant in that the project shall be conditioned to comply
with the City’s Grading Ordinance.
b) Other than project air emissions associated with gas and electric power consumption and
vehicle miles traveled, this 30 unit residential development will not generate any other
source of air pollutants. No sensitive receptors (schools/hospitals) exists near the site,
therefore potential exposure of sensitive receptors to project air emissions is not
considered a significant impact.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
The proposed project would result in an additional approximately 300 average daily trips to the
surrounding area. The 300 additional trips will not have a significant impact on the surrounding
area. A traffic signal warrant analysis prepared for the project, determined that a signal was not
warranted on Carlsbad Village Drive at Donna Drive. The City’s Engineering Department will
condition the project to provide necessary traffic control devices for the project based on City
standards. The project will be conditioned to provide full street improvements to Donna Drive,
Wintergreen Street (extension) and all new internal street systems.
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures -.
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
13 Rev. 03/28/96 29
adopted. The diversion of regional through-trafEc 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.
b/c)
d)
e/f)
g>
7.
a-e)
All project on-site and off-site circulation improvements shall be required to comply with
minimum engineering design and safety standards. Adequate emergency access from the
project site to Carlsbad Village Drive shall be provided with this project. This project
shall also provide adequate access to existing adjacent uses via new public streets.
Required project parking (56 resident spaces and 10 guest spaces) shall be provided on-
site.
As designed and conditioned, the proposed project will not result in any traffic/bicyclist
conflicts or hazards nor will the project design negatively impact any alternative mode of
transportation. The project, as proposed, complies with all adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation.
The project is not located in close proximity to a railroad or navigable waterway,
therefore, no rail or waterborne impacts are anticipated. The project is located within the
Airport Noise Impact Notification Area of the McClellan-Palomar Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The project shall record a notice concerning potential
airport impacts on the property to alert new residents of their proximity to the McClellan-
Palomar Airport.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The project has the potential to significantly impact endangered, threatened or rare
species or their habitats unless mitigation is incorporated,
As described in the applicant’s biological study prepared by Anita Hayworth, dated February 7,
1996, the project area consists of approximately 1.95-acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, 2.02
acres of Southern Mixed Chaparral and 4.37 acres of disturbed habitat. Direct impacts to Diegan
Coastal Sage Scrub are considered to be significant but mitigable. Impacts to the remaining
habitats are not considered significant. A focused survey for threatened coastal California
gnatcatcher and sensitive plant species was conducted by Dudek and Associates, letter dated -.
January 11, 1996. No sensitive species were found on-site and therefore, the likelihood of
survival and recovery of listed species will not be appreciably reduced.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
-
Sensitive Animals
No coastal California gnatcatchers were observed on the site. No brown-headed cowbirds were
observed during any visits. The Coastal Sage Scrub habitat located onsite is potentially suitable
for the gnatcatcher, however it is very small in size (1.95 .acres) and the property is surrounded
by development thus rendering the site incapable of supporting the gnatcatcher.
The property was surveyed for the Pacific Pocket Mouse. No evidence of the Pocket Mouse was
identified. The study prepared for’ the site concluded that the site had very limited potential to
support the Pacific Pocket Mouse.
Sensitive Plants
The site supports disturbed habitat, coastal sage scrub, and “lemonadeberry woodland (a plant
community dominated by coastal sage scrub plant species but characterized by dense, woody,
evergreen aspect that is more similar to southern mixed chaparral than coastal sage scrub. No
typical chaparral was identified on the site. Ashy Spike-Moss and Sand Aster were observed on
the site. The study concluded that given the absence of chaparral on the site that it is likely that
these plants do not represent the sensitive variety (De1 Mar Mesa sand-aster) which typically is
restricted to southern maritime chaparral in coastal San Diego County.
Sensitive plant species such as De1 Mar manzanita, wart-stemmed ceaanothus, Nuttall’s scrub
oak, and Encinitas baccharis, which are components of coastal chaparral, were not observed
onsite and highly unlikely to be present.
Orcutt’s spineflower, is nearly impossible to detect during the time of the year of the survey.
However, the study concluded that based on the absence of coastal chaparral, with which this
species typically is associated, it is unlikely that Orcutt’s spineflower is present.
Regulatory Status
When coastal California gnatcatchers are present on the site, contiguous and nearby suitable
habitat is considered “occupied” habitat for purposes of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
processing. Impacts to the occupied areas of habitat may be assessed a as a “take” of coastal
California gnatcatcher habitat within the context of Section 9 of the ESA. An Incidental Take
Permit for the gnatcatcher can be achieved under Section 7, Section 10(a) or Section 4(d) of the
ESA. The applicant is proposing to take coastal California sage scrub under Section 4(d) of the
ESA.
Coastal sage scrub habitat within the project site does not appear to support gnatcatchers (Source
#l 1). Further, as noted in the biological study, this project would probably not impact coastal
California gnatcatcher, due to the small size of the habitat on the site, and therefore, no additional
surveys were recommended.
The project site is not located within a preserve planning area of the draft Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan, This is primarily due to the fact that the surrounding area is fully developed
and could not support sensitive species. Because of the development of the surrounding area,
this site would not make a good connective corridor for sensitive species. -.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
-.
8. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Consistent with Title 24 regulations of the State Building Code, the project will be
designed to incorporate. energy conservation measures where feasible. Otherwise, the
project does not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans.
W No non-renewable resource has been identified on this site. Therefore, implementation of
the proposed project would not result in the wasteful use of a non-renewable resource.
cl The subject site does not contain any known mineral resources (natural gas, oil. coal or
gravel) that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State.
9. HAZARDS
a-d) Aside from the short-term air quality impacts associated with the emissions from
construction vehicles and generation of dust during project construction activities, the
proposed residential project would not result in a significant risk of a explosion or release
of hazardous substances. The project will be conditioned to construct public street access
to existing Wintergreen Street improving existing emergency response to this existing
neighborhood. No health hazards will be created by this residential project.
e) The project is adjacent to natural vegetation to the west, which is subject to fire hazard.
This project shall be required to comply with all fire suppression policies of the Carlsbad
Landscape Manual.
10. NOISE
a/b) The grading operation and construction activities associated with this project will produce
an insignificant, typical, short term noise impact. No extended noise sources are
associated with the proposed residential development. Construction activities will be
required to comply with the City’s Construction Noise Ordinance Chapter 8.48 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The project site is located adjacent to Carlsbad Village Drive, a secondary arterial in this
area. A noise study was completed for the project and concluded that noise could be
mitigated on the site to meet City standards of 60 dBA CNEL exterior and 45 dBA CNEL
interior with the placement of a 5 %’ noise wall along Carlsbad Village Drive and the
installation of STC 32 windows on the second story for lots 28 and 29.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES
a-e) The proposed project is subject to all conditions of the Zone 1 Local Facilities
Management Plan which projected the zone needs at buildout assuming that all units
allowed under Growth Management were constructed. Therefore, the proposed 37 unit
residential development will not result in the need for new governmental services
including police and fire services. The school district has written a letter indicating -.
acknowledgment of the project and indicating the provision of schools, although school
aged residents of this subdivision may not attend the closest school to their home.
Consistent with the City’s Growth Management Plan and applicable state law, the project
16 Rev. 03/28/96 27
applicant shall be required to submit evidence to the City that project impacts to school
facilities have been adequately mitigated prior to issuance of grading or building permit.
12. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
a-g) In that this project shall be subject to the utility and service system requirements and
conditions within the Zone 1 LFMP, no significant utility or service system impacts will
occur. The project shall be conditioned to either tie into existing facilities or construct
new facilities as necessary.
13. AESTHETICS
a/b) Potential project visual impacts to Carlsbad Village Drive will be adequately mitigated
with landscaping on all up-slopes, location of structures on building pads, and use of
earth-tone noise barriers/screen walls.
The development of the site will involve 64,500 cubic yards of grading to create building
pads, streets, RV parking site, recreation areas and drainage facilities. The proposed
grading conforms with the City’s Hillside Development Ordinance as manufactured
slopes would be screened with buildings and or landscaping and not exceed 30-feet in
height. Additionally, the proposed development will be terraced from west to east down
the hillside generally preserving the natural integrity of the landform. Therefore, the
alteration of the topography would not create a significant aesthetic impact. The
provision of screen/noise walls, landscaping and a differential in grade will adequately
screen the project from Carlsbad Village Drive and other nearby streets.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a-e) The cultural resource survey prepared for the site (Sources #l) identified one potential
cultural resource site on the property (SD1 14,259). Based on the evaluation criteria, the
study concluded that the resource was not important. The study noted that as a small site
with limited variability, that had been compromised by disturbance from adjacent
development, that the sites’ research potential was exhausted. Therefore, the study
concluded that implementation of the proposed project will not result in adverse impact to
the resource and no mitigation is recommended.
Based on the paleontological survey conducted for the site, it has been determined that
the property has the potential to create significant impacts to paleontological resources.
These impacts will occur when mass excavation activities cut into the sandstones of the
Santiago Formation, primarily during grading. Mitigation of the impacts discussed
above can be ensured by implementing the following measures:
a. Prior to any grading of the- project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to
perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to
determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the
paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance -.
of a grading permit;
17 Rev. 03/28/96
15.
A)
16.
4
b)
c>
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils
present in the geologic strate, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make
periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process;
C.
d.
The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts.
All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
RECREATION
A variety of on-site amenii.ies (ball court, trail, picnic area) will be provided with the
project. In addition, Hosp Grove Park is located within a mile of the site (north).
Accordingly, project &pacts to recreational amenities are not regarded as significant.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
As discussed in the Biological Resources section of this EIA, the project will impact 1.95
acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub. However, the mitigation measures proposed will
adequately mitigate impacts to biological resources.
All project related impacts must be considered to be considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of continued growth and development of the City, Northern
San Diego County and San Diego County in general. However, with the exception of
significant and unmitigable regional air quality and traffic impacts identified within the
Master EIR for the City’s updated 1994 General Plan, (for which statements of
Overriding Considerations’ have been adopted by the Carlsbad City Council), this project
will implement project specific mitigation measures to reduce project specific impacts to
a level of inaignificance. The implementation of these project mitigation measures will
incrementally reduce cumulative-considerable impacts to a level of insignificance.
As previously discussed within this document, this 30 unit residential project will not
create environmental effects which will cause substantial effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly.
Alternatives:
Project alternatives are required when there is evidence that the project will have a significant
adverse impact on the environment and an alternative would lessen or mitigate those adverse
impacts. Public Resources Code Section 21002 forbids the approval of projects with significant
impacts when feasible alternatives or mitigation measures can substantially lessen such impacts.
A “significant effect” is defined as one which has a substantial adverse impact. Given the -,
attached mitigation conditions, this project had “NO” significant physical environmental . impacts, therefore, there is no substantial adverse impact and no justification for requiring a
discussion of alternatives, (an alternative would not lessen an impact if there is no substantial
18 Rev. 03128196 a9
-
adverse impact).
III.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS: (Note: all Source documents are on file in the Planning
Department located at 2075 Las PaImas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009; Phone:
(619) 438-1161)
Cultural Resource Survev and Evaluation of Pacific View Estates San Dieno Countv,
California, ASM Affiliates Inc., John R. Cook, April 1996.
Acoustical Analvsis Renort #708 for Pacific View Estates - Carlsbad, George E.
Leighton, November 27, 1995.
Revision to Acoustical Analvsis Renort #708 for Pacific View Estates - Carlsbad, George
E. Leighton, April 8, 1996.
Tree Survev Pacific View Estates, R.D.G. Consultants, Stamped September 16, 1996.
Renort of Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation for Develoument of D. Rvan Pronertv
at Carlsbad. California, AdTech Engineering, Inc., October 16, 1995.
Carlsbad Village Drive Pronertv Biological Reconnaissance Survey, Anita M. Hayworth
Biological Consultant, February 7, 1996.
U.S. Denartment of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pacific View Ltd. Proiect,
Sensitive Suecies Survey, Letters Dated January 3 1, 1996 and February 28, 1996.
Paleontological Resources. 8.5 Acres Located in Carlsbad. CA (APN 167-250-161, San
Diego Natural History Museum, Letter Dated December 26, 1995.
Traffic Imnact Analysis for a 48 Unit Residential Develonment, Citv of Carlsbad,
O’Rourke Engineering, Letter Dated January 18,1996.
Citv of Carlsbad General Plan Undate Final Master EIR, City of Carlsbad Planning
Department, March 1994.
Pacific View Limited Sensitive Snecies Survey, Dudek & Associates, Inc., letter dated
January 11,1996.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. All project grading and site preparation shall comply with the recommendations of the
Report of Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation for the project, prepared by AdTech
Engineering, Inc., dated October 16, 1995, and any subsequent amendments on file in the
Planning Department.
2. Compliance with APCD Rules 51 (The “Nuisance” Rule), 52 (Particulate Matter), and 54 -.
(Dust and Fumes) of the Air Quality Chapter would effectively mitigate dust impacts
associated with project grading operations. A note shall be placed on the grading permit
19 Rev. 03128196 30
- A
3.
stipulating that the following measures shall be required to achieve compliance with these
rules, and reduce construction-related air pollutants:
a.
b.
The watering of all surfaces being graded and haul routes shall be required during
dry weather conditions;
All unpaved areas shall be revegetated according to approved landscape plans as
soon as possible after grading;
C.
d.
e.
f.
All construction-related trtic shall be restricted to routes that are dust-controlled,
and reduced speeds shall be maintained for all haul and construction vehicles:
All construction activities shall be limited during periods of high winds;
All heavy-duty, diesel-powered construction equipment shall be operated
according to manufacturers suggested operating instructions (with the fuel-
injection timing retarded to recommend levels for NOx emissions, but which
would not result in excessive visible smoke emissions) in order to control
pollutant emissions;
Construction equipment shall be subject to regularly scheduled maintenance/tune-
ups, and be turned off when not being utilized to avoid excessive idling
emissions;
The application of architectural coating and cut-back asphalt shall adhere to
APCD Rules 67.0 and 67.7, to effectively control other construction-related
emissions of air pollutants; and
h. The Engineering Department shall monitor for compliance during all grading
operations of the project.
All project runoff shall conform with the National Pollution Discharge and Elimination
System Permit (NPDES) requirements, pursuant to San Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Board Order No. 90-42, adopted by City Council Resolution 90-235. The
applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an
acceptable level prior to discharge into any sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements
shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Drainage
water from buildings, streets, recreation areas, RV storage area and landscaped areas shall
be disposed of through stormdrains or otherwise in a manner that will avoid runoff onto
adjacent property.
4. Approximately 1.95 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat will be directly
impacted by this project. The impacted CSS habitat is regarded as low quality. Pursuant
to the Interim Take provisions of the 4d Rule of the Endangered Species Act, the project
shall be required to mitigate this take of 1.95 acres of CSS habitat by acquiring for
preservation comparable quality habitat at a. 1:l ratio. Prior to issuance of grading
permits, the project applicant shall be required to consult with and obtain any necessary
permits from the USFWS, the California Department of Fish and Game and the City of
Carlsbad for impacts to the 1.95 acres of CSS.
5.
-.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, the applicant shall submit
building plans indicating interior noise mitigation to 45 dBA CNEL interior pursuant to
the Acoustical Analysis Report (George Leighton) for this project. Such noise mitigation
20 Rev. 03/28/96 3J
6.
7.
8.
9.
-
shall include at minimum the installation of STC 32 windows on the second story for
Lots 28 and 29.
Prior to occupancy of any units, the project applicant shall be required to construct a
minimum 5.5’ high noise barrier (wall) along the top of slope adjacent to C&bad
Village Drive, consistent with the recommendations of the acoustical analysis report
prepared for the project. The wall shall be earth tone in color and screened with
landscaping as viewed from Carlsbad Village Drive.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall prepare and record a Notice that
this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from Palomar
Airport in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney.
(See Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any construction site within this
project, the applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for a
proposed haul route. The applicant shall comply with all conditions and requirements the
City Engineer may impose with regard to the hauling operation.
Paleontology:
a.
b.
Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to
perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to
determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the
paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance
of a grading permit;
A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils
present in the geologic &ate, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make
periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process;
C.
d.
The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts;
All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum;
and
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
ATTACHED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
21 Rev. 03/28/96 34
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date E Signature
^.
22 Rev. 03/28/96 33
I
:
:
;
I ./ . .
,
*
, ,
L . . . . c”
$3 z -I
5s Y g O % 2 a
- EXtWl- “2”
ENVlRONMENT-- . MITIGATION MONITORING CH1 ALIST Page 1 of 1
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 FWSOLUTION NO. 4100
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 8.52 ACRES INTO
TWENTY SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THREE LOTS TO
PROVIDE LEGAL ACCESS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES
AND FOUR OPEN SPACE LOTS FOR A TOTAL OF 33 LOTS
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AT DONNA DRIVE
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME: PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
CASE NO.: CT 96-03
WHEREAS, Pacific View LTD, “Developer”, has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Daniel W. Ryan, “Owner”, described as
A Portion of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of
Section 32, Township 11 south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino
Base and Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map as shown on Exhibits “A”-“ 0” dated May 21, 1997, on file in the Planning Department
(Pacific View Estates - CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 96-03/SDP 96-04), as provided by Chapter
20.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 21st day of May 1997,4th of
June 1997, and the 18th of June 1997, 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.
WHEREAS, on June l&1997, the Planning Commission approved, CT 96-03,
as described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4100.
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.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES Tentative Tract Map CT 96-03, based on the following findings and
subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
1. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as
condition, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any
applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State
Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the
project: is a medium-low density single family residential development; is designed
in accordance with the Subdivision and Planned Development Ordinances; and is in
compliance with the recommendations of the required technical studies for soils,
drainage, noise, and biological resources. The proposed subdivision also provides
all necessary public improvements to serve the demand generated by the
development.
2. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for Residential Low-Medium (RLM),
Residential Medium (RM) and Residential Medium-High (RMH) development on the
General Plan, and the project is a residential development with a density of 3.97
du/acre which is within the Residential Low-Medium density range which is
compatible with the surrounding land uses.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density
proposed, in that the project has similar lot sizes as nearby single and multiple family
developments of the area, and the project meets all City standards for street widths,
setbacks, grading and drainage for the development.
4. 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.
5. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
PC RESO NO. 4100 -2- 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
.-
That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that the area is dominated
by westerly wind patterns which will allow the utilization of natural heating and
cooling opportunities.
That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed
by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs
against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental
resources.
That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that all applicable environmental mitigation measures required by the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated January 22, 1997, have been incorporated
into the project and/or added to the project as conditions of approval.
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 project has
been designed in accordance with City required sewer and drainage facilities.
Pursuant to City Engineering Standards the project is conditioned to comply with
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards to prevent
any discharge violations.
The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for compliance
with Local Facilities Management Zone 1, compliance with RA-10,000 Zoning, and
compliance with Planned Development and Hillside Development regulations, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the following:
a. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the
project at a density of 3.97 du/acre is within the density range of the RLM
General Plan designation (O-4 du/ac). Although the project is above the
growth management density control point of 3.2 du/acre, as provided for in
the General Plan, a project can exceed the growth control point if the zoning
is consistent with the General Plan, including the land use designation, and
no more than a maximum of twenty five (25) percent additional units are
proposed in excess of the growth control point. This provision would allow a
maximum of 30 units on the site. Since the applicant is proposing 30 units,
and the R-A-10,000 zoning is consistent with the RLM General Plan
designation, this project is in compliance with the Land Use Element of the
General Plan. Further, as a single family development on minimum 7,000
square foot lots, the project is compatible with surrounding uses including
the multiple family apartments, small lot single family units (4,000 square
foot minimum lot sixes) and standard lot (lO,OOO+ square feet) single family
units.
PC RESO NO. 4100 -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
C
The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed density
of 3.97 du/acre is within the density range of O-4 du/acre specified for the site as
indicated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
b. Circulation - The project is conditioned to complete all necessary onsite and
offsite roadway improvements prior to occupancy of any unit in each phase
of the project. In addition, the project is designed and conditioned to provide
public street access to the neighborhood on Wintergreen Drive which has
inadequate secondary access and public street access to two parcels that have
inadequate public street access.
C. Noise - That as designed and conditioned to mitigate potential noise impacts
from Carlsbad Village Drive, the project is consistent with the City’s noise
standard of 60 dBA CNEL exterior and 45 dBA CNEL interior.
d. Housing - That the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General
Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the Developer has been
conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to provide and deed
restrict 4 dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households and to
purchase .5 credit as permitted pursuant to Section 21.85.040(c) of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code.
11. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the final map will not be approved
unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve the project.
In addition, the project is conditioned such that a note shall be placed on the final
map that building permits may not be issued for the project unless the District
Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur
within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the District
Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the
General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this
project.
b. Statutory School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in
the Carlsbad Unified School District.
C.
d.
Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
e. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
PC RESO NO. 4100 -4- 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
11
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
. . .
The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax; or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 2 1.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
That the project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for the density ‘in
excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s public facility plans
will not be adversely impacted, in that as designed and conditioned the project will
comply with the City’s public facility plans and will provide all necessary public
facilities including streets, water and sewer facilities to meet the needs of the
development.
That there have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities below
the control point to offset the units in the project above the control point so that approval
will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit.
That all necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance will
be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them
created by this project and in compliance with adopted City standards, in that as designed
and conditioned the project will comply with the City’s public facility plans and will
provide all necessary public facilities including streets, water and sewer facilities to
meet the needs of the development and will pay all necessary fees for public
facilities.
The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the
McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April 1994, in that as conditioned the applicant shah
record a notice concerning aircraft impacts. The project is compatible with the projected
noise levels of the CLUP; and, based on the noise/land use compatibility matrix of the
CLUP, the proposed land use is compatible with the airport, in that the project site is
located outside of the 60 dBA CNJIL noise contour of the airport.
That the habitat loss does not cumulatively exceed the 5% guideline established in the
Draft Conservation Guidelines of the Draft Natural Community Conservation Plan
(NCCP), in that the proposed take of 1.95 acres of low quality coastal sage scrub
habitat is consistent with the City policy for interim take and there is currently a
balance under the 5% limitation to accommodate the 1.95 acre take proposed with
this project. As conditioned, the project is required to process a City “Take” permit
pursuant to City requirements to ensure that there continues to be an adequate
balance of the 5% limitation lands available at the time this project proposes to
develop.
PC RESO NO. 4100 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
That the habitat loss will not preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat values,
in that the project site consists of low quality, isolated habitat areas that are not
located within any of the City’s HMP core areas or core linkage areas.
That the habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the City’s Habitat
Management Plan, in that the habitat loss on the site is small (1.95 acres) and the
habitat on the site is low quality coastal sage scrub which is not located within a core
area of core linkage area, as identified in the City’s HMP.
That the habitat loss has been minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent
practicable in accordance with the mitigation established by the NCCP Guidelines, in that
the habitat loss will be mitigated at a minimum of 1:l ratio as recommended by the
resource agencies.
That the habitat loss will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and
recovery of listed wildlife species in the wild, in that the project site consists of low
quality, isolated habitat areas that are not located within any of the City’s HMP
core areas or core linkage areas.
That the habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, in that as conditioned, all
necessary permits including hillside development, grading and a 4(d) “Take” permit
will be obtained for this project.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 90-384.
Adjacent properties with inadequate public street access will be provided adequate
public street access as this project has been designed.
That the property cannot be served adequately with a public street without a panhandle lot
(Lot 14) due to unfavorable conditions resulting from unusual topography, surrounding
land development, or lot configuration, in that the project site is an infill-hillside
property, with an unusual shape which is more sensitively graded utilizing a
panhandle lot.
That the subdivision with a panhandle lot on Lot 14 will not preclude or adversely affect
the ability to provide full public street access to other properties within the same block of
the subject property, in that as designed, all lots have public street access as shown on
Exhibits “A” - “0”.
That the buildable portion of Lot 14 consists of an area of greater than 8,000 square
feet, three parking spaces provided within a garage and adequate turn-around space
for vehicles to maneuver, which meets the requirements of Section 21.10.080(d)(l) of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
That the front, sides, and rear property lines on Lot 14, for purposes of determining
required yards, are as shown on Exhibit “A”, on file in the Planning Department.
PC RESO NO. 4100 -6- Yr,
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
30. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts cause by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
31. The change of use of City of Carlsbad owned property from reservoir to public
street is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan in that as provided for in the
Circulation Element of the General Plan, the public roads (Donna Drive and “B”
Street) have been designed to maintain City standards for the design and
construction of roads by providing secondary access to the Hillgate Estates
neighborhood which does not currently have secondary access to meet City
standards, and consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan, the
project is a joint public/private effort to improve circulation in a developed area.
32. That the use of Second Dwelling Units to satisfy the inclusionary housing
requirement for this project is an acceptable alternative for providing affordable
housing in that: the proposed project is a small in-fill project in which using other
means of satisfying the inclusionary housing requirements of Chapter 21.85 would
be almost impossible; and, the proposed Second Dwelling Units comply with the
recommended Housing Commission policy for the use of Second Dwelling Units
including the unit size being greater than 400 square feet, the unit design containing
one bedroom, and no direct access provided to the SDU from the main house.
Conditions:
Planning:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby APPROVE the Tentative Tract Map for the
project entitled Pacific View Estates (Exhibits “A” - “0” dated May 21,1997, on file in
the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference, subject to the conditions
herein set forth.) Staff is author&d and directed to make, or require Developer to make,
all corrections and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map document(s), as necessary,
to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development substantially different from this approval, shall require an amendment to
this approval.
2. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
3. The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the
Tentative Tract Map as approved by the final decision making body. The Tract Map
shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The Map copy shall be submitted to
the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or improvement
plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
PC PESO NO. 4100 -7- 41
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
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
reduced legible version of the approving resolution(s) on a 24” x 36” blueline drawing.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the
District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application
for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. A note
to this effect shall be placed on the final map.
The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28,
1987, (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any development
fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or Facilities
and Improvement Plan and to fulfil1 the subdivider’s agreement to pay the public
facilities fee dated March 22,1996, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is
incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid, this application will not be
consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
The Developer shall provide proof of payment of statutory school fees to mitigate
conditions of overcrowding as part of the building permit application. The amount of
these fees shall be determined by the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit
application.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this residential
housing project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in
Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this
approval shall.be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the
condition complies with all requirements of law.
Approval of CT 96-03 is granted subject to the approval of PUD 96-03, HDP 96-03, and
SDP 96-04. CT 96-13 is subject to all conditions contained in of PUD 96-03, HDP 96-
03, and SDP 96-04 for the Planned Development Permit, Hillside Development
Permit, and Site Development Plan.
Prior to the issuance of the Final Map, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of
Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of
the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the
City of Carlsbad has issued a Tentative Tract Map by Resolution No. 4100 on the real
property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property
description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of
approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of
Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment
to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by
PC RESO NO. 4100 -8- 42
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
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
the Developer or successor in interest.
The Developer shall prepare a detaiied landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with
the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The plans
shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director prior to the
approval of the final map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first. The
Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and
maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and
debris.
The first submittal of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
That the slopes west of Donna Drive and adjacent to Lots 8 and 27 shall be heavily
landscaped with trees and ground cover to soften the visual impacts of these slope
areas, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings
so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or
addresses shall contrast to their background color.
The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales office at all
times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be
limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks and streets.
Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, in
a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form
#l on file in the Planning Department).
Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar
Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney
(see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, or where a map is not
being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the
Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide and
deed restrict 4 dwelling units (including: Units one unit each on Lots 14,21,24 and 27)
as affordable to lower-income households for the useful life of the dwelling units, in
accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the
PC RESO NO. 4100 -9- Y3
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
21.
22.
23.
Planning Director prior to submittal of final map. The recorded Affordable Housing
Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest.
Within 90 days of the approval of CT 96-03, the Developer shall pay to the City a fee
to purchase .5 of an affordable housing subsidy unit as permitted pursuant to
Section 21.85.040(c) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, unless an alternate method of
satisfying the fractional affordable housing requirement is approved in the
Affordable Housing Agreement.
The Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the
project’s market rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the City and
the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule
for development.
The Developer shall establish a homeowners’ association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the
Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official
CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning
Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions:
a. “General Enforcement bv the Citv. The City shall have the right, but ‘not the
obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in
favor of, or in which the City has an interest.
b. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the
event that the Association fails to maintain the “Common Area Lots and/or the
Association’s Easements” as provided in Article , Section the
City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary maintenance.
If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give written notice
to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project, setting forth
with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required and
requesting the same be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty
(30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to
carry out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association’s
Easements within the period specified by the City’s notice, the City shall be
entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to
reimbursement with respect thereto from the Owners as provided herein.
C. Snecial Assessments Levied bv the City. In the event the City has performed the
necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association’s
Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs
incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and
or Association’s Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to
each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to
pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection
PC RESO NO. 4100 -lO- 4Lf
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
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
-
against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said
invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of
receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full
within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be
subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of
the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by
means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available
to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot
in the Project for an equal prorata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such
special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing
lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in
the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special
assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal.
actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and
his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this
Declaration.”
The Developer shall dedicate on the final map, an open space easement for those portions
of lots 1, 4-9, 12, 13, 15, 17-20, 26-29 and 33 which are in slopes, in their entirety to
prohibit any encroachment or development, including but not limited to fences, walls,
decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways and landscaping other than that approved
as part of the landscape plans as shown on Exhibits “E” - “F”.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration as contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4099 and contained in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program for Pacific View Estates attached thereto.
The applicant shall apply for a 4(d) “Taken permit following submittal of
application for grading permit and prior to issuance of that grading permit, the
applicant shall obtain approval of the 4(d) “Take” permit by the Carlsbad City
Council.
Street lighting shall be provided pursuant to City standards.
The RV storage area on Lot 8 shall be screened from adjacent properties and the
street with a combination of screen walls, decorative fencing and landscaping as
approved by the Planning Director.
The walls on Lots 4,5,6,7,9,11,12 and 28 are to be an earth tone color similar to
that of the soil and are to be softened with landscaping subject to the satisfaction of
the Planning Director.
The Open Space designation on Lots 10,ll and 32 shall be removed and these lots
shall be designated for access purposes only.
PC RESO NO. 4100 -ll- il s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
.I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31. Prior to final map or grading permit whichever occurs first, the proposed
landscape plans shall be revised to include the landscaping of Lot 10. The design of
landscaping shall be to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. A landscape
easement shall be placed over the entirety of Lot 10 and the project CC&Rs shall
include a provision requiring the maintenance of Lot 10 until such time as Lot 10 is
needed for access purposes for the adjacent property. At such time, the
Homeowners’ Association shall relinquish the landscape maintenance easement.
The project CC&Rs shall include a provision that fully discloses the fact that Lot
10 is intended to be paved and used as a driveway to access future development of
the adjacent Dabbs’ property.
32. The applicant shall modify the configuration of access Lots 10 and 11 per the
revised site plan Exhibit “X”, attached hereto. The modification of Lots 10 and 11
shall be reflected on the conforming mylar required as condition of project
approval.
33. The Developer shall apply for and obtain a finding from the Housing Commission
that the affordable housing aspect of the project is consistent with the Housing
Commission Guidelines on Second Dwelling Units, approved.May 8,1997.
EnPineering:
Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions.
upon the approval of this proposed major subdivision. must be met prior to approval of a
final map.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shali comply with the
requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a
program is formerly established by the City.
This project is approved for up to three final subdivision maps for the purposes of
recordation.
If the developer chooses to record a final subdivision map out of the phase shown on the
tentative map, the new phasing must be reviewed and approved or conditionally approved
by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
All concrete terrace drains shall be maintained by the homeowner’s association (if on
commonly owned property) or the individual property owner (if on an individually
owned lot). An appropriately worded statement clearly identifying the responsibility
shall be placed in the CC&Rs (if maintained by the Association) and on the final map.
The developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers,
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents,
offricers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the City, the
Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the City within
the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map Act.
PC RESO NO. 4100 -12- If4
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
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
-
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City
Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and
requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
Rain gutters must be provided to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage
course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Alternatively, the developer
may submit to the City Engineer a letter from their soils engineer stating their
approval of a drainage design which conveys runoff to a swale located less than 5’
from the building face.
The developer shall provide for sight distance corridors at all street intersections in
accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement on the
final map (and in the CC&Rs):
“No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches
above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the
area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City
Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying
property owner shall maintain this condition.”
The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City ,harmless
regarding drainage across the adjacent property.
Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner shall give
written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the
subdivision plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping
District No. 1 on a form provided by the City.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
tentative map, a grading permit for this project appears to be required. The developer
must submit and receive approval for grading plans in accordance with City codes and
standards prior to issuance of a building permit for the project.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the
developer shall submit proof that a Notice of Intention has been submitted to the State
Water Resources Control Board.
No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision
unless a grading or slope easement or agreement is obtained from the owners of the
affected properties and recorded. If the developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope
easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case the developer must
either amend the tentative map or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the
project site in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved tentative map as
PC RESO NO. 4100 -13- +u
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
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and
easements required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be
made by a certificate on the final map for this project. All land so offered shall be
granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the
City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall underground all existing
overhead utilities within the subdivision boundary,
Direct access rights for all lots abutting Carlsbad Village Drive shall be waived on the
final map.
The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best
management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management
Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge
to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
a. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
b. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the
developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided
by law, improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements:
Phase 1
1. Full width street improvements of “A” Street. Improvements shall include, but
are not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphalt paving, and street lighting.
PC RESO NO. 4100 -14- 48
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
53.
54.
55.
-
2. Water and sewer utility stubs to Lot 10.
Phases 2
1. Full width street improvements of “B” Street and Wintergreen Drive within
the Phase 2 boundaries. Improvements shall include, but are not limited to,
curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphalt paving, and street lighting.
2. A 24’ wide paved travel way on “B” Street and Donna Drive from the Phase 2
boundary to its intersection with Carlsbad Village Drive. This travel way is for
emergency access purposes and shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Phase 3 ! .
;
1. Full width street improvements of “B” Street within the Phase 3 boundaries.
Improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk,
asphalt paving, and street lighting.
2. Half-width street improvements plus 12’ of additional paving on Donna Drive.
Improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk,
asphalt paving, and street lighting.
3. Water and sewer utility stubs to Lot 32.
4. Removal and replacement of fencing, landscaping and access to the water tank
property*
A list of the ahove improvements shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final
map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements
listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured
improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
Prior to final map approval the developer shall enter into an agreement to transfer the
ownership of Lots 10, 11, and 32, to the adjacent off-site properties.
Prior to approval of final map, the developer shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer that all existing private access easements over the project site have
been quitclaimed or otherwise extinguished.
Access and utilities to all adjoining lots shall be available at all times, including during
construction. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the developer shall submit a plan,
for review and approval by the City Engineer and Fire Marshall, which demonstrates
bow access is to be maintained to adjoining properties during construction.
PC RESO NO. 4100 -15- L/q
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
56. The developer shall obtain a City right-of-way permit prior to beginning
construction of street improvements.
57. Prior to occupancy of the first unit in Phase 1, the developer shall enter into a bond
agreement with the City to pay, on demand by the City, one-fourth of the cost for the
design and construction of a traffic signal and advance warning system at
Wintergreen Drive and Hosp Way. This agreement shall terminate five years from
the date of occupancy of the fast unit in Phase 3 of the subdivision.
58. Prior to occupancy of the first unit in Phase 1, the developer shall enter into a bond
agreement with the City to pay, on demand by the City, one-fourth of the cost for the
design and construction of a trafftc signal and advance warning system at Donna
Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive. This agreement shall terminate five years from the
date of occupancy of the first unit in Phase 3 of the subdivision.
59. Prior to final map approval the developer shall acquire City-owned property shown
within the right-of-way for Street “B”.
60. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the final map as non-mapping data:
No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street
level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance
corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3.
The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition.
61. The “B” Street connection to Wintergreen Drive is to remain barricaded and
inaccessible to traffic until such time that “B” Street is opened as a public
street. A lockable gate shall be provided at this connection point for access by
Pacific View Estates sales staff.
62. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall obtain an easement from the
City for landscape maintenance purposes on the reservoir parcel.
63. The applicant shall work in conjunction with the adjacent property owner to
facilitate the installation of gas, electricity, and cable television stubs to Lot
10 and Lot 32. The applicant is not responsible for costs associated with
providing these utilities. All associated costs for labor, materials, connection
charges, and agency fees and deposits shall be borne by the adjacent
property owners.
Water District:
64. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacky, pressure and flow demands can be
met.
PC RESO NO. 4100 -16- 3-0
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
65. The Development shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego
County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for
meter installation.
66. Sequentially, the Developer’s Engineer shall do the following:
a. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements.
Also obtain GPM demand for domestic and irrigational needs from appropdate
parties.
b. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning
Department for processing and approval.
C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement plans, a
meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review, comment and
approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (i.e. GPM - EDU)
67. This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not be
issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the
development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available at
the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to be
available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map.
68. The Developer shall improve the north and west boundaries of the reservoir site
property through grading, construction of curb, gutter, sidewalks, and road
surface to match “B” Street and Donna Drive improvements, install new entrance
driveway to the reservoir site, and provide a gate, security fencing and landscaping
subject to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. On the east boundary to the
reservoir, the Developer shall provide grading, security fencing and landscaping to
the satisfaction of the District Engineer.
69. The Developer shall grade the reservoir property and construct road improvements
to match “B” Street and Donna Drive improvements.
70. Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs
first, the Developer shall consult with the Water District regarding the relocation of
the existing water pipeline easement on the property. The Developer shall relocate
the water pipeline within a 15 to 20 foot wide easement, at a location to be reviewed
and approved by the District Engineer prior to final map or grading permit,
whichever occurs first. In return, the Water District will quitclaim the existing
water pipeline easement. The exact size and location of the proposed easement
shown on the tentative tract map is preliminary, and may be modified.
. . .
. . .
C
PC RJZSO NO. 4100 -17-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
&:
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
-
Prior to issuance of building permits, the Fire Departments shall evaluate building plans
for conformance with applicable fire and life safety requirements of the state and local
Fire Codes.
Provide additional public fire hydrants at intervals of 500 feet along public streets and/or
private driveways. Hydrants should be located at street intersections when possible, but
should be positioned no closer than 100 feet from terminus of a street or driveway.
The applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts
the location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fore hydrants. The
plan should include off-site fore hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
The applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways and
traffic circulation for Fire Department approval.
An all weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles shall
be provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the Fire Chief,
the access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other reasons, he
may, in the interest of public safety, require that construction operations cease until the
condition is corrected.
All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational before
combustible building materials are located on the construction site.
Prior to building occupancy, private roads and driveways which serve as required access
for emergency service vehicles shall be posted as fire lanes in accordance with the
requirements of Section 17.04.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Native vegetation which presents a fire hazard to structures shall be modified or removed
in accordande with the specifications contained in the City of G&bad Landscape
Manual. The applicant shall submit a fire suppression plan to the Fire Department for
approval.
The applicant shall provide a street map which conforms to the following requirements:
A 400 scale photo-reduction mylar, depicting proposed improvements at least two
existing intersections of streets. The map shall also clearly depict street centerlines,
hydrant locations and street names.
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
PC RESO NO. 4100 -18- 5a
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
Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit
and Site Development Plan.
Standard Code Reminders:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of Federal and State laws and local ordinances,
including but not limited to the following:
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final
map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The Developer shall provide the following note on the fmal map of the subdivision and
final mylar of this development submitted to the City:
“Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code established a Growth Management
Control Point for each General Plan land use designation. Development cannot exceed
the Growth Control Point except as provided by Chapter 21.90. The land use designation
for this development is RLM dwelling units per non-constrained acre. All Parcels were
used to calculate the intensity of development under the General Plan and Chapter 21.90.
Subsequent redevelopment or resubdivision of any one of these parcels must also include
all parcels under the General Plan and Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.”
The following note shall be placed on the Final Map: “Prior to issuance of a building
permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the Developer shah pay a one-time
special development tax in accordance with the City Council Resolution No. 91-39.”
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except‘as otherwise specifically provided herein.
The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
The Developer shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name
policy subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval.
Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shah provide all required
passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and
recreational facilities.
All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape
Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning
Department.
PC RESO NO. 4100 -19- 5.3
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
90.
91.
92.
C
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning
Director prior to installation of such signs.
The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer.
Some improvements shown on the tentative map and/or required by these conditions are
located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has suffkient title or
interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or interest.
The developer shall conform to Section 20.16.095 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of June 1997, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Monroy, Noble,
Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman
ABSTAIN: None
,<;/-.-p .
” ,(y , 1 ‘-.
ROl%RT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOXMIUER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4100 -2o-
EXHIBIT “A”
.EXHIBIT ‘LOT Id
OPEN SPACE
\ \ I \ u \ \ \,
SPACE 9
JW 266.6
F!j 266.0
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. 4101
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO SUBDIVIDE 8.52
ACRES INTO TWENTY SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THREE
LOTS TO PROVIDE LEGAL ACCESS TO ADJACENT
PROPERTIES AND FOUR OPEN SPACE LOTS FOR A TOTAL
OF 33 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AT
DONNA DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1
CASE NAME: PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
CASE NO.: PUD 96-03
WHEREAS, Pacific View LTD, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of
Carlsbad regarding property owned by Daniel W. Ryan, “Owner”, described as
A Portion of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of
Section 32, Township 11 south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino
Base and Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Condominium
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A’‘-“0” dated May 21, 1997, on file in the Planning Department,
Pacific View Estates - PUD 96-03 as provided by Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 21st day of May 1997, 4th of
1 June 1997, and the 18th of June 1997, 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 Condominium Permit.
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
APPROVES Condominium Permit PUD 96-03, based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
FindinPs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with
Chapter 21.45 of Title 21, the General Plan, applicable specific plans, master plans, and
all adopted plans of the City and other governmental agencies, in that the project
complies with all City plans, policies, standards and guidelines and is similar to
surrounding existing development in the area.
That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the
neighborhood and the community, in that the area is designated for residential Low-
Medium (RLM) density uses in the General Plan and development is necessary to
continue the balance of land uses in the City.
That such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity, in that the project meets all required City standards and ordinances and
adequate setbacks, landscaping and roadway improvements are incorporated into
the project design.
That the proposed Planned Development Permit meets all of the minimum development
standards set forth in Chapter 2 1.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.080,
and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design
Guidelines Manual in that compatible lot sixes, compatible architecture, adequate
resident and guest parking, recreational amenities, public street improvements and
adequate building setbacks have been provided.
That the proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural
topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on the
site, in that the residential lots are designed to step down the hillside, the project
design includes varying roof line orientations and a variety of building materials
compatible with developments in the area; the project complies with all small lot
architectural guidelines; slope grading is designed with natural contouring and
undulations; and, adequate landscaping is provided to soften slopes.
That the proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site is
compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or
PC RESO NO. 4101 -2- 5’7
disruptive element to the neighborhood, in that the proposed twenty six single family
lots developed within the Residential Low-Medium (RLM) density range, are
similar to the lot sixes and design of nearby single family and multiple family
residential developments.
7. That the project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well-integrated with
the project and does not dominate the project, in that the proposed development is an
in-fill project which has been required to connect existing Wintergreen Drive, via a
new public street, to Carlsbad Village Drive to provide adequate secondary access to
an existing neighborhood. Additionally, this project will provide public street access
to two, existing, adjacent lots which lack adequate public street access. The
designed street improvements comply with required City standards. All necessary
street right-of-way dedications and improvements will be dedicated with the project
as designed and conditioned. ,
Conditions: ;
1.
2.
. . .
. . .
. . .
..I
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
The Planning Commission does hereby APPROVE the Planned Development permit for
the project entitled Pacific View Estates Exhibit(s) “A” - “0” dated May 21, 1997 on
file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference, subject to the
conditions herein set forth.) Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require
Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Planned Unit Development
document(s), as necessary, to make them internally consistent and in conformity with
final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the
approved Exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different from this approval,
shall require an amendment to this approval.
Approval of PUD 96-03 is granted subject to the approval of CT 96-03, HDP 96-03, and
SDP 96-04. PUD 96-03 is approved subject to all conditions of approval for CT 96-03,
HDP 96-03, and SDP 96-04, Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4100, 4102 and
4103, incorporated herein by reference and on file in the Planning Department.
PC RESO NO. 4101 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of June 1997, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Monroy, Noble,
Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman
ABSTAIN: None
ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HO%MILtiR
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4101 -4- 59
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. 4102
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO SUBDIVIDE 8.52
ACRES INTO TWENTY SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THREE
LOTS TO PROVIDE LEGAL ACCESS TO ADJACENT
PROPERTIES AND FOUR OPEN SPACE LOTS FOR A TOTAL
OF 33 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AT
DONNA DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
CASE NO: HDP 96-03
WHEREAS, Pacific View LTD, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of
Carlsbad regarding property owned by Daniel W. Ryan, “Owner”, described as
A Portion of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of
Section 32, Township 11 south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino
Base and Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A”-“ 0” dated May 21,1997, on file in the Carlsbad .
Planning Department (Pacific View Estates - HDP 96-03) as provided by Chapter 21.95 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of May 1997, 4th of
June 1997, and the 18th of June 1997, 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.
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 as follows:
A)
W
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES Hillside Development Permit, HDP 96-03, based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
II Findinps:
1. That hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show
existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages.
2. That undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properly
identified on the constraints map.
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of
the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that the project has been designed with
natural contour grading and disturbance of the hillside and will be compatible with
surrounding developments. The project has been designed with building pads that
step-down the project site to reduce visual impacts of the project.
4.
.
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 no development is proposed on the 40-percent or greater slopes on the site
except for the grading of existing manufactured slopes which were created by the
development of Carlsbad Village Drive and Wintergreen Drive as permitted
pursuant to Section 21.95.090 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code for areas previously
disturbed by authorized grading. Further, the identified impacts to the existing low-
quality disturbed coastal sage scrub will be mitigated pursuant to agency
requirements.
5. That the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in
the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that the project grading amounts are
within the acceptable range under (8,000 cubic yards per acre), the project has been
designed with building pads which step-down the hillside, the site is contour graded
and includes a variety of slope directions and undulation, and slopes have been
designed with landscape screening to soften the visual impacts of the grading.
6. That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands, in
that the amount of grading is limited to that required to create streets, building pads
for residential units and development amenities, and the proposed amount of
grading (7,460 cu yds per acre) is within the acceptable range for a hillside lot.
-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
.-
Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby APPROVE the Hillside Development Permit for
project entitled Pacific View Estates, Exhibits “A’‘-“0” dated May 21, 1997, on file in
the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference, subject to the conditions
herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make,
all corrections and modifications to the Hillside Development Permit document(s), as
necessary, to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the
project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any
proposed development substantially different from this approval, shall require an
amendment to this approval.
2. Approval of HDP 96-03 is granted subject to the approval of CT 96-03, PUD 96-03
and SDP 96-04.
3. The conditions of approval contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4099
(Mitigated Negative Declaration), 4100 (CT 96-03) 4101 (PUD 96-03), 4103 (SDP 96-
04) are hereby included herein by reference.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
PC RESO NO. 4102 -3-
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of June 1997, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compaq Monroy, Noble,
Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman
ABSTAIN: None
d-----k N-9
./’
.f ,/,” /-I-- ,$&----\.;.
/ ,‘/
RO&%T NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLk?k
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4102 -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
- h
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4103
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. SDP 96-04 TO SUBDIVIDE 8.52
ACRES INTO TWENTY SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THREE
LOTS TO PROVIDE LEGAL ACCESS TO ADJACENT
PROPERTIES AND FOUR OPEN SPACE LOTS FOR A TOTAL
OF 33 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AT
DONNA DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
CASE NO.: SDP 96-04
WHEREAS, Pacific View LTD, “Developer”, has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Daniel W. Ryan, “Owner”, described as
A Portion of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of
Section 32, Township 11 south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino
Base and Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
1 Permit as shown on Exhibits “A”-“ 0” dated May 21, 1997, on file in the Planning Department,
1 Pacific View Estates- SDP 96-04, as provided by Chapter 2182.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal
/ Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 21st day of May 1997, 4th of
June 1997, and the 18th of June 1997, 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.
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
APPROVES Site Development Permit, SDP 96-04 based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
. . .
That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental
settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will
not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which
the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or
traffic circulation, in that as designed, the project is compatible with surrounding
projects, -is similar in density to surrounding development, has been designed with
building pads that step-down the hillside, is consistent with the Land Use and
Housing Elements of the Carlsbad General Plan, complies with the development
standards of the Planned Development Ordinance, Hillside Development Ordinance
and the R-A-10,000 Zone.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the proposed project as designed, provides reasonably-sized units, adequate
parking and landscaping, and with a maximum height of 30-feet is compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood.
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 complies with all standards of the
Planned Development Ordinance, R-A-10,000 Zone and Hillside Development
Ordinance.
That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the twenty six single family residences and four
second dwelling units will generate approximately 292 ADT to the area which can
be adequately handled by the new local streets designed in the project as well as the
existing surrounding circulation system. The proposed circulation system will
provide adequate access to all units, adequate room for vehicular movement, two or
three car garages for each unit for resident parking, and adequate on-street guest
parking. Further, this project has been designed to provide secondary access to an
adjacent development with inadequate secondary access, as well as public street
access to two adjacent parcels with inadequate public street access.
PC RESO NO. 4103 -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
Planning Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
..*
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
The Planning Commission does hereby APPROVE the Site Development Plan for the
project entitled Pacific View Estates (Exhibits “A’‘-“0” dated May 21, 1997, on file in
the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference), subject to the conditions
herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make,
all corrections and modifications to the Site Development Plan document(s), as
necessary, to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the
project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any
proposed development substantially different from this approval, shall require an
amendment to this approval.
Approval of SDP 96-04 is granted subject to the approval of CT 96-03, PUD 96-03 and
HDP 96-03. SDP 96-04 is subject to all conditions contained in CT 96-03, PUD 96-03
and HDP 96-03 for the Tentative Map, Planned Development Permit and Hillside
Development Permit.
Second Dwelling Units shall be provided on Lots 14,21,24, and 27 as indicated on
Exhibit “A”, unless an alternate location is established in the Affordable Housing
Agreement.
PC RESO NO. 4103 -3- iQd
1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of June 1997, by the
3 following vote, to wit:
4 AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Monroy, Noble,
5 Savary and Welshons
6 NOES: None
7 ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman
8 ABSTAIN: None
9
10
11
12
13
14
_ ./T~ ;*’ .-’ .+-‘L -. ‘.. -.
RoBERT hairperson -’
CARLSBAD PLAN&G COMMISSION
15
16
17
18
-19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLmLLEk?
Planning Director f
PC RESO NO. 4103 -4-
h ,h
'r..dCityOfCADsLSB~ PlanningDepartmeh~ EXHIBIT 4
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 6d
Item No. 3 0
Application complete date: October 10, 1996
90-Day Extension Expires: July 10, 1997
P.C. AGENDA OF: June 18,1997 Project Planner: Teresa Woods
Project Engineer: Ken Quon
SUBJECT: CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 96-03/SDP 96-04 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES -
Request for approval of an Amended Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative
Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Site
Development Plan to subdivide 8.52 gross acres into 26 single-family lots, 3 lots to
provide legal access to adjacent properties and 4 open space lots, for a total of 33 lots
on the property. Four of the single-family units are proposed to include second
dwelling units. The property is located on the north side of Carlsbad Village Drive at
Donna Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4099 APPROVING
the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4100, 4 10 1, 4102 and 4103 APPROVING CT 96-03, PUD 96-03,
HDP 96-03 and SDP 96-04 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. ITEM EXPLANATION
This item was considered by the Planning Commission at its meeting of May 21, 1997, and
continued to June 4, 1997 to allow staff and the applicant time to respond to certain issues raised by
the Commission, applicant and citizens. The project was further continued to June 18, 1997, to
permit additional time to resolve the issues. All previously identified issues have been resolved to
the satisfaction of staff. A staff response and staff recommendation, for each previously identified
issue, is contained in the attached memo to the Planning Commission, dated June 18, 1997.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Memo dated June 18, 1997 with staff response to comments and errata with recommended
revisions to Resolution No. 4 100.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4099
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4100
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4 101
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4 102
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4103
Staff Report dated May 2 1, 1997.
June 18, 1997
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND ERRATA .WlTH RECOMMENDED REVISIONS AND
ADDITIONS TO THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 4100, CT 96-03 -
PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
At the May 21, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, the following issues were raised by members of
the Planning Commission, the applicant, and citizens, regarding CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 96-
03/SDP 96-04 - Pacific View Estates:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Construction traffic through the Hillgate neighborhood.
The timing of construction for the “B” Street connection to Wintergreen Drive.
Noise and dust associated with grading and construction.
Timing of signals at Wintergreen Drive and Hosp Way and at Carlsbad Village Drive and
Donna Drive.
Paving of Access Lot 10.
Water Commission approval of the use of City of Carlsbad property for public street right-of-
way purposes.
7. The staking of access points to the Dabbs’ property.
8. Requirement for slope rights for access to the Dabbs’ property from Lot 10.
9. Elevation of Lot 33 in relation to the Dabbs’ property.
IO. Utility stub-outs to the Dabbs’ property.
11. Width of water pipeline easement.
12. Wintergreen Drive through connection to Carlsbad Village Drive.
The following is a staff response and a staff recommendation for each of the above issues.
1. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC THROUGH THE HILLGATE NEIGHBORHOOD
Staff Response:
The project contains three phases, which are arranged so that construction traffic can access
the site without having to travel through the existing Hillgate neighborhood. This phasing
arrangement is consistent with the standard policy of the Engineering Department that
requires construction traffic to use major roadways and stay out of residential streets. To
ensure that this policy is met, a condition of approval requires the developer to obtain a City
issued haul route permit prior to having any construction traffic enter the site.
Staff Recommendation:
No changes are recommended.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS C I 96-03 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
JUNE 18, 1997
2. TIMING OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE “B” STREET CONNECTION TO WINTERGREEN
DRIVE
Staff Response:
The construction of the “B” Street connection to Wintergreen Drive will occur with Phase 2 of
the project. During construction, this connection will remain barricaded and inaccessible to
traffic, but will be available on a limited basis for access by sales staff of Pacific View Estates.
This street connection, along with “B” Street, will be opened as a public street upon
occupancy of the first unit of Phase 2.
Staff Recommendation:
Construction of “B” Street and the connection to Wintergreen Drive is required under
Condition No. 49. Modify Resolution No. 4100 by adding the following Engineering Condition:
\
+ The “B” Street connection to Wintergreen Drive is to remain barricaded and
inaccessible to traffic until such time that “B” Street is opened as a public
street. A lockable gate shall be provided at this connection point for access by
Pacific View Estates sales staff.
3. NOISE AND DUST ASSOCIATED WlTH GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION
Staff Response:
City ordinances require the developer to provide noise and dust controls during construction,
including limiting construction activity, to certain business hours and requiring water trucks and
other measures to limit dust movement during grading operations. City public works
inspectors are responsible for enforcing these ordinances.
Staff Recommendation:
No changes are recommended.
4. TIMING OF SIGNALS AT WINTERGREEN DRIVE AND HOSP WAY AND AT CARLSBAD
VILLAGE DRIVE AND DONNA DRIVE
Staff Response:
There is no established schedule or date for installation of a traffic signal at Wintergreen Drive
and Hosp Way, nor for installation of a traffic signal at Carlsbad Village Drive and Donna
Drive. The traffic report submitted with this project indicates that a traffic signal is not
warranted at this time at either location. The conditions of approval that address these signals,
require the developer to bond for five years for one-fourth of the signal installation costs.
These conditions allow for the analysis of project impacts at the intersections, and permit time
to make a determination of whether warrants are met for requiring the installation of traffic
signals. Conditions No. 54 and 55 of Resolution 4100 have been modified for clarification
purposes.
70
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS C I zI6-03 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
JUNE 18,1997
Staff Recommendation:
Modify Engineering Conditions No. 54 and 55 of Resolution No 4100 as follows:
Condition No. 54 is amended as follows:
54. Prior to approval of final map, $ the developer shall m enter into
a bond agreement with the City to pay, on demand by the City, one-fourth of the
cost for the design and construction of a traffic signal and advance warning
system at Wintergreen Drive and Hosp Way. This agreement shall terminate five
years from the date of occupancy of the first unit in the subdivision.
Condition No. 55 is amended as follows:
55. Prior to approval of final map, Tthe developer shall m enter into
a bond agreement with the City to pay, on demand by the City, one-fourth of the
cost for the design and construction of a traffic signal and advance warning
system at Donna Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive. This agreement shall terminate
five years from the date of occupancy of the first unit in the subdivision.
5. PAVING OF ACCESS LOT 10
Staff Response:
The applicant’s have met with the Dabbs’, who are the property owners adjacent to the project
site, and both parties have agreed that Lot 10 will not be paved at this time, as stated in the
attached letter dated May 27, 1997. However, in order to avoid erosion and other similar
concerns, Lot 10 will be landscaped and maintained by the Pacific View Estates Homeowners’
Association until such time as Lot IO is needed for access purposes to the Dabbs’ property.
Staff Recommendation: ’
Modify Resolution No. 4100 by adding the following Planning Condition:
+ Prior to final map or grading permit whichever occurs first, the proposed landscape
plans shall be revised to include the landscaping of Lot 10. The design of
landscaping shall be to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. A landscape
easement shall be placed over the entirety of Lot 10 and the project CC&Rs shall
include a provision requiring the maintenance of Lot 10 until such time as Lot 10 is
needed for access purposes for the adjacent property. At such time, the
Homeowners’ Association shall relinquish the landscape maintenance easement.
The project CC&Rs shall include a provision that fully discloses the fact that Lot 10
is intended to be paved and used as a driveway to access future development of the
adjacent Dabbs’ property.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS C I 66-03 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
JUNE 18, 1997
PAGE 4
6. WATER BOARD APPROVAL OF THE USE OF CITY OF CARLSBAD PROPERTY FOR
PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY PURPOSES
Staff Response:
In order to construct the street connection from Wintergreen Drive to Carlsbad Village Drive,
while maintaining access to the Elm Reservoir facility, it is necessary that a portion of the
public street improvements required of this project encroach onto two City-owned parcels.
One of the affected City-owned parcels is a 9,000 square foot parcel that fronts onto Carlsbad
Village Drive, and adjoins the west side of the reservoir parcel. This parcel, which was
acquired by the City in 1973 for both public street purposes and to provide access to the
adjacent reservoir parcel, will be improved as Donna Drive to complete the street connection
between Wintergreen Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive. The Pacific View Estates project is
required to construct, on this parcel, half-width standard street improvements, plus an
additional 12’ of paving. The remaining improvements will be installed upon development of
the adjoining undeveloped parcel to the west. The encroachment of public improvements on
this parcel does not require any special considerations, since this parcel was acquired
specifically for public street purposes.
The other affected parcel is the 39,500 square foot site of the existing Elm reservoir facility.
From this site, 5,180 square feet of the northern portion of the parcel will be utilized for ‘IS”
Street improvements, and 1,122 square feet of the parcel will be utilized for a curb return at
the Carlsbad Village Drive/Donna Drive intersection, for a total improved area of 6,302 square
feet. The operations and usage of the reservoir facility will not be affected.
Additionally, this project will provide the reservoir parcel with enhanced landscape
improvements, which will be maintained in perpetuity by the Pacific View Estates
Homeowners’ Association. A condition of approval requires the applicant to obtain an
easement to provide such maintenance.
In considering allowing encroachment of the improvements onto the reservoir parcel, and
thereby changing its use, it must be demonstrated that the value of those improvements over
and above standard requirements of a subdivision, meet or exceed the value of the City-
owned unimproved land. For this project, these improvements include the installation and
maintenance of the enhanced landscaping. The comparison of the value of these items are as
follows:
Landscape installation and 30-year maintenance = $55,771 .oo
Unimproved land value: 6,302 sf x $1.35/sq. ft.* = $8,507.70
*The unimproved land cost of $1.35/sq. ft. is based on the applicant’s purchase price for the project site,
which staff has found to be acceptable.
The Water District staff has researched as to whether the Water Board is required to review
and approve the request to use City of Carlsbad owned land around the Elm Reservoir for
public street right-of-way. It has been determined that the change of use of the land, from
reservoir to public street right-of-way, does not require Water Board review or approval. No
change of ownership is required for this transaction.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS C I. 96-03 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
JUNE 18, 1997
A condition in Resolution No. 4100 requires the applicant to obtain a City right-of-way permit
prior to beginning construction of the proposed improvements on City-owned property. A
finding has been added to Resolution No. 4100 to acknowledge consistency with the General
Plan for the change of use of the City owned property from reservoir to public street.
Staff Recommendation:
Modify Resolution No. 4100 by adding the following finding:
31. The change of use of City of Carlsbad owned property from reservoir to public
street is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan in that as provided for in the
Circulation Element of the General Plan, the public roads (Donna Drive and “B”
Street) have been designed to maintain City standards for the design and
construction of roads by providing secondary access to the Hillgate Estates
neighborhood which does not currently have secondary access to meet City
standards, and consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan, the
project is a joint public/private effort to improve circulation in a developed area.
Modify Resolution No. 4100 by adding the following Engineering Condition:
+ Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall obtain an easement from the City
for landscape maintenance purposes on the reservoir parcel.
7. THE STAKING OF ACCESS LOCATIONS TO THE DABBS PROPERTY
Staff Response:
The applicants and the Dabbs’ have agreed to the locations for access Lot 32 and access Lot
10, as revised pursuant to the attached letter dated May 27, 1997. The redesign of Lot IO
results in a larger lot which provides the Dabbs’ with more flexibility in locating a driveway if
they choose to further develop their property. This modification has been reviewed and is
acceptable to staff. Staking of the lot locations is not required.
In addition, a condition has been added to modify the configuration of access Lot 11 to ensure
that the adjacent property owner only has to maintain their new driveway and not the
landscaped slopes. The landscaped slopes will be maintained by the Pacific View Estates
Homeowners’ Association as open space Lot 12.
Staff Recommendation:
Modify Resolution No. 4100 by adding the following Planning Condition:
+ The applicant shall modify the configuration of access Lots IO and 11 per the
revised site plan Exhibit X, attached hereto. The modification of Lots IO and 11
shall be reflected on the conforming mylar required as a condition of project
approval.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS C I 96-03 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
JUNE 18,1997
PAGE 6
8. REQUIREMENT FOR SLOPE RIGHTS FOR ACCESS TO THE DABBS’ PROPERTY FROM
LOT 10
Staff Response:
Slopes from Pacific View Estates will not encroach onto the Dabbs’ property. Therefore, slope
rights are not required.
Staff Recommendation:
No changes are recommended.
9. ELEVATION OF LOT 33 IN RELATION TO THE DABBS’ PROPERTY
Staff Response:
The proposed elevation of the pad on Lot 33 is at 280 which is 3 feet above the Dabbs’
property (pool location), which is located at approximately elevation 277. There is an existing
knoll on Lot 35 which is located at elevation 288, therefore, as designed, the highest portion of
Lot 33 will be lowered 8 feet from existing grade. At the pool location on the Dabbs’ property,
Lot 33 has a 2:l slope which is approximately 4 feet in height. With a 6 foot high privacy
fence on top of the slope, Lot 33 will be screened from the Dabbs property by an
approximately 10 foot high barrier, which will obscure the Dabbs property from the yard and
first floor of the proposed residence on Lot 33. Further, the unit proposed on Lot 33 is a Plan
3 unit, which is a two-story 30-foot high structure. The Plan 3 unit has been designed with
clerestory and obscuring glass windows on the second floor adjacent to the Dabbs’ property.
Therefore, the proposed development on Lot 33 has been designed to minimize the loss of
privacy to the Dabbs family. The applicant has met with the Dabbs’ and pursuant to the letter
dated May 27, 1997, attached, Mr. Dabbs has agreed to the proposed Lot 33 pad elevation at
280.
Staff Recommendation:
No changes are recommended.
IO. UTILITY STUB-OUTS TO THE DABBS PROPERTY
Staff Rewonse:
The applicants have met with the Dabbs’ and both parties have agreed that the applicant will
provide water and sewer stub-outs to the property lines of access Lots 10 and 32, and that the
Dabbs’ will bear the cost of extending the utility lines onto their property. This is a private
agreement between the applicant and the Dabbs’, as evidenced in the attached letter dated
May 27, 1997.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS C-I 96-03 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
JUNE 18,1997
Staff Recommendation:
Modify the Engineering Conditions of Resolution No. 4100 by adding the following condition:
+ The applicant shall work in conjunction with the adjacent property owner to facilitate the
installation of gas, electricity, and cable television stubs to Lot IO and Lot 32. The
applicant is not responsible for costs associated with providing these utilities. All
associated costs for labor, materials, connection charges, and agency fees and deposits
shall be borne by the adjacent property owner.
Modify Engineering Condition No. 49 of Resolution No. 4100 as follows:
49. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards,
the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as
provided by law, improvements shown on the tentative map and the following
improvements:
Phase 1
1. Full width street improvements of “A” Street. Improvements shall include, but are
not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphalt paving, and street lighting.
2. Water and sewer utility stubs to Lot 10.
Phase 2
1. Full width street improvements of “B” Street- and Wintergreen Drive
within the Phase 2 boundaries. Improvements shall include, but are not limited
to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphalt paving, and street lighting.
2. A 24’ wide paved :travel way on “6” Street and Donna Drive from the Phase 2
boundary to its intersection with Carlsbad Village Drive. This travel way is, for
emergency access purposes and shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Phase 3
7. Full width street improvements of ‘B” Street within the Phase 3 boundaries.
Improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphalt
paving, and street lighting.
2. Half-width street improvements plus 12’ of additional paving on Donna Drive.
Improvements shall include, but are not limited to, cunb, gutter, sidewalk, asphalt
paving, and street lighting.
3. Water and sewer utility stubs to Lot 32.
4. Removal and replacement of fencing, landscaping and access to the water tank
mverty.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS C I 66-03 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
JUNE 18,1997
A list of the above improvements shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final map
per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed
above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured improvement
agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
11. WIDTH OF WATER PIPELINE EASEMENT
Staff Response:
The applicant has requested that Condition No. 65 of Resolution 4100 be modified so that the
width of the pipeline easement is between 15 to 20 feet, as opposed to the Water District
recommended 20-foot wide easement. The Water District has reviewed the request for a
reduced easement width and has-agreed to this modification, with the location and exact size
of the easement to be reviewed and approved by the District Engineer.
Staff Recommendation:
Modify Water District Condition No. 65, of Resolution 4100 to read as follows:
66. Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of grading permit, whichever
occurs first, the Developer appkan# shall consult with the Water District
regarding the relocation of the existing water pipeline easement on the property.
p+evMed #The BDeveloper shell relocates the water pipeline within a 75 to 20-
foot wide easement, at a location to be reviewed and approved by the District
Engineer prior to final map or grading permit, whichever occurs first. In return,
the Wafer District will quitclaim the existing water pipeline easement. The exact
size and location of fhe proposed easement shown on the tentative tract map P . . m is preliminary tentatk, and may be modified &eeabMe
Let-&
12. WINTERGREEN DRIVE THROUGH CONNECTION TO CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
Staff Response:
Property owners within the Hillgate Estates development submitted a letter and petition, dated
June 3, 1997 (attached), requesting that Wintergreen Drive not be connected to the Pacific
View Estates project, and subsequently, to Carlsbad Village Drive. During development of
both the Hillgate project and Pacific View Estates, staff made provisions for this street
connection in the interest of providing convenient access between neighborhoods, avoiding
circuitous travel, and providing alternative access points in the event of an emergency. The
approved tentative map exhibits for the Hillgate development note that the current terminus of
Wintergreen Drive is to be extended in the future. Additionally, the approved final map for the
Hillgate development includes specific dedications and reservations for this street extension.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS C’I 66-03 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
JUNE 18,1997
PAGE 9
Staff Recommendation:
Maintain the “B” StreetIWintergreen Drive street connection as part of the Pacific View Estates
project.
13. MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING ERRATA CHANGES TO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 4100
Condition No. 50 is replaced with the following:
Prior to final map approval the developer shall enter into an agreement to transfer the
ownership of Lots 70, 97, and 32, to the adjacent off-site properties.
Condition No. 51 is amended as follows:
. . Prior to - ’ approval of final map, the developer shall demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that all existing private access easements over the
project site have been quitclaimed or otherwise extinguished.
Condition No. 53 is amended as follows:
The developer shall obtain a City right-of-way permit prior to beginning construction of
street improvements. irrr
Condition No. 56 is replaced with the following:
Prior to final map approval the developer shall acquire City-owned property shown
within the right-of-way for Street B.
Condition Number 57 is deleted.
73
4
\\\
e
\
\ / :
\ \ \ \
\
‘EXHIBIT ‘LOT 16
OPEN SPACE
EXHWT “X”
I- --*
a-nbr
ACCESS 1 ” ‘40-r 10 \
L.
SPACE T9
lW 266.5
fS 266.0
-
me City of CARLSBAD Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 1 0
Application complete date: October 10, 1996
90-Day Extension Expires: July 10, 1997
P.C. AGENDA OF: June 4,1997 Project Planner: Teresa Woods
Project Engineer: Ken Quon
SUBJECT: CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 96-03/SDP 96-04 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES -
Request for approval of an Amended Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative
Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Site
Development Plan to subdivide 8.52 gross acres into 26 single-family’ lots, 3 lots
to provide legal access to adjacent properties and 4 open space lots, for a total of
33 lots on the property. Four of the single-family units are proposed to include
second dwelling units. The property is located on the north side of Carlsbad
Village Drive at Donna Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting a CONTINUANCE of this item for two weeks, to the June 18, 1997,
Planning Commission ‘Meeting, in order to workout details on issues raised at the Planning
Commission hearing of May 2 1, 1997.
Plsnnify
LIlgawnflg
Propet Managemen!nt
May 27,1997
34142 UltfMi~uC STREET - CAWLSEUL), CUOMIA Y2w8
TELEPHONE (76u) 729-W~ - FAX (76W 7294282
Ms. Teresa Woods
Carlsbad Community Development, Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-j 176
~ -.. ? _._- . r - -
& .,.. * .~ ‘, . .a..,
Re: PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES-Donna Street & Carlsbad Village Drive-Tentative Map No. CT r)h-Ol
Dear l.eti : ,
This letter is tit-ten to report to you the resolution of issues addressed by Mr. Ken Dabbs at the Planning
Commission hearing held May 31, 1997. The result of meetings and discussions held on hlq, 23, 1997 are
as foliows:
Lots 10 and 32; Locations have been viewed and accepted, however the northerly line of lot 10 shall be
ac!justed to facilitate Dabbs’ future home-site. Exhibit attached.
Lot 10: Will not be paved, however&e Pacific View HOA will carry a landscape maintenance easement over
this lot until such time the access lot is utilizcd. ‘.
Lot 33: Elevation of 280.00 is accepted as designed. The issue of privacy has been cleared up with the
understandin; that the Avindows over looking the Dobbs’ proper@ arc not readily accessible or xe of obscure
gla5s.
Utihty Stubsl Wei i; Developer agrees to install sewer and water service stubs to the proposed street right of
ways at access lots 10 and 32. Developer aFees to bear the cost of labor and materials for the installation.
It is undtirstood Dabbs will pay all agency kcs, charges and dqosits. It is also understood that Dabbs will
bear all expenses for the extension of these services beyond the R.O. W. onto the property.
Utility Stubs(Dry j; Developer agrees to assist in facilitating the installation of gas, electric, telephone and
cable service stubs to the proposed street ri_ght of ways at access lots IO and 32. It is understood that all costs
rclatod IO the installation of those scrviccs shail bc born by the Dobbs’ property and will inch& but not bc
Ii&ted to labor, materials, connection charges and agency fees and deposits. Fees, charges and deposits for
these services shall be paid by Dobbs when required.
Oxfam JUNO 41937
June 3, 1997
c;‘Iy OF CARk=AD
To: "Bud" Lewis, Mayor and City Council Members,#&mmGDEEm
From: Nick Giovinazzo, President, Hillgate Estates
Honorable Mayor and Council:
I am certain that all of you would agree that everyone in a free society is entitled to live with a certain modicum of safety and tranquility. We choose our homes and neighborhoods usually based upon these premises. For some it may take a lifetime.
As parents of five and grandparents of a growing brood, we could no longer remain in a two bedroom condo in Solana Beach which we purchased in 1976. We expect to bond and form lasting and influential relationships with our grandchildren. So in 1993 we found a four bedroom home in a quiet and tranquil eucalyptus grove on a dead end street in Carlsbad, the find of a life time for sure. We discovered people of like values. We entertain and enjoy our (now 17) grand children during vacations and holidays with confidence from a street and neighborhood not impacted by through traffic.
I became President of the Homeowners Association. My wife heads a social committee in which the entire neighborhood including children enjoy two wonderful functions a year. One is the Fourth of July Picnic on our own picnic grounds. The other is the Open House Holiday parties in which we respect varied religious beliefs and enjoy the holiday foods of many ethnic backgrounds as we walk from home to home,
Recently we received final word of a development immediately south and west of our association. The Planning Commission and, we assume, the City Council reduced the original 42 homes proposal to 26 and added many green belt and recreational areas to the plan which is certainly consistent with our neighborhood of 32 homes.We welcome the attitude of the City Council and Commission who were obviously concerned with density.
However, as a group we are petitioning the City Council and Commission for one concession. Hosp Way is the entrance/exit to El Camino Real and Monroe Street for the 300t Camino Pointe Village and Sea Crest Apartments, 125 unit Hosp Woods Association and our own 32 unit Hillgate Estates Association. Then there are the 26 new houses at Pacific View. If Wintergreen Drive goes through to Carlsbad Village Drive, many of the cars from these complexes are quite likely to take the short cut through our neighborhood to Carlsbad Village Drive or the other way home. Sooner or later we are going to have a bad accident and I can only pray none of us or our children who now can play on our sidewalks are involved.
Ladies and gentlemen of decision-making, please think of the 26
new home owners for Pacific View and the expectations by those
persons of a tranquil neighborhood with executive homes ranging
from 300 to 400 thousand dollars! Think of the existing 32
members of Hillgate Estates, most who purchased here six years
ago and homeowners who have NEVER seen over 20 cars traveling to and from work, the mailman once a day, Fed Ex or UPS on occasion and trash trucks once a week! We, like everyone else, deserve the right to keep our neighborhood safe and not increase the noise level already impacting our neighborhood from apartments below. True we do not have major problems with those apartments especially since new ownership has occurred:,They have trimmed trees, painted and landscaped and have effectively controlled much of the irritating noise which has occurred in the past. We applaud their efforts. But they cannot control driving habits or attitudes of their renters. Hosp Way is a dangerous speedway and certainly needs a Stop Sign at Wintergreen and Grove. But the consequences of a Stop Sign there will give drivers the advantage of making a turn onto 'Wintergreen, if it is a through street, and creating chaos inr a beautiful, safe and tranquil neighborhood. Please do not add to the Hosp Way problem by creating another Hosp Way!
Keep Wintergreen a dead end and convince Pacific View, the developer to our South that a cul-de-sac is the best possible answer on their side of Wintergreen. We would never object to foot traffic for children going to school. We welcome that possibility. Two to three hundred cars a day would absolutely devastate our way of life as well as destroy our property values.
Thanks you for your consideration. We welcome the opportunity to meet with you at any time for discussion,
Sincerely,
-7Gthh
Nick Giovinazzo, President, Hillgate Estates 2948 Wintergreen Dr. Carlsbad Phone 434-1214
Nick Giovinazzo, a UCLA graduate, competed in both football and track. He taught and coached for 35 years. His last 22 years was at Los Angeles Valley College as a full Professor and member of the academic senate. He served as chairperson for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Athletics for eight years. Upon retirement he became a four time president of Seascape Sur Management Corporation and a two time president of Hillgate Estates. He served four years on the Parks and Recreation Commission of Solana Beach, two of those years as chairperson.
-
Consultrntr
-----e _.
Ma). 27, 1997
Ps:e 2
If you should have any questions or if I can be of further assistance to you, please do not hewate to call
Sincerely,
RDG CONSULTANTS
Ronald D. Grunow, P.E.
Reviewed, BEb;nowle&& & Gcepted.
Kenneth K. Dabbs Pacific View pates
khru\
Don Jack, %Z$ng Member
x El.
i
1 1 f---------y
T \ I /j
0 1,
yy==j o” _ ---
4 w KJ w g 0 ]!a -c ffv,yi \ #t-l m- .2 . \.
.-
Carlsbad Planning Commission
C/O Michael Hoizmiller -
Planning Director
2075 La Pahnas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
To The City Planners,
May 19,1997
This petition is sent to you in the interest of the residents of Hillgate Estates,
located offtiHosp Drive in Carlsbad and involving the streets of Wintergreen and
Doreet. At this time this is a quiet neighborhood where children can safely play and ride
their bikes and trafKc is restricted to the residents of this development. We have been
informed that there is intention of opening up Wintergreen Drive to Carlsbad Village
Drive. This would in fact disrupt this development with the through tfic. We wish to
stop this unnecessary change and maintain the safety and tranquillity of this neighborhood.
Since this only represents more expense for the Developer and only represents a change
for the worse to our neighborhood, we hope you seriously consider this petition. There is
adequate turn around space on DoreetIWintergreen for any fire equipment. The benefit to
the neighborhood of keeping this street as a cul-de-sac by far outweighs any theoretical
detriment as to fire department access.
----_-_----_--_--_---------- _-------_-_----I------------------------
m--s------ ----s---m --_---u-----__--u_--_____uIII_________
--------------_--_-I_________ -a--- --_-------------I-__u______________
---------suI_ -u-u_--e---- u-------U----------------------------
Carlsbad Planning Commission
C/O Michael Holzmiller -
Planning Lhxtor
2075 La Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
May 19,1997
To The City Planners,
This petition is sent to you in the interest of the residents of Hillgate Estates,
located off flHosp Drive in Carlsbad and involving the streets of Wrntergreen and
Doreet. At this time this is a quiet neighborhood where children can safely play and ride
their bikes and tra& is restricted to the residents of this development. We have been
informed that there is intention of opening up Wintergreen Drive to Carlsbad Village
Drive. This would in fact disrupt this development with the through traffic. We wish to
stop this unnecessary change and maintain the safety and tranquillity of this neighborhood.
Since this only represents more expense for the Developer and only represents a change
for the worse to our neighborhood, we hope you seriously consider this petition. There is
adequate turn around space on DoreetANntergreen for any fire equipment. The benefit to
the neighborhood of keeping this street as a cul-de-sac by far outweighs any theoretical
detriment as to fire department access.
ADDRESS
t\ -k 4 ------__----__---_--______I___ --Iu_-___-_------__-------------------------
------__------_-_---_____I____ ---------_---------------------------
------Y---I--_------------- ---_--_----------_------ ---s---m----m-w-
-_-------_-_--__-_____I___ --_--_-__---__------____________I_______-
--~~~~-u~ F-------u--s-B ___-___--_---_----______________uI_____
-------_---------___I______ --_-I--_---------------------------
---------------I__________ --~--------~-~---~u --m--s
------------------------- m--u-- --------------s ---w--------
---------------_----_I_____ ------u-----I_-_------ -------
Carlsbad Planning Commission
C/O Michael Holzmikr _
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
May 19.1997
To The City Planners,
T&s p&ion is sent to you in the interest of the residents Of Hillgate Estates,
iocatuj off@Hosp Drive in Chbad and involving the streets ofwiatergrten and
Doreet. At this time this is a quiet ncighborhood where children CM safely play and fide
their bikes and traffic is restricted to the residents of this development. we have been
informed that there is intention of opening up Wintergreen Drive to Carlsbad Village
Drive. This would in fict disrupt this development with the through traffic. Wewish to
stop this unnecessary change and maintain the safety and tranquillity of this neighborhood.
Since this only represents more expense for the Developer and only represents a change
for the worse to our neighborhood, we hope you seriously consider this petition. There is
adequate turn around space on DorWintergreen for any fire equipment. The benefit to
the neighborhood of keeping this street as a cul-de-sac by fkr outweighs any theor&& dewhent as to fire depaxtment access.
ADDRESS
-6m8 0-O-0-0-------..uI C%,-&
.._
-
Carlsbad Planning Commission
C/O Michael Hokmikr
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009
May 19, I997
To The City Planners,
Thig petition is sent to you in the interest of the residents of Hi&ate Estates,
located ogsRlosp Drive in Carlsbad and involving the streets of Wintergreen and
Doreet. At this time this is a quiet neighborhood where! children can safely pIay and ride their bikes and tic is restricted to the residents of this development. We have been
informed that there is intention of opening up Wintergreen Drive to Carlsbad Village
Drive. This would in fact disiupt this development with the through trtic. We wish to
stop this unnecessary change and maintain the safety and tranquillity of this neighborhood.
Since this only represents more expense for the Developer and only represents a change
for the worse to our neighborhood, we hope you seriously consider this petition. There is
adequate turn wound space on DoreetMintergreen for any fire equipment. The benefit to
the neighborhood of keeping this street as a cul-de-sac by ti outweighs any theoretical detriment as to fire department access.
NAME ADDRESS
C&bad Planning cp”“‘gOn
C/O Michael Hold@ -
pbmillg Direct01
2075 La Pdms DI’iVe
C&bad, California 92009 May 19,1997
TO The City P\aI’mm
locatcdoff~.HospDriveinCarlsbad ~dinvolti~~the SV~~OfWifitergreen @id
Tgs pefrtion is mt to you in w *mwtit of the residents of HiUgate Estates~ .
~~~~ it this tie this is a q&t neighborhood where Ckkhn Cm Skfel’ PlaY and nde
their b&es ami t&c is restricted to the reshknts of this dWeklpment. We have been
informed that there is intcation of opening up Wintergreen Drive to Cadsbad vda!e
Drive This would in f%zt disrupt this development with the through traffic. We wish to
stop this unnecessary change and maintain the safety and tranquillity of this neighborhood. Since this only represents more expense for the Developer and only represe$s a ctmnge~
for the WOrsC to OUT neighborhoc& we hope you s&ously consider t& petluon, There 1s
&equate tUm wound @ce on DofeetMTtntergt~ for my fire equipment. The benefit to
the neighborhood of keeping this street a a &de-sac by far outweighs any theoretical detriment as to fire department wasa
Carl&ad Planning Commission
C/O Michael Hoizmiher _
Phinning Director
2075 La Paknas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
May 19,1997
To The City Planners,
this petition is sent to you in the interest of the residents of Hillgate Estates,
located off afHosp Drive in Carlsbad and involving the streets of Wintergreen and
Doreet. At this time this is a quiet neighborhood where &ii&en COUI safely play ad ride
their bikes and traf& is restricted to the residents of this development. We have been
informed that there is intention of opening up Wintergreen Drive to Carlsbad Village
Drive. This would in fact disrupt this development with the through traffic. We wish to
stop this unnecessary change and maintain the safely and tranquillity of this neighborhood.
Since this only represents more expense for the Developer and only represents a change
for the worse to our neighborhood, we hope you seriously consider this petition. There is
adequate turn around space on Dore&Wintergreen for any fire equipmem. The benefit to
the m&hborhood of keeping this street as a cul-de-sac by far outweighs any theoretical
detriment as to fire department access.
- ,-
Cadsbad Planning Commission
C/O Michael Holzmilier
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009
May 19,1997
To The City Planners,
This petition is sent to you in the interest of the residents of Hillgate Estates,
located off&Hosp Drive in Carlsbad and involving the streets of Wintergreen and
Doreet. At this time this is a quiet neighborhood where children can safely play and ride
their bikes and trafEc is restricted to the residents of this development. WC have been
informed that there is intention of opening up Wintergreen Drive to Car!sbad Village Drive. This would in fact disrupt this development with the through traffic. We tish to
stop this unnecessary change and maintain the safety and tranquillity of this neighborhood. Since this only represents more expense for the Developer and only represents a change for the worse to our neighborhood, we hope you seriously consider thii petition. There is adequate turn around space on DoreetNintergreen for any fire equipment. The ~&&it to
the neighborhood of keeping this street as a cul-de-sac by far outweighs any theoretical 4
detriment as to fire department access.
NAME ADDRESS
.-~ti~~~~rn~~tie~~k ,,2L!#ad~J== w diits?M*~ ---e--------m -- I_ &rzq
c
----------em-w--w-- -------e ----------uII----------------uIIII---~...---
----------__-__ U--;--~--,----,-,----- ~ f -- ---LhL~~~&~- ’
P A -----------------_______uII---------_------------- f(
-----------w-w -m-----------W- ----w-l------------_______L------------------------------
Carl&ad Planning Commission
C/O Michael Holzmilk -
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Drive Carisbad, California 92009
May 19,1997
To The City Planners,
‘This petition is sent to you in the interest of the residents ofm@te Estates,
located off #Hasp Drive in C&bad and hvobing the streets of wintc%- and Domet. At this time this is a quiet neighborhood where children can safeb play and ride
their bikes and traffic is restricted to the residents of this development. We have been
informed that there is intention of opening up Wintergreen Drive to Carlsbad Village
Drive. This would in fact disrupt this development with the through trafk. We wish to
stop this unnecessary change and maintain the safety and tranquillity of this neighborhood.
Since this only represents more expense for the Developer and only represents a change
for the worse to our neighborhood, we hope you serioudy consider this petition. There is
adequate turn around space on DoreetiWintergreen for any fire equipment. The benefit to
the nckh~rhood of keeping this street as a cul-de-sac by t!u outweighs any theoretical dckmt as to tic department LLCCWS.
-+$y..&-: a%& *--tiz ---------u------.-----------------.---*-----.--
L E L//z, -------------‘LI------------ . a-h--- M$!iRFg ----w-w------- -----------------------------
.-
Carlsbad Planning Commission
C/O Michael Holzmiller .
Planning Diiector 2075 La Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
May 19,1997
To The City Planners,
This petition is sent to you in the interest of the residents of Hillgate Estates,
located offflHosp Drive in Carlsbad and involving the streets of Winteqwn and
Doret. At this time this is a quiet neighborhood where children can saft!y play and ride
their bikes and traf?ic is restricted to the residents of this development. We have been informed that there is intention of opening up Wintergreen Drive to Carlsbad Wage Drive. This would in fact disrupt this development with the through traffic. We wish to
stop this unnecessary change and maintain the safety and tranquillity of this neighborhood. Since this only represents more expense for the Developer and only represents a change
for the worse to our neighborhood, we hope you seriously consider this petition. There is
adequate turn around space on DoreetMintergreen for any fire equipment. The benefit to
the neighborhood of keeping this street as a’cul-de-sac by far outweighs any theoretical detriment as to fire department BCC~SS.
ADDRESS
--------.-----_-_--___ ------- -w---a ------HI-u---uII_____u--------------.----
------------- ------w--------w --------w------u----_ ---------------------------
----W----W- ----------------- _----_--___________________
------u--------_----------
---------- -----------m-- ---e-w-
-------u------ ------------...--uI ----w-w
-------------_l-m-___
-------W---W -------------____________
----W---m ----I------_ -----s-
-
Carl&ad Planning Commission
C/O Michael Holzmilier
Planning Director
2075 La Pahnas Drive Carl&ad, California 92009
May 19,1997
To The City Planners,
This petition is sent to you in the interest of the residents of Hiiate Emm
i~ted offfiHosp Drive in Ct~hbed and involving the streets of Wintergreen and
Dorect. At this time this is a quiet neighborhood where children can saftly play and ride their bikes and traffic is restricted to the residents of this development. We have been
informed that there is intention of opening up Wintergreen Drive to Carlsbad Village
Drive. This would in Fact distipt this development with the through traffic. We wish to stop this unnecessay change and maintain the safety and tranquillity of this neighborhood. Since this only represents more expense for the Developer and only represents a change for the worse to our neighborhood, we hope you seriously consider this petition. There is adequate turn around space on DoreetNiitergreen for any tire equipment. The be&t to
the neighborhood of keeping this street as a cul-de-sac by &r outweighs any theoretical detriment as to fire department access.
Nz9&L dfy- -0-0-0-0-0--.....--y. -----------
# dmfk d” I( Fp r3
izEZ&#e.&: .---.--.- Y lr -0---0-o....------- -O-------- ------~-----------..---..- -.....--I-----
z0- Lhw$~~GW -------0-0---00..,,,
c’
psL ---I----- ------- b\
.-------..---U----~~ Cl --uII--------------..-....
-----------.-.---..--.~~
--- ----.---“--------........~
-0---0.-0..D.------..-
-------L-----_-
------------ -------------.-.......-....
-----------.-----..
-
Carlsbad Planning Commission
C/O Michael Holzmiiler *
Planning Director
2075 La Pahnas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
May 19, 1997
To The City Planners,
This petition is sent to you in the interest of the residents of Hillgate Estates,
located off #Hasp Drive in Carlsbad and involving the streets of Wintergreen and Doreet. At this time this is a quiet neighborhood where children can safely play and ride
their bikes and traffic is restricted to the residents of this development. We have been
informed that there is intention of opening up Wintergreen Drive to Carlsbad Village
Drive. This would in fact disrupt this development with the through tic. We wish to stop this unnecessary change and maintain the safety and tranquillity of this neighborhood. Since this only represents more expense for the Developer and only represents a change for the worse to our neighborhood, we hope you seriously consider this petition. There is adequate turn around space on DoreetAViitergreen for any fire equipment: The benefit to the neighborhood of keeping this street as a cul-de-sac by far outweighs any theoretical
detriment as to fire department access.
NAME ADDRESS
.,c~ ---- &kzifL-- ,a,s~~,,-~--~~-~~--~-~ 9-2
--~d-k&--~~*~--, ” ’ h h 4 -_--_-____-_____--_-________________I___---- w , ------ - ; It I’ If ___----____------I-_---------------
Pt-mp a-m& \t 1% it 4 --s--------- -I---B-------- -_----_-u_-_-----______I_____uII______--------
+
-m-s a?& 3-w - a--~Cseo ChqaRa - ----_-------___---__I___ w-BssB ---I_-_-_---_--_----_ mmB---B----m
-k rJTH?wA~ !Jw- \\ \\ ‘*\ \n
--- ---~-~-~~-~~-u-~~~- _----_-I--u-------------- --w-u-- .-d&.-Us&l-- a930 c344.r~~~ or CWlJb2L c44aw~ -e-e- -------v---s--- -------~---------------
Carlsbad Planning Commission
C/O Michael Holzmiller *
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
May 19, 1997
To The City Planners,
This petition is sent to you in the interest of the residents of Hillgate Estates,
located offdHosp Drive in Carlsbad and involving the streets of Wintergreen and Doreet. At this time this is a quiet neighborhood where children can safely play and ride their bikes and trafEc is restricted to the residents of this development. We have been
informed that there is intention of opening up Wintergreen Drive to Carlsbad Village Drive. This would in fact disrupt this development with the through traBic. We wish to stop this unnecessary change and maintain the safety and tranquillity of this neighborhood.
Since this only represents more expense for the Developer and only represents a change
for the worse to our neighborhood, we hope you seriously consider this petition. There is adequate turn around space on DoreetWintergreen for any fire equipment. The benefit to
the neighborhood of keeping this street as a cul-de-sac by fbr outweighs any theoretical
detriment as to fire department access.
NAME
%
ADDRESS
&L L bLw.4.g~ vvfg L4~~‘~s?fzr*ecL JL --------_---_----__------- ---_------_----I----_ -----s--a--
d-m 5 MN r&&i?&> ’ ( 1 1
--------------_--_--_______I_ -------------_-__-__----------------------------
-
Carlsbad Planning Commission
C/O Michael Wolzmiller _
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
May 19,1997
To The City Planners,
This petition is sent to you in the interest of the residents of HiUgate Estates,
located off NHosp Drive in Carlsbad and involving the streets of Wintergreen and Doreet. At this time this is a quiet neighborhood where children can safely play and ride
their bikes and traffic is restricted to the residents of this development. We have been
informed that there is intention of opening up Wintergreen Drive to Carlsbad Viage
Drive. This would in fact disrupt this devebpment with the through traffic. We wish to stop this unnecessary change and maintain the safety and tranquillity of this neighborhood.
Since this only represents more expense for the Developer and only represents u change
for the worse to our neighborhood, we hope you seriously consider this petition. There is
adequate turn around space on DoreetMTintergreen for any fire equipment. The benefit to
the tighborhood of keeping this street as a cul-de-sac by far outweighs any theoretical detriment as to fire department access.
NAME ADDRESS
L jc!jbabd w ------- 8 ra”wm -w - m-m m m ir-u--rr --------L------w -- w---e u--.-m
-----~-L------I-----------. --w--m U--------II--MI----HIIIIII---UNI----------------
-----------u-u------------ u----- ---------------------__-_-----
-------.-W--N ----------*----------- ------------VI- ----o.ow----.-----Imw
----------------------------- -------u---
-------------uI--u-----------------
Carlsbad Pianning Commission C/O Michael Holzmiller -
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
May 19,1997
To The City Planners,
This petition is sent to you in the interest of the residents of Killgate Estates, located off@fHosp Drive in Carlsbad and involving the streets of Wintergreen and Doreet. At this time this is a quiet neighborhood where children can safeiy play and ride their bikes and traffic is restricted to the residents of this development. We have been informed that there is intention of opening up Wintergreen Drive to Carlsbad Village
Drive. This would in f&t disrupt this development with the through trtic. We wish to stop this unnecessary change and maintain the safety and tranquillity of this neighborhood.
Since this only represents more expense for the Developer and only represents a change
for the worse to our neighborhood, we hope you seriously consider this petition. There is
adequate turn around space on DoreetNmtergreen for any fire equipment. The benefit to
the neighborhood of keeping this street as a cul-de-sac by far outweighs any theoretical detriment as to fire department access.
NAME ADDRESS
--------_-----_-__--___I____ -------_------------___I____________uI__---
--------_--------u__----- m-w--- ---u----c-------------- v-----w--
Carlsbad Planning Commission
C/O Michael Holzmiller
Planning Director ,
2075 La Paknas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
May 19,1997
To The City Planners,
This petition is sent to you in the interest of the residents of Hihgate Estates,
Iocated off$Hosp Drive in Carlsbad and involving the streets of Wintergreen and Doreet. At this time this is a quiet neighborhood where children can safely play and ride
their bikes and traf& is restricted to the residents of this development. We have been
informed that there is intention of opening up Wintergreen Drive to Carlsbad Village
Drive. This would in fact disrupt this development with the through trafk. We wish to
stop this unnecessary change and maintain the safety and tranquillity of this neigbborhood. Since this only represents more expense for the Developer and only represents a change
for the worse to our neighborhood, we hope you seriously consider this petition. There is adequate turn around space on DoreetIWintergreen for any fire equipment. The benefit to
the neighborhood of keeping this street as a cul-de-sac by ti outweighs any theoretical detriment as to fire department a-.
NAME ADDRESS
*s -w-wmw ---m---w-m m-w---- -w----y------
<
zstr wt*=6- w-
w- h Lc3lku,~w2~~-~ w-a--- ---u-------Jm---- GfkL~l5p5-o, Q% ‘4=Jo0 --.-----------------------------
(!4u&hd, &I 9zoo8 )m ------..w-w-
----------------------------- ----------------L---------------------------
--u--W------- ----------mm -----------------WI-----.---__
----m-s----- --------ms ---------------uI--_-_ ----------N------------------
---.-----u-l------------- - ----v--w ------------------------------------.
o-m-~-------_----------- -----I--u-N.. ww.-----~---------~~ --m-.--w------
June 18, 1997
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
ERRATA # 2 WITH RECOMMENDED REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE FINDINGS AND
CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 4100, CT 96-03 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
1. THE USE OF SECOND DWELLING UNITS TO SATISFY INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
REQUIREMENTS
Staff Discussion: ! .
It has been determined that the use of Second Dwelling Units (SDUs) to satisfy a projects’
inclusionary housing requirements, under Chapter 21.85 (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance) of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), is an alternative means for a project to satisfy their
affordable housing requirement under Section 21.85.040(b) of the CMC. As an alternative
method of satisfying the projects’ inclusionary housing requirement, the Planning Commission
must make a specific finding that the proposed alternative is acceptable. The following finding
is suggested to be added to Resolution 4100 to satisfy this requirement.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the following additional changes be made to Planning Commission
Resolution No. 4100, CT 96-03 for Pacific View Estates.
1. Modify Resolution No. 4100 by the addition of the following Finding.
+ That the use of Second Dwelling Units to satisfy the inclusionary housing
requirement for this project is an acceptable alternative for providing affordable
housing in that: the proposed project is a small in-fill project in which using
other means of satisfying the inclusionary housing requirements of Chapter
21.85 would be almost impossible; and, the proposed Second Dwelling Units
comply with the recommended Housing Commission policy for the use of
Second Dwelling Units including the unit size being greater than 400 square feet,
the unit design containing one bedroom, and no direct access provided to the
SDU from the main house.
June 18, 1997
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
ERRATA # 3 WITH A RECOMMENDED ADDITION TO THE CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NO.
4100, CT 96-03 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
1. HOUSING COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT OF
ALL PROJECTS
Staff Discussion:
It has been determined that all projects, regardless of size, which include an affordable
housing component, must be reviewed and acted upon by the Housing Commission prior to
Planning Commission consideration of the project. This determination comes in response to
Council direction on April 8, 1997.
The determination regarding the Housing Commissions role, in the review of projects with an
affordable housing component, has just been made and agreed to by City staff. The Pacific
View Estates project was reviewed by staff for compliance with the new Housing Commission
Second Dwelling Unit Guidelines, and was determined to be in compliance with the
recommended standards, including the unit size being greater than 400 square feet, the unit
being designed as a one bedroom unit with no direct access to the main unit, and the project
has been conditioned to obtain approval of an affordable housing agreement (see attached
guidelines). However, the project was not reviewed by the Housing Commission as the
previous procedures did not require that projects of less than 50 units be reviewed by the
Housing Commission. The Pacific View Estates project was previously heard by the Planning
Commission on May 21, 1997, and was ultimately continued to June 18, 1997. The project is
subject to a.processing time deadline under the Streamlining Act which requires that action
must be taken on the project by July 10, 1997. As such, it has been determined that this
project should continue forward for Planning Commission consideration and action. A new
condition will be added to this project requiring the applicant to apply for and obtain a finding
from the Housing Commission that the proposed second dwelling units are consistent with the
Housing Commission adopted Guidelines on Development of Second Dwelling Units.
The proposed process for the Pacific View Estates project is not intended to set a precedent
for the future processing of projects with an affordable housing component. It is
acknowledged by staff that only this project will be processed in this manner, due to the timing
of the determination on the Housing Commissions role, and the potential Streamlining Act
processing conflicts posed by further delays on this project.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the following additional changes be made to Planning Commission
Resolution No. 4100, CT 96-03 for Pacific View Estates.
1. Modify Resolution No. 4100 by the addition of the following Condition,
-
ERRATA #3 CT 96-03 - PACIFIC -,iW ESTATES
JUNE 18, 1997
PAGE 2
+ The Developer shall apply for and obtain a finding from the Housing
Commission that the affordable housing aspect of the project is consistent with
the Housing Commission Guidelines on Second Dwelling Units, approved May 8,
1997.
-
‘me City of CARLSDAD Planning Departmtm
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 5 0
Application complete date: October 10, 1996
90-Day Extension Expires: July 10, 1997
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 21,1997 Project Planner: Teresa Woods
Project Engineer: Ken Quon
SUBJECT: CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 96-03/SDP 96-04 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES -
Request for approval of an Amended Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative
Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Site
Development Plan to subdivide 8.52 gross acres into 26 single-family lots, 3 lots
to provide legal access to adjacent properties and 4 open space lots, for a total of
33 lots on the property. Four of the single-family units are proposed to include
second dwelling units. The property is located on the north side of Carlsbad
Village Drive at Donna Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4099
APPROVING the amended Mitigated Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director,
and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4 100, 4 10 1,4 102 and 4 103 APPROVING
CT 96-03, PUD 96-03, HDP 96-03 and SDP 96-04 based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is proposing to construct 26 single-family residences, four with second dwelling
units, on the north- side of Carlsbad Village Drive at Donna Drive. The site is zoned R-A-10,000
and has a General Plan designation of Residential Low-Medium (RLM). The applicant is
requesting to exceed the Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 du/acre (while remaining
within the density range of O-4 du/acre) as provided for in Section 21.90.045 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. All findings required pursuant to Section 21.90.045 can be made. The
proposed project complies with the Planned Development Ordinance, Small Lot Architectural
Guidelines, Hillside Development Ordinance and all other policies and ordinances applicable to
the project.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The proposed project contains 26 single-family homes, four of which have second dwelling
units. The proposed second dwelling units are 421 square feet in size with one bedroom, and are
located on the ground floor of the homes. In addition to the 26 residential lots, the project
contains three lots to provide legal access to adjacent properties to the north and four open space
lots, for a total of 33 lots on the site. Topographically, the site consists of hilly terrain containing
CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 9cd3/SDP 96-04 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATE3
h4AY 21,1997
a hilltop which generally falls away on all sides. The site is zoned R-A-l 0,000 and has a General
Plan designation of RLM. The property totals 8.52 gross acres, is presently undeveloped, and has
been previously disturbed. The majority of the project site contains disturbed habitat (4.37
acres). Low quality coastal sage scrub (1.95 acres) exists within the central portion of the site,
and approximately 2.2 acres of the site is occupied by southern mixed chaparral. The project as
conditioned, would be required to mitigate for impacts to the coastal sage scrub.
The project site is located on the north side of Carlsbad Village Drive at Donna Drive. The
General Plan designations vary in the surrounding area and include Residential Medium High
(RMH), Residential Medium (RM) and Residential Low-Medium (RLM), (see Exhibit “X”,
attached, for the exact location of the various General Plan Designations). The zoning in the
surrounding area also varies greatly, and includes P-C, RDM-Q-7,000, R-1-10,000, and R-A-
10,000, (see Exhibit “Y” attached, for the exact location of these zoning designations). There are
three parcels located north of this site which range in size from .78 - 1 acre in size, and which
contain one single-family home each. These lots could be further subdivided in the future. Two
of these parcels have RM General Plan designations and are zoned RDM-Q-7,000 and one parcel
is designated RLM in the Carlsbad General Plan and has R-A-10,000 zoning (see Exhibits “X”
and “Y”, attached). A City reservoir (Elm Reservoir) is located on the Southern boundary of the
property near the center of the site. A portion of the reservoir site will be used for Donna Drive
and “B” Street right-of-way. The reservoir property will be improved with curb, gutter,
sidewalk, landscaping and new fencing.
The applicant is requesting to exceed the Growth Management density control point of 3.2
du/acre on the site (while remaining within the density range of O-4 du/acre). Section 21.90.045
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code provides that residential developments shall not be approved
which exceed the density control point unless specific findings can be made. As discussed below
in Section E, Growth Management, all findings required pursuant to Section 21.90.045 can be
made.
The proposed 26 residential lots range in size from 7,006 to 14,963 square feet. The units will be
two-stories, 30-feet in height, and range in size from 2,235 to 3,045 square feet. Four of the units
contain 421 square foot, one-bedroom, second dwelling units, to be located on the ground floor.
The project features California contemporary architecture consisting of tile roofs with varying
roof lines, decorative shutters, flagstone accents, used brick accents and stucco exteriors.
The proposed project is subject to the following regulations:
A. Carlsbad General Plan (Residential Low-Medium) O-4 du/ac with a Growth Control
Point of 3.2 du/ac;
B.
C.
Residential Agricultural (R-A-10,000) Zoning (Chapter 21.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code), Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code)
and Small Lot Architectural Guidelines;
Hillside Development Ordinance (Chapter 2 1.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
D. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); and /LA
CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 9d3/SDP 96-04 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATLs
MAY 21, 1997
E. Growth Management Ordinance Section 21.90.045 and compliance with Local Facilities
Management Zone 1.
IV. ANALYSIS
Staffs recommendation of approval for this project is based upon the following analysis of the
project’s consistency with the applicable policies, standards and zoning listed above.
A. GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE ELEMENT
The property has a Residential Low Medium (RLM) General Plan Designation. The RLM
designation allows the development of single-family homes in the density range from 0 to 4
dwelling units per acre, with a 3.2 du/acre growth management control point. The project
consists of 26 single-family homes and 4 second dwelling units for a total of 30 units on the
project site. At 30 units, the project has a density of 3.97 du/acre (30 units17.56 net acres = 3.97
du/ac), which is within the density range of the RLM General Plan designation, but which is
above the Growth Management density control point of 3.2 du/acre. Under the existing R-A-
10,000 zoning, four dwelling units per acre could be achieved. As provided for in the General
Plan, a project can exceed the growth control point if the zoning is consistent with the General
Plan, including the land use designation, and no more than a maximum of twenty five (25)
percent additional units are proposed in excess of the growth control point. This provision would
allow a maximum of 30 units on the site. Since the applicant is proposing 30 units, and the R-A-
10,000 zoning is consistent with the RLM General Plan designation, this project is in compliance
with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Further, the project is compatible with
surrounding uses including the reservoir, multiple family apartments, small lot single family
units and standard lot (7,500+ square feet) single family units. Issues related to the proposed
density exceeding the Growth Management control point are addressed below in Section E,
Growth Management.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Program 3.6b of the Housing Element requires that fifteen percent (15%) of all approved units
shall be made affordable to lower income households. The inclusionary housing requirement for
this project is 4.5 units and is further discussed in Section D, below. To satisfy their inclusionary
housing requirement, the applicant proposes to construct 4 second dwelling units and to pay a fee
equal to .5 of a credit times the average subsidy to make a unit affordable as permitted pursuant
to Section 21.85.040(c) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. As designed and conditioned, the
project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan.
CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 9td3/SDP 96-04 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATE5
MAY 21, 1997
B. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND R-A-10,000 ZONING
A Planned Development Permit is being processed for this project along with the Tentative Map
in order to provide design flexibility on this hillside site. As provided for in the Planned
Development (PD) Ordinance, the project is designed with a single-family product with lot areas
smaller (7,000 square feet minimum) than permitted in a R-A-l 0,000 subdivision. When a
Planned Development Permit is required, the PD Ordinance has a separate set of requirements in
addition to those of the underlying zone, which in this case is R-A-10,000. The surrounding area
is developed with both single-family (lots ranging in size from 4,000 to 10,000 + square feet) and
a multiple-family apartment project. The development of this site with single-family residences
on minimum 7,000 square foot lots is compatible with the existing single-family and multiple-
family homes of the area.
The project is designed with California contemporary architecture and includes: tiled roofs with
varying roof lines; decorative shutters, used brick and flagstone accent treatments; use of
different window shapes and treatments; and, stucco exteriors. The project as designed, complies
with all of the small lot architectural guidelines as illustrated on Exhibits “N” - “0”. The project
includes a 36,098 square foot recreation/recreational vehicle (RV) storage lot (Lot S), which
contains a multiple-use court, trail, lawn area and a 600 square foot RV storage area. As
designed and conditioned, the RV storage area is screened from adjacent properties and street
with screen walls, decorative gates and landscaping. As provided for in Section 2 1.45.090(c)(3)
the applicant has requested approval to provide guest parking on-street. The project provides 41
guest parking spaces on-street (10 spaces required).
The project is designed with two public streets which will be fully improved with curb, gutter
and sidewalk. In accordance with requirements of the City’s subdivision ordinance, the street
layout is designed to serve both this subdivision as well as relate to the existing streets of the
adjoining subdivision. Streets from this project will connect to the existing southern terminus of
Wintergreen Drive, to provide orderly and logical access and circulation for both this
development and the existing adjoining subdivision. The streets will provide secondary access to
the existing subdivision on Wintergreen Drive. The project has also been designed to provide
public street access to existing adjacent lots to prevent a landlocked situation. For these existing
adjacent lots, the subdivision includes three lots that provide access, as required by Title 20 of
the City’s Municipal Code, so as to not preclude future development of these parcels. Title to
these newly created lots will be transferred to the property owners of the existing adjacent lots,
and will remain designated for access purposes only. All required facilities and services will be
available concurrent with need to meet all City standards. The project is designed to permit the
lots to drain to the street. A noise study conducted for the project identified that the development
complies with the City’s exterior noise policy of 60 dBA CNEL as designed with noise barriers
along Carlsbad Village Drive.
The proposed project complies with the requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance as
follows:
-
CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 9td3/SDP 96-04 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATE?,
MAY 21,1997
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
STANDARDS COMPLIANCE
I FRONT YARD SETBACK I 20 feet I 20 feet
REAR YARD
SIDE YARD
15’ x 15’ min. useable yard
5 feet
15 feet deep minimum
5 feet minimum
RECREATION AREA 1 200 sq. ft./unit (6,000 sq. ft.) 1 36,098 sq. ft. (approx. 6,150 sq.
R.V. STORAGE 20 sq. ft./unit (600 sq. ft.)
ft. useable)
600 sq. ft.
STORAGE SPACE
BUILDING HEIGHT
PARKING
480 cubic feet/unit 480 cubic feet/unit provided in
garage
30 feet 30 feet
2 covered spaces per unit plus 2 covered spaces per unit plus
5 spaces for first 10 units plus 1 4 1 guest parking spaces
for each 4 units over 10 units provided on-street
LANDSCAPING
(10 required for project)
40% of front vard 40%+ of front vard
C. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
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 complies with
all requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance. With approximately 64,500 cubic yards
of grading proposed, which equates to approximately 7,460 cubic yards of grading per acre, the
project is within the acceptable amount of grading permitted under the Hillside Development
Ordinance. The site slopes down to the east and west from the center of the site. The grading on
the site is designed with natural contours and a variety of slope directions and undulations. The
slopes are designed with landscape screening to soften the visual impacts of the slopes. The
project is designed with building pads that step down both the project site and the streets. No
development is proposed on the 40% or greater slopes on the site except for the grading of
existing manufactured slopes, which were created by the development of Carlsbad Village Drive
and Wintergreen Drive, as permitted pursuant to Section 2 1.45.090 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code for areas previously disturbed by authorized grading. The table below summarizes the
requirements of hillside development regulations, and the way in which the proposed project
design complies with these requirements.
-
CT 96-03/PUD 96-03iHDP 9b-03/SDP 96-04 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
MAY 21,1997
Contour Grading
Roadway Design
Hillside Architecture
Provide a variety of slope
directions and undulation.
Follow the site contours.
Use terraced pads and/or
Site is contour graded
including a variety of slope
directions and undulation. All
slopes areas will be screened
with landscaping.
To the extent feasible, the
roadways have been designed
to complement the slopes.
Pads are stepped down the
foundations.
Maintain natural slopes with
structures and roofs.
Decrease building mass with
increased steenness.
hillside within the project area.
The building pads do not
contain slopes.
D. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
The inclusionary housing requirement for this project is 4.5 units. The project proposes to
construct 4 second dwelling units (SDU) and to pay a fee equal to .5 of a credit times the average
subsidy to make a unit affordable as permitted pursuant to Section 21.85.040(c) of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. The project is designed to provide 26 single-family residences with SDUs
incorporated into four of the single-family homes. The proposed SDUs are one bedroom units
located on the ground floor of the home, and contain 421 square feet of area. A Site
Development Plan (SDP 96-04) is being processed consistent with the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance and establishes the location of the four proposed Second Dwelling Units (Lots 14,2 1,
24 and 27) as indicated on Exhibit “A”. The SDUs have private entryways and provide covered
parking as a third space in a three-car garage. Consistent with the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance, these second dwelling units would be administered through an affordable housing
agreement.
E. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1 in the
Northwest Quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and
compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows:
CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 9N3/SDP 96-04 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
MAY 21, 1997
PAGE 7
The project is 5.84 dwelling units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance of 24.16 dwelling units
for the property.
The proposal includes a request to exceed the Growth Management control point of 3.2 dwelling
units per acre as provided for in Section 2 1.90.045 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. As provided
for in this section, the findings required to exceed the growth control point can be made (see the
table below). The northwest quadrant dwelling unit cap is not exceeded with the approval of this
project because there is a large surplus of units in the northwest quadrant totaling 1,001 units.
Approval of this project lowers the excess dwelling unit surplus by 5.84 units.
exceed the quadrant unit limits. project above the control point, will not result in
concurrent with need by the development ranteed to be constructed
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The property totals 8.52 gross acres and is presently undeveloped. The site has been previously
disturbed. The majority of the project site contains disturbed habitat (4.37 acres). Low quality
coastal sage scrub (1.95 acres) exists within the central portion of the site, and approximately 2.2
acres of the site occupied by southern mixed chaparral. The project as conditioned, is required to
mitigate for impacts to the coastal sage scrub. The topography of the site is varied consisting of
gently sloping to steep hillsides, which generally slope down from the center of the site toward
the east and west. This project qualifies as a subsequent development to the City’s MEIR (93-01) / 0 9
CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 9td3/SDP 96-04 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATEs
MAY 21,1997
under Section 21083.3 of CEQA. The environmental review for this project relied upon the
MEIR for analysis of cumulative air quality and traffic impacts. Therefore, the project is
determined to be in prior compliance with MEIR 93-01. The Planning Director determined that
based on the initial study and field review conducted by staff, no significant environmental
impacts will result from this project as conditioned to mitigate potential impacts, and therefore,
an amended Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued on January 22, 1997.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4099
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4 100
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4 101
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4102
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4 103
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Statement
Exhibit “X”, General Plan Designations
Exhibit “Y”, Zoning Designations
Reduced Exhibits
Full Size Exhibits “A”-%“ dated May 21, 1997.
.-
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 96-03/SDP 96-04
CASE NAME: Pacific View Estates
APPLICANT: Pacific View Limited
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request to subdivide an 8.52 acre site into 26 single family
lots, 3 lots to urovide legal access to adiacent nronerties and four onen suace lots. Four of the
units are nronosed to contain 460 sauare foot, first floor. second dwelling units. The moper& is
located on the northside of Carlsbad Village Drive at Donna Drive.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A nortion of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 32, Township II south. Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad. Countv of San Diego, State of California.
APN: 167-250-16 Acres: 8.52 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 26 single familv units; nlus 4 2nd
dwelling units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RLM
Density Allowed: 3.2 du/ac Density Proposed: 3.97 du/ac
Existing Zone: RA-10,000 Proposed Zone: RA- 10.000
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site RA-10,000 RLM
North RDM-Q-7, PC, RA-1 0,000 RM/RLM
South R- 1 - 1,000, R-A- 10,000 RLMRM
East PC
West PC RM/os
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 30 EDU
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: March 22.1996
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
IXI Negative Declaration, issued Januarv 22,1997
cl Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
q Other,
)I/
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: Pacific View Estates - CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 96-03/SDP 96-04
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1 GENERAL PLAN: RLM
ZONING: RA- 10,000
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Pacific View Limited
ADDRESS: PO Box 2198, Carlsbad, California 92018
PHONE NO.: (619) 720-9785 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 167-250-16
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 8.52 Acres
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: Unknown
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage =
Library: Demand in Square Footage =
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =
Open Space: Acreage Provided =
Schools:
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDUs
Identify Sub Basin =
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD =
105 Square Feet
52.5 Square Feet
0.20
N/A
Buena Vista
292
land3
1.49 Acres
Carlsbad
30
N/A
6,600
The project is 5.84 Dwelling Units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit
allowance.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APoUCAmS STATEMEW OF OISCLOWR~ OF cEilT41N OWNE~WIP INTERESTS ON AU APPJJ~TIONS .awcn WlLL aEzLiRE
ZSCR~ON*RY *CTlON ON WE PAM OF TFIE Cm COUNCIL OR ANY APPOIHTEO mm. COMMISSJCN CR CCw,qr’i~
The followlng information must be disclosed:
1. Amlicant
List the names and addressor of all persons having a financial interest in the application,
PACIFIC VIEW LTD,
C/O D, JA DFVFI fIPFR
P.0, ROX
CARLSBAD,
D. RYAN, OWNFR
2.
List the names and addresses ot all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
PACIFIC VIFW ITD.
CARI SRATl. I1A q7n18
Il. RYAN
1777 nrFANCTnF RI vn. II II CIITTF A
IVFwm f’A q7nr;h
3. If any person idontiflod pukmt to (1) or (2) abow is a w or putnenhip, list the names ant
addresses of all individurk owning mom than 1096 of the shuos in the corporath or owning any partnersm
interest in ttm p8ftnafship.
4.
.
Hany~id~pwrwnt~(l)or(2)~irrnorr~orgvriutiorrorr~,lirtthonamu~~
addr~dMy~rrrvlrrgrrolll#ror~~d~norrprol#~~oru~~orbenoficlar
of th8 mat. ,
a ‘2
L, /A 1, ,,
FRMl3 4/9l Pagelof2'
2075 Lam Palmu Drive l Carlmbrd, C8lifornir 9-9 l (619) 439-116~ 1/3
Disclosure Statomoni
(Over)
Page 2
5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of Ciry staff, soarcs,
Commlssrons, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No 1 If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person II ddin8d u: ‘Any individud. firm. ce0utn0M ip. jomtvwtun. aawciden. 8oCd club. WtunJ organizaaon. coroortibon. l state. trust.
10~8mr. syndmto. thr MO w Omw C0uY. t* n6 cou*, CfW munluP8W. QUOKt or 0Wt8r ~tBc8i subdvmon. or * 0th~ group or
:omo:n8tlon uttng aa a una.’
I
Sgn8v.m d Ownwaato
D.~IWATIO)C n Y
Print or tycm tuma at owfur Pfd$!%fMdrpp
. .
-.
FRM 13 4m
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES
CT 96-03
ZONING DESIGNATIONS
EXHBIT “Y”
PACIFIC VIEW EsTATES
CT 96-03
t-
:i,,
-J
,I
L---
.,-. .-* \ ‘:
F
b-
I
r9-p - iv Iii
r
.
Ill .. H. * . I. *. I’!- -- ,
$ .
. . . j-1 . . .,
-\.. ’
. . 1111.
%.U’. :
8
El :. -
a
.Lll
. . .,’ I
.‘I
+ ;
. ’
. fl
z d J’ o-- ,.
r I
I I
j
I I I i
1 j
r
I I I I I I,,,,,, II I II ,,,,,,,I
B
1 L-e-- l
;
I I I 1 I
% I
ii
I ?-
0:
3 e
1'
B
1 31
. . . 2% d SK ; - ; ri . . . . ;s $ z
K I- iE si I-
L /a 3
5. CT 96-031PUD 96-93lHDP 96-WSDP 96-64 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES - Request for approval
of an Amended Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development
Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Site Development Plan to subdivide 8.52 gross acres
into 26 single-family lots, 3 lots to provide legal access to adjacent properties and 4 open space
lots, for a total of 33 lots on the property. Four of the single-family units are proposed to include
second dwelling units. The property is located on the north side of Carlsbad Village Drive at ’
Donna Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
Commissioner Heineman excused himself from hearing this item, citing a, potential conflict of interest, and
left the dais.
Chairperson Nielsen announced that the Commission’s action on this item is final and it will not be
forwarded to the City Council unless it is appealed within ten (10) calendar days.
Project Planner Teresa Woods provided background and described this project and its location She
stated that the area is zoned R-A-10,000, has a General Plan designation of RLM, and as conditioned,
would be required to mitigate for impacts to the coastal sage scrub. She described some of the
surrounding areas as including General Plan designations of RMH, RM, and RLM, as well as varied
zoning which includes P-C, RDM-Q-7,000, R-i-10,000, and R-A-10,000. Ms. Woods pointed out that a City reservoir (Elm Reservoir) is located on the southern boundary of the property near the center of the
site and that a portion of the reservoir site will be used for Donna Drive and “B” Street rights-of-way. She
also indicated that the reservoir property will be improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping and new
fencing.
Ms. Woods stated that the homes will range in size from 2,235 sq. ft. to 3,045 sq. ft., on lots ranging from
7,006 to 14,963 sq. ft. The four second dwelling units will be 421 sq. ft., with one bedroom and located on
the ground floor. Each of the second dwelling units are in compliance with the recently recommended
guidelines set by the Housing Commission.
Planner Woods reported that the applicant has requested to exceed the Growth Management density
control point of 3.2 dwelling units per acre while still remaining with% the density range of 0 to 4 dwelling
units per acre. Ms. Woods pointed out that findings can be Fade to allow the applicant to exceed the
density control point.
Regarding land use, Ms. Woods stated that the property has a RLM General Plan Designation, and with
30 units in the project, is within the density range of the General Plan designation. Also, under the existing
R-A-10,000 zoning, four dwelling units per acre could be achieved. Ms. Woods indicated that the project
is compatible with surrounding uses including the reservoir, multiple family apartments, small lot single
family units and standard lot single family units.
Ms. Woods stated that the applicant proposes to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement (4.5 units)
by constructing four second dwelling units and also paying a fee equal to .5 of a credit times the average
subsidy to make a unit affordable, as pursuant to Section 21.85.040(c) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
She pointed out that three lots have been set aside to provide public street access to existing adjacent lots
to Prevent a landlocked situation and title to those lots will be transferred to the property owners of the
existing adjacent lots. However, she pointed out, those three lots will remain designated for access purposes only.
MS. Woods concluded her presentation by stating that staff is recommending approval of this project.
/a+! MINUTES
-
PLANNING COMMISSION May 21,1997 Page 6
Commissioner Compas asked staff to comment on a letter from the applicant, dated May 15, 1997, (a
copy of which has been received by each Commissioner).
Associate Engineer, Ken Quon explained that the applicant has addressed four major concerns regarding
their project and they are: 1) They wish to be relieved of Condition #54 which requires bonding for % of a
traffic signal at Wintergreen and Hosp Way; 2) They wish to be relieved of Condition #55 which requires
bonding for % of a traffic signal at Donna Drive and.Carlsbad Village Drive; 3) They wish to landscape Lot
#lo, which is one of the access. lots to the adjacent property, as opposed to paving. It is also their desire
to establish a landscape maintenance easement to the homeowners association and when the adjacent
lot comes in for development, it would be paved at that time; 4) They wish to revise Condition #49 which
discusses the street improvements required for the project. They wish to defer some of the improvements
in Phases #2 and #3 to just Phase #3.
In response, Mr. Quon stated that the Engineering Department believes that asking for a bond for % of a
signal, over five years, is very reasonable and fair. He went on to state that the City has a current bond,
obtained from the Hillgate Development, and as a part of that bonding agreement the City agreed to seek
contributions from adjacent properties developed subsequent to Hillgate. As for the signal at Donna Drive
and Carlsbad Village Drive, Mr. Quon stated that the City has safety concerns that could arise as a result
of this project. Again, the City feels that a bond for % of a signal at that spot is reasonable and fair, in the
event that safety concerns are raised at that intersection. Regarding the landscaping of Lot #lo, Mr. Quon
indicated that the City finds that request to be reasonable. As for the request to revise Condition ##49, Mr.
Quon stated that the City feels that the applicant can pave ‘B” St., to Carlsbad Village Drive, make that
connection, and then install curb, gutter and sidewalk with Phase #3. Mr. Quon stated that staff has
discussed this with the applicant and they found this solution to be acceptable.
Commissioner Compas asked how staff determined the length of the bond; in this case five years.
Mr. Quon stated that it was initially determined to have the applicant bond in perpetuity and then changed
to five years, solely to look at the safety factors related to those intersections and as they relate to the
development.
Commissioner Welshons asked if a light at Wrntergreen and Hosp would be a consideration, should the
need arise and Mr. Quon answered affirmatively. The Commissioner then asked if the Hillgate bond is in
perpetuity and again was answered affirmatively. She then went on to asked what type of controls would
be installed at those intersections, should the need arise. Mr. Quon stated that they would begin with a
stop sign or improved striping or signage and if they are determined to be inadequate, a signal would be
installed.
Regarding the request to landscape Lot #lo, Commissioner Welshons asked where the plans indicate
paving. Mr. Quon stated that the plans do not clearly show if the lot is to be paved or landscaped and the
developers have requested to do landscaping until that lot is required for access to the adjacent property.
Mr. Quon stated that Lot #lo, located on “A” St., is the access point to the adjacent property, and in the
meantime that property will have access off of ‘B” St.
Commissioner Welshons asked if there will be a bond to ensure that Lot #lO is paved, if and when the
adjacent property is developed.
Mr. Quon responded by indicating that the owner of the adjacent parcel will be required to pave Lot #lO if
and when he chooses to develop it.
Mr. Quon clarified the request to defer street improvements in Phase #2 and #3 to Phase #3, by
explaining that “B” St. would be constructed and connected to Donna Dr., (street and pavement only)
which would then connect to Carlsbad Village Dr. as part of Phase #2, while the curb, sidewalk, etc., will
) 3 a-
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION May 21,1997 Page 7
be deferred and completed with Phase #3.
Commissioner Welshons asked if she was correct in her assumption that with the connection of “B” St., to
Donna Dr., the residents of Pacific View Estates will not impact the other neighborhoods with higher
volumes of traffic.
Commissioner Welshons asked if the deferring of the improvements is cost effective for the applicant.
Mr. Quon stated that he is unsure of the cost implications for the applicant but indicated that from what he
understands, it is more advantageous for them to defer improvements because it is difficult to obtain
financing for improvements outside of Phase #2.
Chairperson Nielsen opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak.
Margaret Burger, P.O. Box 2198, Caflsbad. representing the developers of Pacific View Ltd., stated their
concurrence with staffs recommendations, and requested that Condition #I9 be amended as follows:
Phase 2. 1. Full width street improvements of “B” Street and Wtntergreen Drive.
Improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphalt
paving, and street lighting.
2. Complete half-width plus 12’ of paved roadway from Phase 2 boundary to the
intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive. Improvements shall include asphalt curb.
Phase 3. 1. Full width street improvements of “B” Street. Improvements shall include, but are
not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphalt paving, and street lighting.
2. Complete half-width street improvements plus 12’ of additional paving on Donna
Drive from the project boundary to its intersection with Carlsbad Village Drive.
Improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphalt
paving, and street lighting.
Regarding Conditions #54 and #55:
Ms. Burger stated that a traffic study report was prepare by O’Rourke Engineering and it was determined
that signalization at Carlsbad Village Dr., and Donna Drive is not warranted. However, Ms. Burger pointed
out that some type of assurance toward the signalization should be posted. She stated that this 26 lot
project is already burdened, in excess of $100,000, due to connecting “B” St., to Wintergreen Dr. Ms.
Burger also stated that the projects impact to Carlsbad Village Dr., is less than 2% and is even lower at
Hosp Way and it is their contention that fair bonding costs for signalization should be 10% for Carlsbad
Village Drive and 5% for Hosp Way.
Regarding Condition #56:
Ms. Burger requested that the reference to Lot 32 be corrected to read: Lots #10 and #l 1.
Regarding Condition #65:
Ms. Burger requested that the reference to, “ . . . a 20-foot wide easement . . .” be changed to, “ . . . a
15-foot wide easement . . .“, as agreed by the Carlsbad Water Engineer, Bill Plummer.
.’ Commissioner Savaty asked what the time frame is between Phases #2 an #3.
K?G MINUTES
-
PLANNING COMMISSION May 21,1997 Page 8
Ms. Burger responded by saying that it is the intention of the developer that there will be no interruption
between the end of Phase #l and the beginning of Phase #2 and #3.
Craig Correll, 2729 Forest Park Lane, Carlsbad, representing the Carlsbad Woodridge Homeowners
Association spoke of several discussion with other members of his association and his finding that the
majority of them have little or no opposition to this project. He pointed out, however, that his association is
concerned about the noise, dust, dirt, etc., during the construction of this project and stated that they hope
the City will take the proper steps to ensure that there are no extraordinary impacts that result. Mr. Correll
stated that he is personally concerned about traffic, particularly on Hosp Way. He stated that in his twelve
years in residence, he has seen and heard many accidents or near accidents in that area. He indicated
that he and his homeowners association are aware of the bonding required for the eventual installation of
a traffic signal at Hosp and Wintergreen and added that it is their wish to have either a stop sign or a
signal become a reality at that intersection. Mr. Correll pointed out that he does not feel that the new
project will have a great impact on this intersection, however, he is concerned that those new residents
will , become casualties of the aforementioned intersection. He also stated that because there are
accidents involving only one car and some with no injuries, that the statistics for that intersection are not
accurate and do not adequately reflect how dangerous it really is. He also stated that, in his opinion, it is
much more dangerous for drivers turning left from Wrntergreen on to Hosp than it is for drivers turning
right from Donna Drive.
Commissioner Compas asked if Mr. Correll has talked to the City about getting a signal at that
intersection.
Mr. Correll responded that he has been in touch with the City only to be told that the traffic studies show
that a signal is not warranted. He also stated that they have presented several petitions to the City, over
the past several years, in an attempt to get better controls but have not had any luck.
Ken Dabbs, P.O. Box 619, Carlsbad, resident and owner of the home and acreage adjacent to the Pacific
View Estates project, stated that his property is surrounded on five sides by this project. Mr. Dabbs stated
that he has asked the applicant to send a surveyor to put out some stakes to indicate where the access
ways will be but as yet has had no visual indication as to the actual location of these access ways. He pointed to one of the lots and stated that he has a recorded easement of 32 feet and for an exchange of
10 feet, he is to be given a 20 foot entrance at another location. Mr. Dabbs also said that the applicant
had agreed to pave that entrance to his property. Also, Mr. Dabbs stated that the applicant has said that
he will put the utilities behind the curb for Mr. Dabbs’ use at a later date and pointed out that there has
been nothing in the report addressing either of these points. Mr. Dabbs pointed to another lot and indicated that the proposed elevation is 280’ which is 10 feet higher than the original plans showed.
Lastly, Mr. Dabbs stated that in order to obtain the grades and slopes to match that street, they will have
to take part of his property for slope rights and he hasn’t signed anything giving them slope rights.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Dabbs if he has had an opportunity to look at these plans prior to this
meeting and he stated that he had only had them for a few days.
Tony Johnston, 3185 Blenkame, Carlsbad, stated that Mr. Dabbs is correct in his assessment of problem
of slope rights and that without some corrections to the plans, it will not be possible to build a driveway to
the Dabbs property.
Chairperson Nielsen, asked Mr. Johnston if his definition, regarding the grades and slopes, is that the
slopes are too steep to access and Mr. Johnston answered affirmatively.
Adam Zocco, 2964 WIntergreen Drive, agreed that there should be some type of traffic control at
Wrntergreen and Hosp, because it is very difficult to negotiate a turn from Wintergreen on to Hosp. He also stated that he would prefer if the developer would only break through the barrier at the end of his
b23 MJNUTES
-
PLANNING COMMISSION May 21,1997 Page 9
street, as a last resort. His point was that by not breaking through at the beginning of the project, the
trucks and other equipment would not be impacting Wintergreen with noise and dirt. He suggested that
they break through from the other end.
Commissioner Noble stated that the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over traffic control, only land
use. He suggested that Mr. Zocco should again approach the Traffic Safety Commission and ask for their
assistance.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf interjected that Mr. Zocco appeared to be suggesting a condition, to have ”
the break through to Wintergreen postponed to the end of construction, which was potentially appropriate
to be considered as a condition of the subdivision map, if it would work and the Commission approved.
Mr. Quon stated that the project is already set up for an approach to the Phase #2 construction area from
the direction of the water reservoir and that the Engineering Department will take efforts to minimize the
effects of the construction on the existing neighborhoods.
Don Jack, P.O. Box 2198, Carlsbad, representing Pacific View Estates, stated that he and Mr. Dabbs
have had three personal conversations regarding this project, over the course of the past two years. He
pointed out that they have made certain that Mr. Dabbs will have adequate ingress and egress to his
property as well as doing the same for other adjacent properties. Mr. Jack indicated that he had recently
sent a letter, a full sized tract map, along with the design of the elevations that are planned for that
particular property. In addition to the mailing to Mr. Dabbs, Mr. Jack stated that he had sent identical
mailings to all of the homeowners associations in the area. He pointed out that in their effort to
accommodate the various circumstances surrounding this project, they have had to change the plans 31
times at an added cost of approximately $100,000. Mr. Jack stated that at their first meeting Mr. Dabbs,
knowing that the developer is required to provide him with no more than a 32 foot easement, asked for
(and received) two 20 foot easements - one off ‘A” St. and one off “B” St.
Mr. Jack pointed out that they have met every condition required by the City, including the connection of
Wrntergreen Drive. Regarding the steepness of the driveway to the Dabbs property, Mr. Jack stated that it
is not too steep to be accessible. Mr. Jack also stated that in their early agreement with Mr. Dabbs, they
would provide him with “stub-outs” and he agreed to pave his own street, if and when he decided to
develop the property. Mr. Jack added that it is imperative that he be able to landscape the lots (eventual
driveways to the Dabbs property) across the street from the models on Wintergreen.
Commissioner Noble asked Mr. Jack about Mr. Dabbs’ concern regarding the survey of the property and
also his concerns regarding the utilities.
Mr. Jack responded that at their first meeting, Mr. Dabbs agreed to do his own paving and as for the
survey, he stated that he doesn’t remember any such agreement for a survey and furthermore, he would
not have agreed to that if it had been a part of their discussion.
Chairperson Nielsen asked if Mr. Jack has any sort of written agreement with Mr. Dabbs. Mr. Jack’s
response was negative although the City required that he procure a letter from Mr. Dabbs, which
somewhat recaps their agreement regarding the driveways and the fact that Mr. Dabbs does want to
develop his property at some time in the future.
Commissioner Compas asked if Mr. Jack has ever had anyone stake any part of Mr. Dabbs’ property.
Mr. Jack stated that he had not and that he also never agreed to have his property surveyed.
Commissioner Compas asked if Mr. Jack had agreed to paving and utilities.
12% MINUTES
-
PLANNING COMMISSION May 21,1997 Page 10
Mr. Jack stated that he had not agreed to paving but he had agreed to install “stub-outs” for sewer and
water.
Commissioner Compas questioned Mr. Jack with regard to the additional height of the lot overlooking Mr.
Dabbs’ back yard.
Mr. Jack stated that the City required them to drop the level of the street in order to connect with the
existing street and that they have no control over those requirements.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Jack whether or not he agrees with Mr. Johnston’s assessment of the
slope height and Mr. Jack stated that he does not agree with that assessment at all.
Commissioner Welshons asked for the dimensions of the access ways.
Mr. Jack responded by pointing out that there are two, 20-foot wide access ways.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Nielsen closed the Public Testimony.
Observing one person wishing to give testimony, Chairperson Nielsen re-opened the Public Testimony.
Mr. Bass, Engineer, 8680 Navajo Rd., #218, San Diego, spoke regarding Mr. Dabbs’ claim that the access
road (lot 10) is too steep and would require slope rights. He pointed out that the Dabbs’ property is
currently very steep, has two levels, and the new lot that will exist at the conclusion of the sub-division will
be at the lower level. He also indicated that the access way over Lot 10 will not be too steep.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Nielsen closed the Public Testimony.
Chairperson Nielsen declared a recess at 6:48 p.m. and re-convened at 7:02 p.m., with six
Commissioners present.
Ms. Woods asked Mr. Dabbs if his representative had discussed these plans with him.
Mr. Dabbs stated that the first time he has had an opportunity to view these plans was just a few days ago
after his representative picked them up.
Ms. Woods stated that there have been several issues raised at this meeting that staff was not aware of
and requested that this item be continued to June 4, 1997.
Assistant Planning Director Wayne suggested that if the Commissioners have any other issues they would
like staff to address, they should include them in the motion to continue.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Savary, and duly seconded, to continue CT 96-03, PUD
96-03, HDP 96-03 and SDP 96-04 to the next Regular Meeting on June 4, 1997,
in order to resolve the Issues brought by the participants.
Commissioner Welshons asked staff to review the elevation of Lot 33, in relation to Mr. Dabbs’ property
and the question of slope rights; clarify the Condition of not allowing construction traffic to use Wintergreen
Drive through the Hillgate property; review the agreement to provide utilities to Mr. Dabbs’ property;
address the noise and dust problem during grading and research any recourse that people may have;
review the discussion regarding traffic and the timing of the signal at Wintergreen and Hosp; and, review
the issue of landscaping v. paving of the access way.
/al MINUTES
-
PLANNING COMMISSION May 21,1997 Page 11
Regarding the Elm Reservoir, Commissioner Monroy asked staff to make sure that there will be no
complications with regard to the Water Department.
VOTE: 6-O
AYES: Nielsen, Noble, Savaiy, Monroy, Welshons, and Compas
NOES: None
Commissioner Heineman returned to the dais.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 96-03/SDP 96-04 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES - Request for approval
of an Amended Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development
Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Site Development Permit to subdivide 8.52 gross acres
into 26 single-family lots, 3 lots to provide legal access to adjacent properties and 4 open space
lots, for a total of 33 lots on the property. Four of the single-family units are proposed to include
second dwelling units. The property is located on the north side of Carlsbad Village Drive at
Donna Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne stated that staff is requesting a continuance of this item to June
18, 1997, to enable staff and the applicant to work out some further details.
MINUTES 131
PLANNING COMMISSION June 4,1997 Page 2
Chairperson Nielsen opened the Public Hearing and seeing no one wishing to testify, closed the Public
Hearing.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Savary, and duly seconded, to continue this item to the
Regular Meeting of the Carlsbad Planning Commission, on June 18, 1997,
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
5-0-l
Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Monroy, and Welshons
None
Heineman
3. CT 96-03/PUD 96-03/HDP 96-03/SDP 96-04 - PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES - Request for approval
of an Amended Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development
Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Site Development Plan to subdivide 8.52 gross acres
into 26 single-family lots, 3 lots to provide legal access to adjacent properties and 4 open space
lots, for a total of 33 lots on the property. Four of the single-family units are proposed to include
second dwelling units, The property is located on the north side of Carlsbad Village Drive at
Donna Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
MINUTES 133
PLANNING COMMISSION June 18,1997
Chairperson Nielsen announced that the Commission’s action on this item is final and it will not be
forwarded to the City Council unless it is appealed within ten (10) calendar days.
Commissioner Heineman excused himself from hearing this item, citing a potential conflict of interest, and
left the dais.
Project Planner Teresa Woods provided background and stated that there are 33 lots on the property, the
area is zoned R-A-10,000, has a General Plan designation of RLM, and is located on the north side of
Carlsbad Village Drive at Donna Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Ms. Woods further stated
that after a full staff presentation and public testimony, on May 21, 1997, this item was continued to June
4, 1997 and then to June 18,1997.
Planner Woods reported that the applicant and the adjacent property owner, Ken Dabbs, have arrived at a
consensus on the issues brought forth by Mr. Dabbs and a copy of the memo has been provided with the
staff report that discusses each of the aforementioned issues.
Ms. Woods alluded to an issue raised by citizens after the hearing on May 21, which involves the
Wintergreen through connection to Carlsbad Village Drive. She went on to report that a letter and a
petition from the Hillgate Estates neighborhood was submitted to staff, a copy of which is included in the
Planning Commission packet. Ms. Woods continued by stating that the citizens have requested that
Wintergreen not be put through to Carlsbad Village Drive and that it remain a cul-de-sac. Also, Ms.
Woods pointed out that an additional letter from the Hillgate Estates community, dated June 18, 1997, had
been submitted and offers further rationale for their position on the issue. Ms. Woods stated that, as
noted in the memo, staff does not support the residents viewpoint and continues to support the
recommendation that this roadway connection be provided.
Project Engineer Ken Quon responded to each of the issues raised by members of the Planning
Commission, the applicant, and citizens at the May 21, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, a copy of
which is on file in the Planning Department.
Ms. Woods also introduced Errata #2 and Errata #3, both dealing with housing issues on the project and
pointed out that since the project was last heard, there have been determinations regarding the use of
second dwelling units. She further stated that Errata #2 addresses the use of second dwelling units to
satisfy inclusionary housing. It has also been determined, Ms. Woods continued, that it needs to be made
clear to the Planning Commission that second dwelling units are an alternative method of satisfying the
affordable housing requirement, under the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance for a project. Ms. Woods
stated that a Finding needs to be added, to all new projects proposing to use second dwelling units, that
makes it clear that the Planning Commission understands that second dwelling units are an alternative
method and for that particular project they are considered an acceptable means of satisfying their
affordable requirement. She pointed out that Errata #2 provides for this additional Finding to Resolution
No. 4100.
Ms. Woods stated that Errata #3 is in response to a very recent determination that all new projects
proposing any affordable housing component, under the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance, be brought to
the Housing Commission for a recommendation to the Planning Commission. She pointed out that Staff
has looked at and determined that this project complies with all of the guidelines that have been approved
by the Housing Commission, and has recommended approval of their affordable housing component.
Ms. Woods alluded to the fact that Pacific View Estates is operating under a 90 day extension (under the
Streamlining Act) for the processing of development projects and must be heard and acted upon prior to
July 10, 1997. Therefore, Staff has recommended that the Commission take action on this project this
evening. It was also recommended that the Commission add a new condition to the project that will
require that, “Prior to any additional permits being given, the project will have to be submitted to the
Housing Commission to receive a Finding that it does comply with their new Second Dwelling Units MINUTES 134
PLANNING COMMISSION June 18,1997 Page 5
Guidelines.” Ms. Woods pointed out that by adding this Condition, the Housing Commission will have an
opportunity to review the project. However, if they are unable to get that, the project would then have to
come back and either propose a new affordable housing component or somehow address the issues that
have been raised by the Housing Commission.
Commissioner Noble requested the following statement be included in the “record”. Commissioner Noble
stated that after reading the report from Housing and Redevelopment Director Evan Becker, that, contrary
to what the Housing Commission appears to believe, this Commission did (in fact) ask if this project meets
the new guidelines proposed by the Housing Commission and was given an affirmative answer.
Commissioner Savary asked Mr. Quon to point out exactly where Wintergreen intersects with Carlsbad
Village Drive.
Mr. Quon pointed out where Wtntergreen will feed into Donna Drive and then into Carlsbad Village Drive.
Commissioner Monroy asked Traffic Engineer Bob Johnson to explain what traffic warrants are and when
and how it is determined when traffic controls are installed.
Traffic Engineer Bob Johnson stated that “warrant” is merely another word for criteria and explained that
Carlsbad utilizes Cal Trans Signal warrants when they analyze an intersection to see if it meets one or
more of the 11 traffic signal warrants. They also take into consideration the accident history of the
intersection. Mr. Johnson pointed out that his department monitors and evaluates a number of different
intersections throughout the City on a bi-annual basis, prepares a “Traffic Signal Evaluation” (priority list),
and presents it to the Traffic Safety Commission and the City Council. Mr. Johnson stated that the
document lists all of the intersections that are candidates for signalization. In addition, he stated, they also
list the studied intersections that don’t meet the warrants so the reports are available if those conditions
change over the next 2 years. If conditions do change, they can be quickly evaluated and that
intersection(s) will be placed on the priority list. As for accident histories, Mr. Johnson stated that these
are monitored on an annual basis and the results are included in the department’s Annual Traffic Report.
Commissioner Monroy then asked Mr. Johnson how soon the traffic evaluations will be done on the new
streets.
Mr. Johnson replied that they can and will analyze the intersections of Donna Drive and Carlsbad Village
Drive, and Hosp and Wintergreen, this year, the results of which would reflect current conditions before
the Pacific View Estates project is complete. He added that when the project is complete, they can again
analyze those intersections if they feel there may be a problem developing or if they want a comparison to
the last analysis.
Commissioner Welshons asked how many warrants have been met by Donna Drive, on the south side of
Carlsbad Village Drive, and also Wintergreen Drive.
Mr. Johnson stated that Donna Drive does not meet warrants at this time and stated that if there were 1 or more warrants, it would be placed on the list of warranted locations and ranked for a priority. He added
that the same is true for Wintergreen.
Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Woods what the time frame is for each phase of the project.
Ms. Woods stated that the developer has indicated that he wants to put them in close succession to each
other, but it will depend on the housing market when Phase 1 is completed.
Commissioner Welshons suggested that if the Phases take longer to complete than is expected, that the
Bonding Agreement in Condition No. 54 might be further modified to say that it will terminate 5 years from
occupancy of the first unit in Phase III, rather than the from occupancy of the first unit in Phase I.
MINUTES ) 3 La4
PLANNING COMMISSION June 18,1997 Page 6
Mr. Quon stated that it is the intent of the Engineering Department to measure the progression of the
traffic at each intersection, over the 5 year period. It is unclear as to when the best or most appropriate
time will be to begin analyzing the intersections.
Commissioner Welshons asked how many units are in each phase.
Ms. Woods stated there will be 7 units in Phase I, 10 units in Phase II and 9 units in Phase Ill.
Commissioner Welshons asked if there is a cul-de-sac policy in Carlsbad. .
Mr. Quon stated that a cul-de-sac is allowed if the street is 1200 feet or shorter, is limited to 50 units or
less, and limited to 500 trips (or less) per day.
Referring to a letter received from Nick Giovinazzo, dated June 18, 1997, in which he stated that the
residents believe that if Wintergreen is opened up to Donna Dr., many people will use that street as a
short-cut, Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Quon to respond to those concerns.
Mr. Quon stated that there is no indication all the occupants of these units will access Wintergreen Drive
to get to Carlsbad Village Drive.
Commissioner Welshons then asked if the street configuration, with all of the turns, could discourage
through traffic.
Mr. Quon responded by stating that from an engineering standpoint, straight roads tend to carry more
traffic and roads with several turns may discourage people from using them.
Commissioner Compas, also referring to the memo from Mr. Giovinazzo, asked for Mr. Quon’s comments
(overall) and Item #4 (specifically) which ends with the words, ‘I. . .real tragedy is inevitable.”
Mr. Quon’s response was that he is not sure how Mr. Giovinazzo arrived at the conclusion that “traffic
could easily grow to 160 cars or more”, and “an increase of 800% . . .“, but he certainly does not agree
with those figures.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Quon if he agreed with any of the 9 points of Mr. Giovinazzo’s letter
and the answer was “no”. ~
Commissioner Compas, for clarification of gngineering Condition No 49, of Resolution No. 4100, regarding
street improvements, asked if the improvements are required to be made before the units are occupied.
Mr. Quon replied that the improvements must be built before occupancy of the first unit of each phase.
Commissioner Monroy, asked for clarification regarding the time frame for the bonding for signals, and
also asked if that Condition could be changed to reflect that bonding will terminate 5 years from the
occupancy of the first unit in Phase III.
Mr. Quon replied that the Condition could be modified.
Ron Grunow, Civil Engineer, RDG Consultants, 3042 Harding St., Carlsbad, representing Pacific View
Estates, stated that they have read all of the Conditions and the Erratas and concur.
Commissioner Monroy asked Mr. Grunow if they have an objection to changing the bond termination date
to 5 years from the occupancy of the first unit in Phase III.
PLANNING COMMISSION June 18,1997 Page 7
Mr. Grunow responded that, in their opinion, it would be fairer for the bonding to begin when Wintergreen
is opened to through traffic and not necessarily tied to the occupancy of any unit in Phase III.
Chairperson Nielsen opened Public Testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Nick Giovinazzo, 2948 Wintergreen Dr., Carlsbad, representing Hillgate Estates Homeowners Association,
stated the concerns of the association regarding the increase in traffic on Wintergreen. He related a
recent incident regarding an incorrectly placed ‘Garage Sale” sign which significantly increased the traffic
in their community that day, and convinced them that the opening of Wintergreen to Donna Dr., would
negatively impact their neighborhood. He stated that he sees no benefit in making Wintergreen a through
street and urged the Commission to deny the opening of Wintergreen as a through street.
Ralph Ascher, 2956 Wintergreen, Carlsbad, stated that he is the person who gathered the petitions,
copies of which are attached to the Agenda packet, and that the overwhelming majority of those
approached to sign the petition, were against the opening of Wintergreen. Mr. Ascher stated that it makes
no sense to destroy a quiet, tranquil and safe neighborhood when there is no solid reason for it and
suggested that more culde-sacs should be incorporated within the City. Mr. Ascher concluded by
prevailing upon the Commission not to open Wintergreen.
Anthony Venaria, 2976 Wintergreen Dr., Carlsbad, asked why the City wants to open Wintergreen when it
is beneficial to his neighborhood and will also benefit the new development. He stated that his
homeowners association has contacted the Fire Department and been told that it makes no difference
whether it is opened or not because they will still have access. Mr. Venaria concluded by asking the
Commission to vote to keep the dead-end street and not open it to through traffic.
Chairperson Nielsen asked if Mr. Venaria had been made aware when he purchased his home that
Wintergreen would eventually be a through street and Mr. Venaria’s reply was a firm “no”.
Ron Grunow, Civil Engineer, RDG Consultants, 3042 Harding St., Carlsbad, representing Pacific View
Estates, stated that no matter how the residents of Hillgate choose to look at it, Wrntergreen is not a cul-
de-sac. It is a dead-end street and they live in the luxury of a closed community only because
development has not continued on as it is going to now. He also stated that until they made their initial
submittal to the City, they were unaware that they would be required to make the street go through. He
pointed out that they had planned on a very different format, initially, and have conformed and worked for
over 2 years to bring the project to fruition. He also stated the Public Health and Safety requires and
allows for the public street for secondary access to their development. Mr. Grunow pointed out that they
don’t want to be responsible for the devastation if a fire comes up that hillside and because the street is
blocked off, emergency vehicles can’t get to them as quickly as they might otherwise.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Nielsen closed the Public Testimony.
Ms. Woods introduced Fire Marshal Mike Smith and asked him to address Item #6 of Mr. Giovinazzo’s
letter.
Fire Marshal Smith stated that in his department’s review of the project, they determined that Wrntergreen
is not a conforming street when it comes to the definition of a cul-de-sac and therefore the Department
cannot support the project unless the street becomes a through street. He pointed out that the Fire
Departments Emergency Access Standards are based upon the City’s cul-de-sac standards and any
proposed developments that go in with streets that are non-conforming to the cul-de-sac policy, would
ordinarily require some mitigation effort to reduce the potential for fire and that did not occur. Mr. Smith
stated that the Departments position is that any variation from the cul-de-sac policy will impede their
ability to serve.
MINUTES 133
PLANNING COMMISSION June 18,1997 Page 8
In response to a question from Chairperson Nielsen, Fire Marshal Smith stated that he does not recall
having a conversation with anyone from the Hillgate Association regarding the Department’s position but
that it is possible that one of the Association’s representatives might have spoken to someone else in the
Fire Department.
Commissioner Welshons asked if Staff can support the recommendation to time the termination of the
signalization bond with the opening of Wintergreen as a through street.
Mr. Quon replied that Staff can support that, however, the discussion was to begin the 5 year period with
the first unit of Phase Ill, because the street leading to Donna Dr., between Wintergreen and Donna would
be fully accessible.
Commissioner Welshons pointed out that there are two Engineering Conditions; one that is for the
signalization of Hosp Way and Wintergreen; and, one that is for the signalization of Donna and Carlsbad
Village Drive, and asked if the clock will start for each at different times.
Mr. Quon stated that they would both begin with the occupancy of the first unit of Phase III.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4099 approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration
issued by the Planning Director, and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No.
4100, 4101, 4102, and 4103 approving CT 96-03, PUD 96-03, HDP 96-03 and
SDP 96-04 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein and including the Memorandum from the Planning Department dated 6-
18-97, Errata #2 and Errata #3, and the appropriate revisions to the amendment
to the Engineering Conditions and all other conditions related to the timing of the
signalization bonding of the intersections of Hosp Way and Wintergreen Dr., and
Donna Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive.
Chairperson Nielsen asked Mr. Quon to clarify the wording with regard to the timing of the bonding.
Mr. Quon stated that the Conditions No. 54 and No. 55 would be modified in the last sentence to read as
follows: “This agreement shall terminate 5 years from the date of occupancy of the first unit in Phase Ill.”
To further clarify the Commission’s intent, Mr. Rudolf questioned the Commission as to when they
intended for the bond, itself, to begin.
Commissioner Welshons, in response, stated that it would begin with the occupancy of the first unit in
Phase III.
Mr. Quon interjected that although the timing of the termination of the bond would begin with the
occupancy of the first unit in Phase III, the bond itself must be executed with the City prior to approval of
the projects final map. He added that the bonding period could go on for any number of years but will
terminate 5 years after the occupancy of the first unit in Phase III.
Chairperson Nielsen asked the Commissioners if it is correct that their intent is, “regardless of the start
time, the termination time will be 5 years after the occupancy of the first unit in Phase Ill,” and they
indicated their agreement.
Mr. Wayne stated, for the record, that the City does require the bonding as a condition of final map. An
applicant cannot final a map without the bonding. He further stated that the duration of this bond will be
from the final map to occupancy of the first unit in Phase III and 5 years hence of that occupancy.
MINUTES )3 8
PLANNING COMMISSION June 18,1997 Page 9
Mr. Rudolf reminded the Commission, in that it is their responsibility (not Staffs) to establish the
Conditions and decide when they want that bond to begin. He pointed out that the reason for a bond is to
secure the promise to pay for the signalization (in the event of bankruptcy or other refusal or inability to
pay) upon demand. He then stated that it is his understanding that the Commission intends for the bond
to be in place from the beginning because there is every indication that signalization might be needed
before Phase III is completed.
Commissioner Compas suggested that the Condition for bonding state that the bond will begin with the
occupancy of the first unit in Phase I and terminate the bond 5 years after the occupancy of the first unit in
Phase III.
Both Mr. Quon and Mr. Rudolf accepted the Commissioners suggested wording.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
6-O
Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Monroy, Welshons, and Compas
None
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the decision of the ~JJNNING COMMISSION
to the Carlsbad City Council.
Date of Decision you are appealing: JUNE 18, 1997
Subject of Aweal:
BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer’s Decision, please say so. If a project has
multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please
list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here.
We onlv wish to appeal the decision to ooen Winterareen Drive
through to Carlsbad Village Drive between Pacific View Estates
and Hillgate Estates. We have offered an alternative in a letter.
Reason(s) for ADDeal: l Please Note l Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of
the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal.
BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local
laws, plans, or policy?
a definite negative impact on the residents along Wintergreen Drive.
2. 602 households exit directly on Hosp Way with a potential of 1200
a the short cut would increase traffic on Wintergreen by 600%.
mile circumference has a through street. This is selective enforcement.
4. A Fire Department response time emergency study concluded there
5. All homeowners are entitled to the quiet enjoyment, peace, tranquility
and safety of their homes.
6. We offer the alternative of a Knox Gate between the two Wintergreens.
ae-u-wo~~~ 3 (76T) 434-l 714
PHONE NO.
Nick Giovinazzo 2948 Wintergreen Drive
NAME (please print) ADDRESS: Street Name & Number
June 24, 1997 Carlsbad, CA 92008
DATE City, State, Zip Code
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2808
‘:.
‘; .: .,,.‘.‘.,
:.
.
,., -.-
. ‘, ,‘, :
;, ‘.
,, .;
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST SD COUNTY PLANNING
801 PINE AVE SUITE B
CARLSBAD CA 92008 5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE
505 S VULCAN AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NORTH COAST HWY
ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
SUITE 50 SUITE B
330 GOLDENSHORE 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
LONG BEACH CA 90802 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
SANDAG
SUITE 800
400BSTREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LAFCO AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
1600 PACIFIC HWY 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
THOMAS & JANET MASS
2851 TORRY CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
(ABOVE ADDRESS - For City
Council Notices Only)
PROJECT PLANNER
TERESA WOODS
BUENAWOODSU
POBOX 1621
CARLSBADCA92018
HL&ANNCARROLL
2062AVENUEOFTHETREES
CARLSBADCA92008
HENLEYV&PATRIClAWORTHMGTON JACKIELALEXANDER
2066AVENUEOFTHETREES 2068AVENUEOFTHETREES
CARLSBADCA92008 CARLSBADCA92008
FRANKW&MARlLYNSTRANGE
2072AVENUEOFTHETREES
CARLSBADCA92008
THEJENISONFAMILY
2078AVENUEOFTHETREES
CARLSBADCA92008
fi? ERICBLO
JAMESELCAROLEFELKER
1788 IVYRD
OCEANSlDECA92054
WILLlAMR&ELIZABETHSROUFE
2074AVENUEOFTHETREES
CARLSBADCA92008
LAWRENCEJMCCARTHY
2080AVENUEOFTHETREES
CARLSBADCA92008
MARYAJOHNSON
2086AVENUEOFTHETREES
CARLSBADCA92008
k? JOHNACOL S
LUlSG&GLORlACARRANZA WILLIAM&LAUREENEHARVEY
2896BRENTWOODCT 2898BRENTWOODCT
CARLSBADCA92008 CARLSBADCA92008
CARLSBAD-WOODRIDGEHOMEOWNERS CATHYIHOJO
2124s ELCAMlNOREAL204 7152RAMSGATEAVE
OCEANSIDECA92054 LOSANGELESCA90045
BARRY F&PAIJLASCHWOERER
10343 BEAR CREEK DR
MANASSAS VA 22111
KELLY RAE
POBOX2708
LAREDOTX 78044
ERADLER
3833GAVIOTAAVE
LONGBEACHCA90807
JUDITHN SCHWARTZ
2064AVENUEOFTHETREES
CARLSBADCA92008
OFTHETREES
ROBERTN&MARYARKELL
2076AVENUEOFTHETREES
CARLSBADCA92008
CLINTONLPETERSON
POBOX4136
SAN MARCOSCA92069
RICHARDDHADDAD
ISANSEBASTIAN
NEWPORTBEACHCA92660
HERMONORUHNAU
3775 IOTH ST
RIVERSIDECA92501
CARLSBAD-WOODRIDGEHOMEOWN
2124 S ELCAMINOREAL204
OCEANSIDECA92054
THEFLONESF
MICHAELJ SCHALL
2823CEDARWOODWAY
CARLSBADCA92008
MARGERY A DURYEE
28 19 CEDARWOOD WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PAUL H HASKfNS
2820 CEDARWOOD WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOSEPH A & FRANCINE ARKEDER
2824 CEDARWOOD WAY
CAfUSBAD CA 92008
CLIFFORD W & SARAH CROWE
2828 CEDARWOOD WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LYNN B MCCARLEY
2833 FOREST VIEW WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILLIAM LOUCAS
2832 CEDARWOOD WAY
CAfUSBAD CA 92008
J R MACKEY
2829 FOREST VlEW WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CHARLES L MCCONAHAY
2825 FOREST VIEW WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ELIZABETH T GARNER-SACKLER
28 13 FOREST VIEW WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RONALD C & VERBAL CRARY
2809 FOREST VIEW WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOSEPH F & JANE HALLORAN
2805 FOREST VIEW WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RICHARD E UTECHT
28 18 FOREST VIEW WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PHILIP S & CHERYL LANKFORD
2830 FOREST VIEW WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STEVEN F & YVONNE MIHALEK
2747 TIBURON AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 /
w CARLSBAD-WOODhE HOMEOWN ELOPMENT OF L J MCKELLAR DEV PMENT OF L J
2879 WOODRI
JERRY D & CHRIST1 ABSHIER
282 I FOREST VIEW WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GILBERT A & ORIEN PAGAN
238 14 TWIN PINES LN
DIAMOND BAR CA 9 1765
MIN-CHUNG & CONNIE WU
RTE 1 BOX 14400
WfNNSBORO TX 75494
GERALD E & GLENNA CHASTAfN
2733 I’OREST PARK LN
CARISBAD CA 92008
CRAIG 0 & JANET CORRELL
2729 FOREST PARK LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROGER S & MARILYN HOUSTON
5514 GOSS CANYON AVE
LA CRESCENTA CA 9 I2 I4
JAMES E & SHELL1 HALLIDY
2732 FOREST PARK LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RICHARD K TAYLOR
1555 GRAND AVE
SAN MARCOS CA 92069 /
HOWARD W AC LINDA BLISS
2736 FOREST PARK LN
CARISBAD CA 92008
MCKELLAR D ELOPMENT OF L J
RICHARD E WHITEHEAD
2 110 PINE CREST WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JULIEN L & JILL VANLANCKER
2 I 14 PINE CREST WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KENNETH R KAY
2 1 I8 PINE CREST WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CREST WAY
DONALD P & SUSAN-HARUMI BENTLEY CARL W & SARA STREICHER
2126 PINE CREST WAY 2 I30 PINE CREST WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARISBAD CA 92008
RICHARD A & FRYE CROMIE
2 I79 TIMBERLINE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILLIAM T & AGNES MIHOLICH
447 I COASTLfNE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ANNETTE M PALMER
2 187 TIMBERLINE fZD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CATHERINE F KNAKAL
2719 CYPRESS HILL RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DEBORAH L AUSTIN
27 15 CYPRESS HILL RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TETSUO T & MEfCHIH SUZUKI
2707 GROVE AVE
CARfSBAD CA 92008
ROBERT W ALLAN
6757 ASHBURY CT
JENfSON MI 49428
LINDA J SANDERS
PO BOX 364
CARLSBAD CA 920 18
GARY C & MARLENE BRANNON
2708 GROVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILLIAM E & RENEE MONTAGUE
2712 GROVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOSEPH M & STEPHANIE WELLS
2725 JEFFERSON ST 11
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CECIL & OPAL RYAN
2740 GROVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
THE WOODLEY FAMILY
2896 WINTERGREEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MILTON & MARY NEMES
2892 WINTERGREEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MCKELLAR DEV GEORGE & ALICE COSS
2895 WINTERGREEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
/
OPMENT OF L J
103
ELOPMENT OF L J BRUCE H & KfMBERLY MATHERS
23 16 CADDIE CT
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
2ONES FAMILY
1250 PROSPJkT ST IO3
LA JOLL CA 92037
i*
PAUL R GARROW
273 1 CYI’RESS IBLL RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROBERT G & JAN POLLOCK
774 VAL SERENO DR
ENCINITAS CA 92024
WILLIAM F WEBSTER
2723 CYPRESS I-IILL RD
CARfSBAf1 CA 92008
HELEN WONG
2716 GROVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STEVEN L & LYNNE GORDON
11477 BOOTES ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92 126
MICHAEL J SCHALL
2823 CEDARWOOD WAY
CARfSBAD CA 92008
VELOPMENT OF L J LEE A LILINTHALL
2728 GROVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GERALD NESLUND
2732 GROVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
THE MCDONALD FAMILY
3 I6 I FALCON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
THE COLLING FAMILY
3 I71 FALCON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NORMAN S & AMY TOLSTAD
16 15 LA VISTA DEL OCEAN0
SANTA BARBARA CA 93 109
PETER A COVIELLO
22 15 NOB HILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HANK F & BETTY SENKEWICZ
2225 NOB HILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HENRY C & MARY GREGG
2235 NOB HILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
THE FRIEDLANDER FAMILY
2245 NOB HILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOHN A & PATRICIA BLAKE
243 CIMMERON TRL
GLENDORA CA 9 174 1
NORMAN S & AMY TOLSTAD
1615 LA VISTA DEL OCEAN0
SANTA BARBARA CA 93 109
KENNETH & KATHRYN PUCKETT
2275 NOB HILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PATRICK & LESLIE HOLIDAY
2290 NOB HILL DR
CARfSBAD CA 92008
MACKENZIE S & JEAN CIJTHILL
2280 NOB HILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ANTHONY C HUEBNER
2270 NOB HILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HELEN G WARREN
2260 NOB HILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JAMES E & BARBARA REILLY
2250 NOB HILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MICHAEL S & CATHERINE BOYLE
2240 NOB HILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
THE TOOMEY FAMILY
2230 NOB HILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
THE FLETCHER FAMILY
2220 NOB HILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TIMOTHY J & W f LLI AM%/,, : LEE A HATTEN-RAO
2210 NOB HILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROBERT J & DEBORAH COWDEN
3205 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TffE BETZ FAMILY
3240 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
THEODORE H & MARY STEARNS
3230 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
THE SWEENEY FAMILY
3220 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
h
DARLENEMBURKE ROSWELL B & LEONA WILLARD
3225 DONNA DR 3235 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
RICHARD L & JACQUELINE PHILLIPS JAMES A VITTfTOE
7243 WORSLEY WAY 32 IO WESTWOOD DR
ALEXANDRIA VA 223 15 CARLSBAD CA 92008
THE DABBS FAMILY
PO BOX 619
CARLSBAD CA 920 I8
L A & L JANDRO
PO BOX 245
CARLSBAD CA 920 18
KALMA B BUSK
PO BOX 6309
LAGUNA NfGUEL CA 92607
L-2607
CA 92607
OD BLVD 300
-
THE STRANGE FAMILY
32 I5 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOSEI’IH FOGELSTROM
3230 WESTWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DENNIS C & DONNA AMBROSE
2764 1 f’OCffEA TfU
HEMET CA 92544
D
tfosr’ WAY LTD
I990 WESTWOOD BLVD 300
LOS ANGELES CA 90025
OD BLVD 300 BLVD 300
90025
RAYMOND S & DEBORAH REIFEL
2380 HOSP WAY 238
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GELES CA 90025
OOD BLVD 300
WOOD BLVD 300
DARWIN S LEE
2380 FIOSP WAY 338
CARLSBAD CA 92008
‘1‘111: S(‘O’I“I‘ FAMILY
756 f,mfA’f‘ fm
IA I lAI3RA (:A 9063 I
-
L A & L JANDRO
PO BOX 245
CARLSBAD CA 92018
CAROLINE & SYLVESTER MARRON
POBOX If32
OCEANSIDE CA 92051
REGINALD & JEANENE MARRON
PO BOX 1132
OCEANSIDE CA 9205 I
JOHN P & CAROL VITULLI
2900 WINTERGREEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARTIN & NORA GORDON
21 I S SPALDING DR
BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212
MANUEL E & NANCY WILKEY
2908 WINTERGREEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOHN H 8c GRACE VON RUSTEN
3 I95 FALCON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RICHARD J & CORINNE LEPON
29 16 W fNTERGREEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BO GUSTAFSON
2920 WINTERGREEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JAMES D & LINDA WILLIAMS
2924 WINTERGREEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KIMBERLY ZAKOWSKI
RICHARD P MASAK
2932 WINTERGREEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
THOMAS D & GONZALES FREEMAN
2936 WINTERGREEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ANN C & KENNETH JENSEN
2940 WINTERGREEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOSEPH F & MARILYN TUFILLARO
2944 WINTERGREEN DR
CAfUSBAD CA 92008
NICK V & LOIS GIOVINAZZO
2948 WINTERGREEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STEVEN E & PAMELA SHOOK
2952 WINTERGREEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RALPH ASCHER
I520 LA PLAZA DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
THE RUIZ FAMILY
2960 WINTERGREEN DR
CARfSBAD CA 92008
ADAM & IMNE CZAKO
2964 WINTERGREEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOffN T & KATHLEEN BARBER
2972 WINTERGREEN DR
CARISBAD CA 92008
ANTHONY VANARIA
2976 WINTERGREEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ELEANOR C BENDER
2980 WINTERGREEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SEBASTIAN & MARY PURAYIDOM
PO BOX 66 IO06
f,OS AN<;f:f.ES CA 90066
CLIFFORD C SWENSON
2988 WINTERGREEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KENNETIf & HELEN LEE
2992 WfNTERGfIf:EN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
-
CLARENCE A & PHYLLIS HARVEY ALBERT N & VALENTfNA LMDHOLM
7181 TERN PL 1206 CALLE ESTRELLA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN DIMAS CA 91773
ROY & SUSAN SEITMAN
2952 DOREET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DAVID W & ROSELENE FOSGE’fT
6063 ENFIELD PL
RIVERSIDE CA 92506
* WILLIAM A & ELENA MCKUNE WAYNE M & JEANNINE NOVAK
2946 DOREET WAY 2942 DOREET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
D & M COLICH
5876 OCEAN TERRACE DR
PALOS VERDES PENINSULA C 90275
KURT R MIHALCO MOKHTAR & SUSANA ZIARATI
2934 DOREET WAY 7449 VANTAGE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 NORTH HOLLYWOOD CA 9 1605
S HOMEOWNERS HOMEOWNERS S HOMEOWNERS
PACIFIC VIEW LTD.
P.O. BOX 2198 CARLSBAD CA 92018