HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-08; City Council; 14839; May Subdivision. . p
Y d 5 8
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGEhA BILL
ABt 14,839 DEPT. HD.
MAY SUBDIVISION - ZC 97-081LCPA 97-12
MTG. 918198 AND APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION - CT CITY ATTY. a@-
97-24/SDP 98-051CP 97-58
DEPT. PLN $ CITYMGR +-
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS-456 APPROVING, ZC 97-08 and ADOPT
Resolutions No. 98-300 and 98-301 APPROVING, LCPA 97-12 and DENYING the appeal and
UPHOLDING the Planning Commission’s approval of CT 97-24/SDP 98-OWP 97-58.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On July 15, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the May
Subdivision. The project consists of a request to rezone the parcel from a split R-l and R-1-15,000
zoning to R-1-10,000 and to subdivide the infill parcel, currently occupied by the May Foilage
Company, into 14 standard single family lots with second dwelling units on two lots to satisfy the
project’s inclusionary housing requirement. The project is located at the corner of Monroe Street
and Park Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The Planning Commission recommended
approval (6-O) of the legislative actions, ZC 97-08 and LCPA 97-12, to rezone the property to R-l-
10,000. The Planning Commission also approved (6-O) a tentative map (CT 97-24), site
development plan (SDP 98-051, and coastal development permit (CDP 97-58) to allow the proposed
development contingent upon Council’s approval of the legislative actions. The Planning
Commission’s decision was based on findings that the project is subject to and in compliance with
the General Plan, Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program, applicable sections of Titles 20
(Subdivision Ordinance) and 21 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The Housing
Commission also unanimously recommended approval to allow two second dwelling units to satisfy
affordable housing requirements. The Planning Commission’s approval of the project is contingent
upon Council’s approval of the Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment. (Note:
Since actual units are not proposed at this time, future home builder(s) must receive approval of a
separate coastal development permit for building placement and architecture prior to the issuance of
building permits on the proposed lots.)
The Planning Commission received one letter opposing the project and 8 persons spoke in
opposition to the project. Speakers expressed concern over the following issues:
l The rezoning of the portion of the property, from R-1-15,000 to R-1-10,000, which would result in
smaller lot sizes which residents believed would result in increased density;
l The creation of lO,OOO+ square foot lot sizes abutting larger lots in the R-1-15,000 zone;
l The use of second dwelling units on single family lots to satisfy inclusionary housing
requirements;
l Potential future two story units adjacent to existing single story units;
l Curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements (both in favor and opposed);
l Additional traffic on already congested streets and intersections; and,
l The uniform application of inclusionary housing requirements to all new subdivisions.
On July 27, 1998, a resident whose property abuts the May property filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission’s decision to approve the project (CT 97-24/SDP 98-05/CDP 97-58). Most of the items
specified by the appellant were mentioned by speakers during the public hearing. The Planning
Commission discussed these issues at length before concluding that they were not substantiated by
fact. Following is a list of specific concerns expressed by the appellant and staffs response to each
of these concerns:
/
P
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA rarLL NO. 14,839
APPEAL ITEM STAFF RESPONSE
1. Lot sizes are not compatible with abutting As shown on Attachment “A”, the subdivision
lots: design is consistent with surrounding
development in that proposed lot sizes are
similar in size to lots abutting the subdivision
along the northern, western, and southern
project boundaries in the R-l and R-1-10,000
zones.
a) Lot sizes proposed along the western project Although lots fronting on the west side of Park
boundary across from the R-1-7500 zone where Drive across from the proposed subdivision are
lots are approximately 7,500 square feet in area zoned R-l-7500, the actual lot sizes range in
are 12,000 to 14,000 square feet in area. size between 8,276 and 22,651 square feet.
b) Proposed lot sizes along the eastern project The proposed 10,000 square foot lots along the
boundary abutting the R-1-15,000 zone where eastern boundary are consistent with lot sizes to
lots exceed 20,000 square feet are the north and south which also abut larger lots to
approximately 10,000 square feet in area. the east in the R-1-15,000 zone.
c) Proposed lot sizes fronting on Monroe Street The proposed 10,000 - 12,000 square foot lots
should be no less than 15,000 square feet. fronting on Monroe Street are almost identical in
size to those across the street. Lots to the east
of the May property in the R-1-15,000 zone
become larger on both sides of Monroe Street.
2. Density is increased by at least two dwelling This proposed subdivision density of 3.4 dwelling
units/lots. units/acre is consistent with the applicable RLM
density range of 0 - 4 dwelling units/acre. The
project is .2 units/acre above the Growth Control
Point (GCP) of 3.2 dwelling units/acre which
allows a total of 14.9 dwelling units. .Where the
underlying zoning would permit a slightly higher
yield, the General Plan allows infill subdivisions
in the northwest quadrant to exceed the density
range and/or GCP by 25%. Note: Both the
existing split zoning of R-1-7500 and R-l-l 5,000
and proposed R-l-l 0,000 zoning would permit
16 lots. Fourteen (14) single family
lots/residences are proposed with 2 second
dwelling units for a total density of 16 dwelling
units.
3. Project should be reduced to no more than 10 The subdivision would create lots that are
lots to maintain the integrity of the surrounding approximately the same size as surrounding lots
community. on three sides of the parcel. This design would
create a logical transition between smaller lots
farther to the west and south and larger lots to
the east which is very consistent with the way
the surrounding community has already
developed.
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA uLL NO. 14 9 839
4. Traffic on Monroe Street - traffic study is ( Monroe Street and Park Drive are local streets
- needed prior to approval of any project. with adequate capacity to serve the existing
and/or future residential development in the
area. These streets operate at acceptable levels
of service, and the generation of an additional
160 trips per day projected for this project would
not significantly reduce the level of service.
The Council has the following options with regard to the proposed project:
1) APPROVE proiect
a) Deny appeal
b) Approve ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12.
2) DENY proiect
a) Uphold appeal
b) Deny ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-l 2.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The environmental impact assessment performed by staff revealed that with the proposed mitigation
requiring corrective work to be completed for contaminated soils, no adverse environmental impacts
would result from the project. Therefore, the Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative
Declaration on May 22, 1998. No public comment was received during the 30 day public review
comment period.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
FACILITIES ZONE 1
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN 1
GROWTH CONTROL POINT (GCPI RLM = 3.2 . I NET DENSITY RLM = 3.4*
*The General Plan allows infill subdivisions in LFM Zone 1 to exceed the density range and/or GCP
up to 25% above the maximum allocation in those cases where the underlying zone would permit a
slightly higher yield, compatibility is ensured, and Growth Management findings can be made.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impacts will result from the project since it is consistent with the Zone 1 Local Facilities
Management Plan. All necessary public facilities will be provided concurrent with development and
funded by the developer of the project.
EXHIBITS:
I. City Council Ordinance No. NS-456
2. City Council Resolution No. 98-300
3. City Council Resolution No. 98-301
4. Location Map
5. Planning Commission Resolutions 4330, 4325, and 4326
6. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 15, 1998
7. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 15, 1998
8. Appeal Form Received July 27, 1998
9. Attachment “A”.
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
-
ORDINANCE NO. NS-4 56
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE
ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE, ZC 97-08, FROM
R-l AND R-1-15,000 TO R-1-10,000 ON PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE CORNER OF PARK DRIVE AND MONROE STREET IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: MAY SUBDIVISION
CASE NO.: ZC 97-08
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Section 21.05030, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended by the amendment of the zoning map as shown on the map attached hereto, Exhibit
ZC 97-08, and made a part hereof.
SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as
set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 4325 constitutes the findings and conditions of the
City Council.
SECTION Ill: The Council further finds that this action is consistent with the
General Plan and the Housing Element of the General Plan in that it is consistent with
residential land use and affordable housing goals and objectives.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
fifteen days after its adoption. (Not withstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be
effective within the City’s Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission.)
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the
/Ill
day of 1998, and thereafter.
iill
4
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the of day 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: \
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2- 5
-
RESOLUTION NO. 98-300
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM TO AMEND THE ZONE MAP PORTION
THEREOF, AND A CHANGE TO THE CITY’S ZONE MAP TO
CHANGE A PORTION OF THE MAP FROM R-l AND R-1-15000
TO R-1-10,000 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
CORNER OF PARK DRIVE AND MONROE STREET IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: MAY SUBDIVISION
CASE NO.: LCPA 97-l 2
follows:
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
WHEREAS, on July 15, 1998, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Zone Change, and Local Coastal
Program Amendment for project development of 4.67 acres of land and adopted Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4330, 4325 and 4326 respectively, recommending to the City
Council that they be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 8 th day of
September ~ 1998, held a public hearing to consider the recommendations and heard all
persons interested in or opposed to .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That City Council adopts and incorporates the findings and conditions of
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4330, 4325, and 4326, on file with the City Clerk, in
approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Zone Change (ZC 97-08) and Local Coastal
Program Amendment (LCPA 97-12).
3. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The provisions of Chapter 1 .I6 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial
Review” shall apply:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
h
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been
made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be
filed in the appropriate court not later than the nineteenth day following
the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days
after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the deposit in
an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such
record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is
extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the
record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney
of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the
record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of
Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008.”
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 8 th day of September , 1998 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Nygaard & Finnila
NOES: Council Member Hall
n ABSENT: None /- i
A-l-l-EST:
HA L?&&ENKF?%NZ. Citv Clerk
KAREN R. KUNDTZ, As%stant.City Clerk
(SEW
-2-
1
;
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. 98-301
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING A PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE THE MAY
SUBDIVISION AND DENYING THE APPEAL.
CASE NAME: MAY SUBDIVISION
CASE NO: CT 97-24/SDP 98-OXDP 97-54
WHEREAS, on July 15, 1998, the Carlsbad Planning Commission approved a
Tentative Tract Map (CT 97-24) Site Development Plan (SDP 98-05) and Coastal
Development Permit (CDP 97-54);
WHEREAS, the appellant on July 27, 1998, timely filed an appeal with the City
Clerk; and
WHEREAS, on 8 th day of September , 1998, the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad, considered said appeal; and
WHEREAS, upon considering the appeal, the City Council considered all factors
relating to the appeal.
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 said appeal is denied.
3. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4327, 4328, and 4329 on file in the Planning Department and
incorporated herein by reference constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council in
this matter.
* . .
. . .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad
City Council held on the 8 th day of SePtember 1998, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Nygaard & Finnila
NOES: Council Member Hall
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
-2- J
EXHIBIT 4
MAY SUBDIVISION
ZC 97-08LCPA 97-12/
CT 97924ISDP 98-OWCDP 97-58
EXISTING: R-l/R-l-l 5,000
PROPQSED: R-1-10,000
MAY SUBDIVISION
ZC 97-08
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
II EXHtBlT 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4330
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO ALLOW THE MAY SUBDIVISION PROJECT
LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF PARR DRIVE AND
MONROE STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: MAY SUBDIVISION
CASE NO.: ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12/CT 97-24/SDP 98-
05/ CDP 97-58
WHEREAS, James & Patricia May, “Developer”, have filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by James & Patricia May,
“Owner”, described as
A portion of Lot “I” of Ran&o Agua Hedionda in the County of San Diego,
State of California, according to the map thereof No. 823, filed in the office of
the County Recorder of San Diego County November 16,1896
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of July, 1998 and on
the 15th day of July, 1998 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative
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
-
Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated May 22, 1998, and “PII” dated May
11, 1998, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Mitigated Negative Declaration and 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 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of the project. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, the
Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a
significant effect on the environment and hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
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.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
Conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions stipulated in the attached
Environmental Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program.
. . . .
I . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
PC RESO NO. 4330 -2- 13
26
27
28
A
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of July, 1998, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman,
Monroy, Nielsen, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Savary
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD F+LANNTNO COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAELJ. H&ZMIUER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4330 -3-
City of Carlsbad 5
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Southwest comer of Park Drive and Monroe Avenue in the
northwest quadrant.
Project Description:
Zone change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to rezone an infill parcel from a split R-1-7500 and
R- I- 15000 zoning to R-l-l 0000 and tentative map, coastal development permit, and minor site
development plan to subdivide and grade the 4.67 acre parcel into 14 standard (10.000 square foot
minimum) single family lots with detached 603 square foot second dwelling units on two lots to satisfy
inclusionary housing requirements.
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
Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning
Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4477.
DATED: MAY 22,1998
CASE NO: CT 97-24/LCPA 97-12/ZC 97-08KDP 97-58
CASE NAME: MAY SUBDIVISION
PUBLISH DATE: MAY 22,1998
.
MICHAEL J. %XZMI~ER
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-l 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 e9
- -
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT97-24iLCPA 97- 12/ZC 97-OS/CDP 97-58
DATE: Mav I 1, 1998 _
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME Mav Subdivision
2. APPLICANT: James and Patricia Mav
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3926 Park Drive. Carlsbad. CA 92008
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 23. 1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Zone change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to rezone an
infill parcel from a split R-1-7500 and R-l-l 5000 zoning; to R-l -10000 and tentative map,
coastal development permit. and minor site development plan to subdivide the 4.67 acre parcel
into 14 standard (I 0.000 square foot minimum) single familv lots with detached 603 square foot
second dwelling units on two lots to satisfv inclusionarv housinp requirements.
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 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
q Population and Housing 0. Biological Resources c] Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
cl Water Ix] Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
q Air Quality cl Noise cl Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03f28196
C.
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
IXI
0
0
0
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 prqject. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment. but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is required.
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Date
Slld~ 0
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96 /7
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.
l A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to. or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
l “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting’ evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
l “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
l Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &l 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 lilitigated
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 Pb
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.
l An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked. and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards. and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant. or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect. or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96 /9
--
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a)
b)
C)
4
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (Source # 1
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (Source
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Source # 1)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (Source #I)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (Source #I))
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source #I)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Source #I)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source #I )
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
4
b)
c)
d)
e>
f-l
Fault rupture? (Sources #I. 4)
Seismic ground shaking? (Source #4)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source #4)
Seiche. tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #3)
Landslides or mudflows? (Source #3)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(Source #4)
s) Subsidence of the land? (Source #4)
h) Expansive soils? (Source #4)
9 Unique geologic or physical features? (Source # 4)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates. drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source #5)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Source #2.5)
5
Potentially
Significant Impact
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
a
PotentialI! Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Cl.
q
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl cl cl
cl Cl cl
Cl q cl
cl
q
Less Than Significant Impact
[x1
El
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
II
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
No
Impact
cl
cl
El
Ix]
[x1
IXI
Ix]
El
El
Ix1
Ixi
IXI
IXI q
El [x1 Ix1
[x1
E4
Rev. 03128196
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
g)
h)
9
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #2)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (Source #2)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (Source #2)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals. or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (Source #2)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(Source #2)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #2)
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (Source #2)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
#a b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source
#a c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ()
d) Create objectionable odors? ()
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
4
b)
c)
d)
e)
f-l
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Source #2)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source # 1)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses.?
insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts.
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source #I)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects. animals, and birds? (Source # 1, 2)
Potentiali> Significant Impact
cl
q
cl
0‘
cl
q q
Ix1
lxl
q
q
El
q
0
q q Cl
q
q
PotentialI>
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q q
cl
q
q
q
0
q
q
q q q
q
q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
cl
q
q
q
0
q q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
q
0
NO
impact
El
El
IXI
[x1
lxl
Ix]
Ix1
cl
q
El
IXJ
q
(XI
[XI
IXI El lxl
Ix]
El
6 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Source # I. 2)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source # 1, 2)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (Source # 1,2)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source
#I. 2)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(Source # 1,2)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source # 1.2)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? (Source
#1.2)
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ()
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (Source #6)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass. or trees? ()
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source # 1.2)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source
#I. 2)
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (Source #I )
b) Police protection? (Source #2)
c) Schools? (Source # 1)
d) Maintenance of public facilities. including roads?
(Source # I )
e) Other governmental services? (Source #2)
7
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q q
q q q q
q
Potentiali? Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
lxl
q
q q
q q q q
q
Less Than Signiticant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
‘0
q
q
q q
q q q q
q
Rev. 03/I
NO
Impact
lz
(x1
[x1
[XI
Ix]
El
ixI
I23
ix)
1x1
q
lxl
IXI lxl
IXI lxl IXJ IXI
lxl
(96 al
Issues (and Supponing Information Sources).
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Sources # 1.2)
b) Communications systems? ()
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (Source # 1.2)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #l. 2)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source #l ,2)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source # 1.2)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source # 1,2)
. XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
c>
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (Source
#I) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
(Source #2)
Create light or glare? (Source #2)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ()
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ()
c) Affect historical resources? (Source #2)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(Source #2)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (Source #2)
xv. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (Source #I)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ()
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or 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?
Potentially Significant
Impact
q q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q q q cl
q
q
q
q
Potentiali! Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
q q q
q q Cl q
q
q
cl
q q q q
cl
0
q
q
Less Than Significant Impact
q q q
cl cl q cl
q
q
q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
Pi0
Impact
El
151
IXI
lxl
El
lIzI
IXI
lx
[x1
lx
IXI
lz
8 Rev. 03/28/96
- 4
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially PotentialI\, Less Than bio Significant Significant Significant Impact impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
0 q q Ix1
0 q q El
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR. or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a> 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.
c> 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. 03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Analvsis
The infill parcel. located in LFM Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant, is designated for Residential
Low Medium density allowing 0 - 4 dwelling units/acre and has a split zoning: R-l (7500) on
the north half and R-l -15,000 on the southern half. The surrounding areas to the north and west
are zoned R-l and developed with single family residences and existing infrastructure. The lots
to the east and south are zoned R-1-15,000 and also developed with single family residences and
existing infrastructure.
.
The site consists of 4.67 acres which fall gently in a southwest direction with elevations ranging
from 230 feet above mean seal level (amsl) in the northeast comer to 210 feel amsl in the
southwest comer of the site. May Foilage Company, a wholesale plant company. operates on the
site under approval of a conditional use permit. The property has been used for agricultural
purposes since sometime prior to 1953. and over the past 40 years, it can be presumed that
chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides. and rodenticides have been applied to the soils. The
site is occupied by large green houses used to cultivate indoor plants, the company office. a
garage, storage buildings, and a pesticide shed with a boiler and chemical tanks for distribution
of fertilizer and pesticide solutions to the green houses via underground piping. The site is also
occupied by the May single family residence and a garage. Runoff from the site which is
increased due to coverage by green houses and paving is directed to Park Drive. All existing
development would be demolished and/or removed to enable grading and the subdivision of the
parcel into single family lots and a public culdesac street providing access from Park Drive..
la. Land Use - General Plan/Zoning
The project is consistent with the underlying RLM General Plan designation allowing a
maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre, however, the project density of 3.4 dwelling units per
acre (including two second dwelling units) exceeds the Growth Management Growth Control
Point (GCP) of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. The General Plan allows infill subdivisions in LFM
Zone 1 to exceed the density range and/or GCP up to 25% above the maximum allocation (5
dwelling units per acre). in those cases where the underlying zone would permit a slightly higher
yield, compatibility is ensured. and Growth Management findings can be made. The applicant is
requesting a zone change from a split R-l and R-l -15,000 to R-l-l 0,000. The zone change
would not enable a maximum density yield higher than existing zoning under the General Plan
provision discussed above. Public facilities are adequate in LFM Zone 1 to accommodate the
proposed units and there are excess dwelling units in the quadrant to ensure that the maximum
number of dwelling units in the northwest quadrant would not be exceeded at buildout. The zone
change would ensure compatibility by providing a transition zone between existing R-l zoning
and smaller lots to the north and R-l -15.000 zoning and larger lots to the south.
Ib. Land Use - Local Coastal Program
The prqject is subject to and consistent with the General Plan RLM land use designation
allowing 0 - 4 dwelling units per acre. however, the project consists of a zone change to change
the zoning from its current split R-l and R-1-15.000 classification to R-1-10,000. Approval of a
Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) is required to ensure consistency between the LCP
and the implementing zoning. The project includes a request for a LCPA to satisfy this
10 Rev. 03/28/96 a-
requirement.
V. Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon, monoxide. reactive
organic gases. oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”. any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout. a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”. therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan. therefore. the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01. by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246. included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final. Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
VI. Circulation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however. 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are prqjected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimizi the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1)
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages. and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
11 Rev. 03 128196
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 prqject 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.
VII. Biological Resources
. The project is an infill location surrounded by existing single family development. The site is
currently occupied by the May Foilage Company, a wholesale plant company, consisting of large
green houses and a single family dwelling. No sensitive native species exist on this previously
graded and developed site.
IXd. Hazards
Based on an “Environmental Audit Report” conducted for the May Foilage Company by MV
Environmental. Inc. dated August 19, 1994, findings that “some indications of potential hazards
or conditions present evidence for further evaluation. These conditions should be further
evaluated by performing site sampling and testing to help determine the presence of hazardous
materials in near surface soils. This determination is presented to identify if organo-phosphate
pesticides, ammonium, and/or nitrate fertilizers are present in the soil as a result of the observed
and disclosed evidence of chemical storage areas, distribution points, and the number of years the
site has been utilized for this type of land use.” The recommended mitigation is a Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment and additional interviews with people knowledgeable of
previous site activities to determine if any necessary corrective work is required..
SOURCE DOCUMENTS: - Note: All source documents are on file in the Planning
Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (760) 438-1161.
1. Carlsbad General Plan adopted September 6, 1994.
2. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
certified September 6, 1994.
3. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, Mello II Segment.
4. “Preliminary Soil & Geotechnical Investigation” dated July 20, 1994 performed by Vinje &
Middleton Engineering, Inc.
5. “Hydraulic Analysis” Letter dated April 6. 1998.
6. “Phase I Environmental Audit Report - May Foilage Company” prepared by MV
Environmental, Inc. dated August 19. .1994.
12 Rev. 03 128196 a7
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the findings of a Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment in accordance with the recommendation of the “Environmental Audit Report”
conducted by MV Environmental. Inc. dated August 19. 1994. shall be submitted to the
Planning Department with a mitigation plan for any necessary corrective work. Evidence
from the Department of County Health that the corrective work has been implemented in
accordance with the mitigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to
commencement of work.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
13 Rev. 03/28/96 28
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
14 Rev. 03/28/96 2?
- ?
ENVIRONMENTAL MITI-ATION MONITORING AND REPORTI& PROGRAM: Page 1 of 1
OU.Po =Q) o;E.=a3 \c.= E-
a=, m .- F- isisal
z c 5 -6 2 .E G z E - &j g z e g .- E E
2 g .- E ?ii r .P '2 .= 2 E
F $ '5 Ed m cog 0' .- m c zu 0
$ $ 3 I e 3
Et E m 2 .
P 8 'C 0 .I?
F Jz
I? g-
ls cl
2 5 e t f
E z t .E
6 E!
z z
.8 ii
@a E .b 5 ycjb '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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4325
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-l AND R-l-
15,000 TO R-l -10,000 ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
CORNER OF PARK DRIVE AND MONROE STREET IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: MAY SUBDIVISION
CASE NO: zc 97-08
WHEREAS, James & Patricia May, “Developer”, have filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by James & Patricia May,
“Owner”. described as
A portion of Lot “I” of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda in the County
of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof
No. 823, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County November l&1896.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on
the Exhibit ZC 97-08, attached to and incorporated by reference in the Draft City Council
Ordinance, Exhibit “X” dated July 15,1998, attached hereto for MAY SUBDIVISION, ZC
97-08 on file in the Planning Department as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the .Plarming Commission did on the 1st day of July, 1998 and on
the 15th day of July, 1998 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 Zone Change; and
/ 31
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) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. .
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of MAY SUBDIVISION, ZC 97-08 based on the. following
findings and subject to the following condition:
Findings:
1. That the proposed Zone Change from R-l and R-1-15,000 to R-1-10,000 is consistent
with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan Land Use
Element (Policy C.l), in that it will result in “the arrangement of land uses which
preserve community identity and are orderly, functionally efficient, healthful and
aesthetically pleasing”. The rezoning to 10,000 square foot minimum lots will
provide a logical transition between R-l zoning (7,500 square foot lots) to the north
and R-1-15,000 larger lots to the south.
2. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as
mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use
Element, in that the property’s underlying Residential Low Medium (RLM) density
land use designation allows single family residential development as long as the
overall density does not exceed 4 dwelling units per acre. Consistent with this
policy, the overall density for the single family subdivision is 3.4 dwelling units per
acre.
Conditions:
1. Approval of ZC 97-08 is granted subject to the approval of LCPA 97-12, CT 97-24, CDP
97-58, SDP 98-05.
. . . .
PC RESO NO. 4325 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
--
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 15th day of July, 1998, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compaq Heineman,
Monroy, Nielsen, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Savary
ABSTAIN:
BAILEY NOB@, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. MLZM~LLER
Planning Director
PC PESO NO. 4325 -3- 33
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. 4326
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO AMEND THE ZONING
MAP PORTION THEREOF, BEING THE CITY ZONE MAP, AS
SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF PARK DRIVE AND
MONROE STREET.
CASE NAME: MAY SUBDIVISION
CASE NO: LCPA 97-12
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program,
General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and
WHEREAS, James & Patricia May, “Developer”, have filed a verified
application for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program designations regarding property
owned by James & Patricia May, “Owner”, described as
A portion of Lot “I” of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda in the County of San Diego,
State of California, according to the map thereof No. 823, tiled in the office of
the County Recorder of San Diego County November 16,1896
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendinent as shown on Exhibit “LCPA 97-12” attached hereto and incorporated
by reference for MAY SUBDIVISION, LCPA 97-12 as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal Commission Administrative
Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of July, 1998 and on
the 15th day of July, 1998 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider
said request; and
354
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
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 Local Coastal Program Amendment.
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period for
any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
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) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on May 21,
1998 and ending on July 1, 1998 staff shall present to the City Council a
summary of the comments received.
C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of MAY SUBDIVISION, LCPA 97-12, as
shown on Exhibit “LCPA 97-12”, based on the following finding:
Findings:
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment is consistent with all applicable
policies of the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, in that it is
required to bring the designations of the City’s Zoning Map (as amended) and
Mello II implementing zone into conformance.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
PC PESO NO. 4326 -2- .35
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 15th day of July, 1998, by the following vote.
to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman,
Monroy, Nielsen, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Savary
ABSTAIN:
BAILEY NOB
CARLSBAD
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. IJ&zMIL~ER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4326 -3- 36
R-7/R-7-75
R-7-70,000
;, 000 - _
@ MAys~mv,~,& =pl!i 97-Q
EXHIBIT 6 me City of GARLSBAD Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: July 15, 1998
SUBJECT: ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12/CT 97-24/ SDP 98-05/CDP 97-58 - MAY SUB-
DIVISION - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, Local Coastal
Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan and Coastal
Development Permit to rezone a 4.67 acre infill site from R- 1 and R- 1 - 15,000 to
R-l 0,000 and allow the subdivision of 14 single family lots and two second
dwelling units on property generally located at the comer of Park Drive and
Monroe Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4330,4325, and
4326, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, ZC 97-08 and LCPA 97-12, and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4327, 4328, and 4329 APPROVING CT 97-24, SDP 98-05 and
CDP 97-58, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is requesting approval of various permits to rezone, subdivide and grade a 4.67
acre infill parcel into 14 standard single family lots including two second dwelling units to
satisfy the project’s inclusionary housing requirement. As designed and conditioned, the project
is in compliance with the General Plan, Mello II LCP, the Subdivision Ordinance, and the
relevant zoning regulations of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The proposed infill project, located in LFMP Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant, consists of a
zone change, Local Coastal Program amendment, tentative tract map, site development plan and
coastal development permit to rezone the 4.67 acre parcel to R-l-l 0,000 and subdivide it into 14
single family lots. The project also includes two second dwelling units proposed on Lots 7 and 8
to satisfy the project’s inclusionary housing requirement. The property is designated for
Residential Low Medium density allowing 0 - 4 dwelling units/acre and zoned with a split R-l
(7,500 sq. ft. lot size) and R-l-15,000 classification. The site is served by existing infrastructure
and surrounded by existing single family development. Properties to the north and west are
zoned R- 1 and properties to the east and south are zoned R-1-1 5,000 (see Attachment 11).
rc- --r.
ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12/C I 7 i-24/ SDP 98-05/CDP 97-58/ - MAY suBDIVISION
July 15, 1998
Page 2
The site consists of 4.67 acres which fall gently in a southwest direction with elevations ranging
from 230 feet above mean seal level (amsl) in the northeast comer to 210 feel amsl in the
southwest comer of the site. May Foliage Company, a wholesale plant company, operates on the
site under approval of a conditional use permit. The property has been used for agricultural
purposes since sometime prior to 1953 and is occupied by large green houses (used to cultivate
indoor plants), the company office, storage buildings, and a pesticide shed with a boiler and
chemical tanks for distribution of fertilizer and pesticide solutions. The site is also occupied by
the May single family residence and a garage. All existing development would be demolished
and/or removed to enable grading and the subdivision of the parcel into single family lots and a
public cul-de-sac street providing access from Park Drive.
. The proposed grading is consistent with existing topography in that single family pad elevations
range from 208 feet to 230 feet across the site. Proposed single family lots range in size from
10,896 square feet to 16,100 square feet. Park Drive and Monroe Street would provide access to
lots fronting on those streets, and a proposed cul-de-sac street (Street “A”) would provide access
to interior lots. The project would be required to improve the Park Drive and Monroe Street
frontages and construct Street “A” in compliance with the City’s local street standards.
The May subdivision project is subject to the following land use plans, policies, programs, and
zoning regulations:
A. General Plan
B. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program
1. Mello II Local Coastal Program Amendment
2. Development Regulations
C. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 2 1 (Zoning ‘Ordinance) including:
1. Chapter 21.10 - R-l One Family Residential Zone;
2. Chapter 21.85 - Inclusionary Housing and Chapter 21.53 - Site Development Plan
for Affordable Housing; and
3. Chapters 21.201 and 21.203 - Coastal Development Permit Procedures and
Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone.
D. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance)
E. Growth Management (Local Facilities Management Zone 1)
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these policies/regulations utilizing both text and
tables.
- A
ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12/C L 7 /-24/ SDP 98-05/CDP 97-58/ - MAY ,,uSDIVISION
July 15, 1998
A. General Plan
The project is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the General Plan.
Particularly relevant to the proposed standard single family subdivision are the Land Use
and Housing elements.
GCP (3.2 Dwelling Units/Acre)* 3.4 dwelling units/acre*
Urban low medium density single
family residential development.
* The General Plan allows infill * The project exceeds the GCP of 3.2
exceed the density range and/or infill subdivision located in LFMP Zone
GCP up to 25% above
would not enable a maximum density
permit a slightly higher yield,
Growth Management findings can in LFM Zone 1 to accommodate the
proposed units and there are excess
dwelling units in the quadrant to ensure
that the maximum number of dwelling
units in the northwest quadrant would
not be exceeded at buildout. The zone
change would ensure compatibility by
providing a transition zone between
existing R-l zoning and smaller lots to
the north and R-1-15,000 zoning and
larger lots to the south.
Circulation Require new development to Project is conditioned to complete all Yes
construct all roadways necessary street improvements prior to occupancy
to serve the development prior to of any unit.
or concurrent with demand.
Housing Ensure that subdivisions provide Project includes two second dwelling Yes
a minimum of 15 % of the total units on Lots 7 and 8 to satisfy its
units approved for lower income inclusionary housing requirement
households.
Bl. Local Coastal Program Amendment
The project is located within and-subject to the Mello II segment of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal
+Y
A
ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12/C A 7 /-241 SDP 98-OXDP 97-58/ - MAY SUBDIVISION
July 15, 1998
Page 4
Program (LCP) which designates the property for residential low medium density (RLM) land
use with a split R-l and R-1-15,000 zoning. Although the Mello II Land Use Map is
consistent with the RLM General Plan designation, the implementing zones (R-l and R-l-
15,000) are not consistent with the proposed zone change to R-1-10,000. As discussed above,
the proposed zone change is consistent with the RLM land use designation and would create a
logical transition between R-l zoning to the north and R-1-15,000 zoning to the south.
Since the California Coastal Act specifies that all rezonings related to land use regulation or
administration of the coastal zone, which occur after the certification of a local government’s
local coastal program, require a LCP amendment in order to be effective, the project includes a
Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the zoning map portion thereof (City Zone Map)
from R-l and R-1-15,000 to R-1-10,000 for the subject property.
B2. Mello II Local Coastal Program - Development Regulations
The project is subject to and consistent with applicable Mello II LCP resource preservation
policies and implementing ordinances Chapter 21.201 (Procedures) and Chapter 2 1.203 (Coastal
Resource Protection Overlay Zone) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. In accordance with Chapter
2 1.201, the proposed project includes an application for a Coastal Development Permit for the
subdivision of the property. A new coastal development permit will be required when actual
units are proposed on each single family lot. The applicable sections of Chapter 2 1.203 pertain
to the prevention of soil erosion, sediment control, and adequate drainage facilities. The subject
site, which has been previously graded and developed, contains no steep slopes or natural
vegetation. The project would be conditioned to require approval of a grading permit and
improvement plans to ensure that all erosion control, and drainage facilities are utilized or
constructed in accordance with City standards. The proposed development would not increase
the amount of storm-water runoff from the site, and runoff would be directed into existing storm
drains. Additionally, the project would be conditioned to prohibit grading during the rainy
season, October 1 to April 1, to avoid increased runoff and soil erosion.
Cl. Chapter 21.10 - R-l One Family Residential Zone
As shown on the following table, the single family subdivision meets or exceeds the R-l zone
standards for the proposed change to minimum 10,000 square foot lots and the provision of
detached second dwelling units on Lots 7 and 8.
STANDARD
Use
Lot Size
Lot Width
Second Dwelling Unit
Floor Area
Detached Second Dwelling
Unit Height
REQUIRED
Single Family Lots/
Second Dwelling Units
Minimum 10,000 Sq. Ft.
75 Feet
Maximum 640 Sq. Ft.
Single Story
PROPOSED
14 Single Family Lots
2 Second Dwelling Units
10,896 - 16,100 Sq. Ft.
Minimum 75 Feet
603 Sq. Ft.
Single Story - 12.5 Ft.
ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12/C 1 Y 7-24/ SDP 98-05/CDP 97-58/- MAY ,,tiBDIVISION
July 15, 1998
with main structure rear yard - same exterior
and roof materials as
c2. Chapter 21.85 Inclusionary Housing and Chapter 21.53 Site Development Plan
‘_. The project includes 14 single family lots and an inclusionary housing requirement of 2.47 units
which must be affordable to lower income households. The developer is proposing to satisfy the
affordable housing requirement by designating onsite two (2) lots for future second dwelling
units. As shown on Exhibit “ -“, the conceptually-designed second dwelling units would be
detached, 603 square foot single story structures located in the rear yards of Lots 7 and 8.
Tandem parking in the driveways of single family units would satisfy the off-street parking
requirement The remaining .47 of an inclusionary dwelling unit would be satisfied through the
payment of a fee equal to the fraction times the average subsidy needed to make affordable to a
lower income household, one newly constructed typical housing unit.
The Carlsbad Municipal Code requires approval of a site development plan for any affordable
housing project of any size. The proposed SDP for this project indicates which lots would be
designated and deed restricted for second dwelling units. The plans also include prototypical
preliminary floor plans and building elevations to illustrate that the proposed lots can
accommodate second dwelling units including parking. Since the actual units on each lot will be
proposed at some future date, the project would be conditioned to require a site development plan
amendment only if the second dwelling unit is reduced in size or footprint. Changes in second
dwelling unit architecture would be reviewed for compatibility with the main structure by the
Planning Director.
c3. Chapters 21.201 Coastal Development Permit Procedures and 21.203 Coastal
Resource Protection Overlay Zone
See discussion under Bl and B2 Mello II LCP above.
D. Subdivision Ordinance
The proposed tentative map complies with all the requirements of the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance. Currently, Monroe Street and Park Drive provide access to the project site, and the
developer must construct improvements to those frontages and construct future Street “A”, the
only proposed new public street serving the project. The project is conditioned to require local
street improvements to full width right-of-way including curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights,
h
ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12/CA 7 /-24/ SDP 98-05KDP 97-58/ - MAY out3DIVISION
July 15, 1998
and fire hydrants. The proposed street system is adequate to handle the project’s pedestrian and
vehicular traffic and accommodate emergency vehicles.
The hydraulic analysis performed for the project indicates that the rate of runoff from the
proposed development will be reduced from existing conditions due to the reduction in
impervious surfaces. Therefore, the proposed development will have less of an impact on
downstream drainage facilities than currently exists.
The subdivision 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
subdivision. The project has been designed and structured such that there are no conflicts with
any established easements.
E. Growth Management
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest
quadrant of the City. The impacts created by this development on public facilities and
compliance with adopted performance standards are summarized as follows:
The project is 1 .l dwelling units above the Growth Management Dwelling Unit
allowance of 14.9 dwelling units for the property as permitted by the Growth
Management Ordinance growth control point.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a
potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Based on the
findings of the initial study Part II, the project qualifies as subsequent development to the City’s
MEIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan update (EIR 93-01) certified in September, 1994, in
which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for cumulative impacts to air
quality and traffic. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the MEIR which are
43
- 1.
ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12/C i 7 /-24/ SDP 98-05/CDP 97-58/ - MAY outiDIVISION
July 15, 1998
appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the project. As a result of said review in
which a potentially significant health hazard was identified, mitigation to reduce that impact was
proposed by the applicant and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued on May 22. 1998.
The mitigation measure is based on a “Phase I Environmental Audit Report” performed for the
property by MV Environmental, Inc. in which it is recommended that a Phase II site assessment
be performed to determine the presence of hazardous materials in near surface soils. The Phase
II assessment will be performed upon demolition of the existing structures and prior to the
commencement of grading work for the project. The proposed mitigation also includes a
requirement for a mitigation plan for any necessary corrective work and verification from the
County Health Department that the mitigation plan has been implemented.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4330 (Mitigated Negative Declaration)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4325 (ZC)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4326 (LCPA)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4327 (CT)
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4328 (SDP)
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4329 (CDP)
7. Location Map
8. Background Data Sheet
9. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
10. Disclosure Statement
11. Proposed and Surrounding Zoning
12. Reduced Exhibits
13. Full Size Exhibits “A” - “G” dated July 1, 1998
AH:kc:mh
h -
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-l 2/CT 97-24/ SDP 98-05/CDP 97-58
CASE NAME: MAY SUBDIVISION
APPLICANT: JAMES & PATRICIA MAY
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Zone change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to rezone
an infill parcel from a split R-1-7500 and R-1-15000 zoning to R-l-l 0000 and tentative man, minor
site development Dlan and coastal develoDment permit to subdivide the 4.67 acre Darcel into 14
standard (10,000 square foot minimum) single family lots with detached 603 sauare foot second
dwelling units on two lots to satisfv inclusionarv housing requirements at the comer of Park Drive
and Monroe Street.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Lot “I” of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda in the County of
San Dieno, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 823, filed in the office of the
Countv Recorder of San Dierro Countv November 16.1896.
APN: 207-06 l-07 Acres: 4.67 Acres Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 14 Lots/l 6 Units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RLM
Density Allowed: 0 - 4 DU/ACRE (GCP = 3.2 DU/ACRE) Density Proposed: 3.4 DU/ACR.E
Existing Zone: R-l & R-1-15.000 Proposed Zone: R- 1 - 10,000
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site R-1-7,500/R-1-15,000 RLM (NURSERY/SINGLE
FAMILY)
North R-1-7500 RLM (SINGLE FAMILY)
South R-l-15,000 RLM (SINGLE FAMILY)
East R-1-10,000/R-1-15,000 RLM (SINGLE FAMILY)
West R-1-7500 RLM (SINGLE FAMILY)
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: CUSD Water District: CMWD Sewer District: CARLSBAD
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 16 EDU
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: DECEMBER 23, 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
El Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued MAY 22, 1998
El Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Cl Other,
+ 5-
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: ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12/CT 97-24/SDP 9%OXDP 97-58
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: LGENERAL PLAN: RLM
ZONING: PROPOSED - R-1-10,000
DEVELOPER’S NAME: JAMES & PATRICIA MAY
ADDRESS: 3926 PARK DRIVE. CARLSBAD. CA 92008
PHONE NO. (760) 434-3121 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 207-061-07
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 4.67 ACRES/ 14
LOTS/l 6 UNITS
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: UNKNOWN
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
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 ADT =
(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 EDU
Identify Sub Basin =
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD =
55.6 SO FT
29.6 SO FT
16 EDU
.ll ACRE
N/A
160 ADT
N/A
CUSD
16 EDU
3.520 GPD
L. The project is 1.1 dwelling unit above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all
applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City
Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. APPLICANT
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the
9 tz*;cr4 Q
3926 PmI(&,;e
IQ&LA L WC@
2. OWNER
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the
property involved.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership,
list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares
in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of
the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust.
47
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (619) 438-1161 l FAX (67 9) 438-0894
-
5. Have you had nl _ than $250 worth of business trar.,-;ted with any member of
City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve
(12) months?
0 Yes /@TIC If yes, please indicate person(s):
Person is defined es -Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club,
fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city
and county, city municipality, district‘ or other .political subdivision or any other group or
combination acting-as a unit.”
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
ia 119157 I .
;
a c
rEntI* cl-w-L t”naLL ~alrsl97
Signature of applicant/date 0
22kJbcd3 #&vd
Print or type name of owner
LA A/t//tr MI/
Print or type name of applicanp/
Disclosure Statement 1 O/96
3/y
Page 2 of 2
- . ..m-“D
ba I
1
~ ,
-m -0 5 “5 :cz =o!$
Mt. ,r,sJ$! t I’ i B I
n t!
#
.
II
1 P a !a ‘s .o
I I
VlN~OdlV3 owsltlvo - S3WOH 3AltlCl XWd
.4 z
t f b 5
f ! ‘
:
5 i5
b? OP =t 4(
i al.l...c..t i 66 :e!ftt* e
.11.1-- ,.- r.ir (C.% S3’JOH 3AltlQ )IklVd
VlNMOdlW3 av8sm3 I,LwI ,fi?sszEGK SWOH 3AlkJCl )IWd
/ ‘au1 sap3po~~ qgyhp!J~ .
. . .
WNtlOSlV3 avamv3 S3WOH 3ma XtlVd -
if c P L, J ’ I I ‘I.___
3
VINtlOdlV3 aves1w3 ,-ggg !$i%%E2%.. af fi@ “0
‘-B
f
a
,..,a ~~~~nc bjvlrun =11\1uu nuvo
'W('?- ?!DOS~#~$'@$$EL@Jj XF
EXHIBIT 7
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12/CT 97-24/ SDP 98-OWCDP 97-58 - MAY SUBDIVISION - Request for
approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan
and Coastal Development Permit to rezone a 4.67 acre in-fill site from R-l and R-1-15000 to R-
10,000 and allow the subdivision of 14 single family lots and two second dwelling units on property
generally located at the corner of Park Drive and Monroe Street in Local Facilities Management
Zone 1.
.:.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, introduced this item and stated that Associate Planner, Anne
Hysong, would present the staff report.
Project Planner, Anne Hysong, presented the staff report and described the project as follows: This is a
request for a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission, for a zone change, a Local
Coastal Program amendment, to re-zone a 4.67 acre in-fill parcel from R-1-7500 and R-1-15,000 to R-l-
10,000, and for Planning Commission approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel into 14 standard
single-family lots, ranging in size from 10,896 square feet to 16,100 square feet, a Site Development Plan
to allow second dwelling units on two lots to satisfy the projects inclusionary housing requirement, and a
Coastal Development Permit to ensure the subdivision’s consistency with the Mello II Local Coastal
Program. This site is currently occupied by the May Foliage Company greenhouses and one residence
and is surrounded by existing single-family residences. It is located at the corner of Monroe Street and
Park Drive, in the northwest quadrant. It is the only undeveloped parcel at the corner of Monroe Street
and Park Drive. The parcel is designated by the General Plan for Residential Low Medium density and
the proposed density of 3.4 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the density permitted in in-fill areas
by the RLM designation. The proposed re-zone to R-1-10,000 would not increase the permitted density or
allow a greater number of lots than the existing zoning, and would create a logical transition between the ‘,
existing R-1-7,500 zoning to the north and the R-1-15,000 zoning to the south. The project is consistent
with the relevant Mello II LCP policies, in that the proposed development will not increase the amount of
storm water run-off from the site, and run-off will be directed into the storm drains. Also, project grading
would be prohibited during the rainy season which is from October 1 to April 1. Since units are not
actually proposed, at this time, the project is conditioned to require Planning Commission approval of a
separate Coastal Development Permit for building placement and architecture prior to the issuance of
building permits for future units on each lot. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the R-1-10,000
zone development standards for lot configuration and second dwelling units, in that the proposed
conceptual second dwelling units are detached single-story units located in the rear yards of Lots 7 and 8.
The Site Development Plan illustrates that the conceptual 2,500 square foot two-story single-family units
and the detached 603 square foot second dwelling units, with additional off-street parking and compatible
architecture, could be accommodated on those lots. On July 9, 1998, the Housing Commission
recommended approval of the second dwelling units to satisfy the project’s inclusionary housing
requirement. Since actual units are not proposed, at this time, the project is conditioned so that a Site
54
MINI ITCC
PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 1998 Page 3
Development Plan for the actual second dwelling units would only be required if a reduction in the size or
the footprint is proposed at the time the actual units are proposed on each lot. The project is consistent
with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance and is conditioned to construct improvements, including curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, and fire hydrants to its Monroe Street and Park Drive frontages and to
construct the on-site Street A cul-de-sac to City cul-de-sac standards. Staffs environmental impact
assessment revealed that, due to proposed mitigation requiring corrective work for any contamination of
soils identified by a Phase II site assessment, the project would not result in a significant environmental
impact. The Planning Director, therefore, issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration on May 22, 1998. Since
the required findings for the various permits can be made, Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of ZC 97-08 and LCPA 97-12 and approve CT 97-24, SDP 98-05, and
CDP 97-08, as conditioned and including some recommended corrections to Resolution No. 4327, per the
errata sheet.
Ms. Hysong stated that a letter from David and Kathleen Rippberger, 3920 Monroe Street, Carlsbad, had
been received by the Planning Department, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department.
Chairperson Noble requested that Associate Engineer, Ken Quon, respond to the questions raised in Mr.
and Mrs. Rippberger’s letter.
Associate Engineer, Ken Quon, stated that there are four questions in the letter and his responses are as
follows:
Question #l: When we remodeled our house several years ago, the city placed a lien against it
to cover future curb, gutter, sidewalk, and road improvements. Will this project
activate that lien?
Answer: The City does have a Future Improvement Agreement with the Rippbergers,
recorded against their property. However, this project will not necessarily
necessitate that the Rippbergers construct those improvements at this time.
However, the City does reserve the right to call in that agreement at any time.
This project will not require that nor will it necessarily activate that lien.
Question #2: Our lot is about 4 feet above street level and already has a steeply sloping and
short driveway. If the street is widened, as part of this development, how will our
driveway problem be addressed and by whom?
Answer: The improvements proposed on this project, on Monroe Street, are on the
opposite side of the street and therefore the frontage of the Rippberger property
will remain unimproved and the driveway will not be affected.
Question #3: Will utilities on the northeast side of Monroe Street be put underground?
Answer: There is a condition of approval for the project to underground all utilities fronting
the project, which is on Park Drive. The utilities are on the opposite side of
Monroe Street from the project and therefore will not be placed underground.
Mr. Quon stated that question #I4 had already been addressed in the staff report.
Chairperson Noble asked Ms. Hysong to address question #4.
Ms. Hysong stated that the staff report did address this question, in that there is a mitigation condition that
requires a remediation plan if it is necessary. That will be determined through a Phase II site assessment.
After all the current structures have been demolished, and before any grading can begin, another soils
testing will be done.
Commissioner Welshons asked that question #4 be read and explain that if they do find some problems,
57 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 1998 Page 4
what will happen, whether or not project will proceed forward, and any delays that would occur as a result
of the problems.
Ms. Hysong stated question #4 as follows:
Question #4: The site has been a nursery for many years. Has the soil been tested for
pesticide and herbicide residue? Is there a plan for remediation?
Answer: Staff did look at this, as a part of the environmental review, and a Phase I
assessment was submitted. A Phase I assessment determines whether or not
there has been pesticide use on the property. The records show that no pesticide
accidents have occurred, over the years, and preliminary testing showed that
there is no significant contamination. It was recommended, however, that a
Phase II site assessment be conducted after the existing greenhouse structures
are demolished and before the grading permit is issued. If any remedial work is
necessary to clean up the soils, the clean-up work would have to be done at that
time. As part of that condition, the developer would have to submit their clean-up
plan to the City and subsequently, show proof that the clean-up has been
accomplished.
Commissioner Compas asked staff to address the concerns of the neighbors regarding the increase in
traffic resulting in this shift to the higher density lot size.
Ms. Hysong replied that, as stated in the staff report, there will be no increased density, in that it was
designated RLM previously which allowed a certain number of units per acre and that is still the case. This
project will actually have fewer units than the number of units allowed with the previous zoning of R-l-
7,500 for the northern half of the parcel. The ADT was calculated using ten trips per day, for sixteen
dwellings, totaling 160 ADT which was projected for that site in the General Plan.
Chairperson Noble asked the applicant if he wishes to continue this hearing to another date when all
seven Commissioners are present.
Applicant, Jim Laret, stated that he does not wish to continue this item to a later date.
Applicant, Jim Laret, 5708 Calzada del Bosque, P.O. Box 9661, Rancho Sante Fe, representing Chris and
Jim May to seek approval of this proposed subdivision. Mr. Laret stated that, years ago, a divided zone
was established on this property that requires a modification of the Local Coastal Program. He explained
that the reason for the multiple applications being proposed is that there is a divided zone and a Local
Coastal Plan that reflected that zone and is a conversion from agricultural land uses. Mr. Laret stated that
based upon a meeting with staff a couple of years ago, and in investigating the ability to subdivide the
property because of the divided zone, they have been required to apply for some re-zone of some type.
Therefore the recommendation was to apply for a re-zone to R-1-10,000 to facilitate the transition between
the R-1-7,500 zone and the R-1-15000 zone. He added that if they had decided to subdivide, consistent
with the existing zoning, they would effectively be allowed to have 18 dwelling units as opposed to 16
units. There would be smaller lots on the west side and larger lots on the east side. With regard to run-
off, Mr. Laret stated that they expect a reduction of run-off after the greenhouses are demolished. Mr.
Laret pointed out that this project is conditioned to provide half-street improvements on the west and north
sides of the site as well as the conversion of the overhead power lines to underground. Mr. Laret
concluded by stating that this project is in compliance with all the regulations of the City of Carlsbad, that
he and his clients also support the conditions that have been imposed by staff, and asked that these
applications be approved.
Chairperson Noble opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak.
James C. Bottomly, Attorney at Law, 5963 La Place Court, #209, Carlsbad, representing a group of 19
homeowners neighboring this project. Mr. Bottomly stated that the group is not opposed to a residential
MINUTES a-8
PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 1998 Page 5
subdivision but they are concerned about whether or not it is the right subdivision for this property. Their
concerns are mainly for traffic, density, and compatibility. Mr. Bottomly suggested that staff was incorrect
in stating that this project would not increase density, in that he has had this project analyzed by a land
planner and based on the existing zoning, it would not be possible to get 16 units, or 14 lots in this
subdivision and the only way to get that number of lots and units would be to rezone to R-1-10,000. Mr.
Bottomly also stated that the planner he consulted with stated that he would challenge the developer to try
to get that many units with the existing zoning. He further stated that the proposed project definitely
increases density over the present agricultural use and it increases it over what they think should be the
compatible use. Regarding compatibility, Mr. Bottomly stated that he and his clients feel that the two
second dwelling units, on Lots 7 and 8, are not compatible and they hope there is some other way to
satisfy the affordable housing requirements. Mr. Bottomly suggested that the 3.4 units per acre is more
than the growth control point of 3.2 units per acre (not mentioned in the presentation). He agreed that it is
only slightly over the control point but it still creates a burden on things like traffic, parks, school, etc. He
also suggested that the City should be approving projects which are less dense than the growth control
point and not more. Regarding traffic, Mr. Bottomly pointed out that both Park Drive and Monroe Street
appear to be substantial traffic arteries that are already congested, especially during school hours. It has
become increasingly dangerous for walkers, especially the senior citizens and school children. He further
stated that 16 single-family residences will significantly add to the congestion. According to the planner
(consultant), this subdivision should contain no more than 8 or 10 single-family residences with the
affordable housing units being taken care of off-site or in some other manner. Referring to the exhibits,
Mr. Bottomly indicated that Lots 3, 4, 5, and 14 should be 15,000 square feet, to be compatible with the
adjacent 15,000 square foot properties on the east side of the project. He also pointed out that there are
some much larger lots in the adjacent areas. Mr. Bottomly also suggested that the applicant appears to
be trying to design a project to yield the maximum number of units that the re-zoning (to 10,000 square
feet) will accomplish and that if the R-1-7,500 and R-l-15,000 zoning is not changed, he could not get as
many units in the project. He added that if there is going to be a transitional zoning at this project, it
should be no less than 12,500 square feet.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Bottomly to explain his opening remarks regarding density over the
compatible uses.
Mr. Bottomly replied that if, with the existing zoning, 7,500 square foot parcels were put in on the west side
of the site and 15,000 square foot parcels on the east side, and with a cul-de-sac, the developer would not
be able to get 14 lots. By re-zoning the whole thing to 10,000 square feet, they’ve been able to get 14 lots
on the site. It is his contention, he added, that if they would leave the present zoning in tact, the density
would not be as severely increased.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Bottomly to re-state the number of lots his group would rather see in
this subdivision.
Mr. Bottomly replied that they would like to see all of the lot sizes increased to 12,500 square feet which
would yield approximately 10 single-family lots.
Commissioner Welshons pointed out that with the reduction of four houses, the ADT would only be
reduced by 40 ADT.
Mr. Bottomly responded by stating that the number of dwelling units would be reduced from 16 to 10,
resulting in a decrease of 60 ADT.
Commissioner Welshons asked if the magic number of ADT is 100, and if that number makes the
difference between whether or not the number of ADT are palatable to his group.
Mr. Bottomly replied that his group would be more satisfied if the project were redesigned, as he has
suggested, because it would be more compatible with the surrounding area.
PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 1998
Wayne Van der Linden, 3961 Scott Drive, Carlsbad, stated that his lot is immediately adjacent to Lots No.
2 and 3 and that his lot and those of some of his neighbors, are four feet lower than Lots 2 and 3. He
further stated that one of their concerns is the proposed two-story homes that may be built on those lots.
He pointed out that there is no two-story homes anywhere else in this area, and they are quite fearful that
if there are two-story homes built on Lots 2 and 3, it will constitute an invasion of their privacy. Mr. Van
der Linden went on to say that he and his present neighbors enjoy their backyards and they hope that
their new neighbors will have the opportunity to enjoy theirs in a like manner. Mr. Van der Linden asked
when the Affordable Housing Ordinance went into effect, and, is that ordinance always applied uniformly
(without exception) to all subdivisions in Carlsbad. In addition, he asked, if there have been exceptions to
the application of the ordinance, were those exceptions made because of demographics, locations, costs
of the homes, the locations of the homes, etc. He went on to state that, in his opinion, he thinks there is
some other way to meet the requirements of the ordinance by building them somewhere else. Mr. Van
der Linden also voiced general concern for the possible devaluation of his and other properties in the
neighborhood, as a result of this subdivision of two-story homes. He further stated that it is his feeling that
a devaluation resulting from this project constitutes seizure of property without due process and that he is
sure that the federal government is the Big Brother behind all of this.
Laura Ramenofsky, 4020 Sunnyhill Drive, Carlsbad, stated that her home is located on a 28,000 square
foot lot and that size lot is the size that the Carlsbad Highlands was originally intended to have. She also
stated that she has a copy of the original Carlsbad Highlands CC&Rs, in which lot sizes are discussed.
Ms. Ramenofsky went on to say that she is very concerned about the increase in traffic, no matter how
much or how little. She invited the Commissioners to come to her home on a Friday afternoon, when the
Carlsbad High School students get out of school, and sit on her balcony and observe the dangerous
situation where Alder comes down from Skyline and joins the road where Monroe Street turns into
Sunnyhill Drive. Ms. Ramenofsky stated that there is nothing that can be done to change the
configuration of the road because of the houses at that corner. She pointed out that there have been
numerous terrible accidents at that intersection and with more traffic coming out onto Monroe Street, there
will be even more accidents. Once again, she voiced an open invitation to her home to the
Commissioners. Regarding sidewalks and gutters, Ms. Ramenofsky stated that many residents of the
neighborhood, including herself, do not want sidewalks and gutters because they prefer to keep the rural
flavor of the Highlands.
Pamela Wischkaemper, 4039 Sunnyhill Drive, Carlsbad, stated that she has only two concerns; 1) the loss
of the rural atmosphere by the addition of a subdivision in the neighborhood; and, 2) the loss of privacy,
view, and possible land value, by the addition of a subdivision of so many lots with two-story houses.
Gordon Prentice, 3955 Monroe Street, Carlsbad, stated that his property is one of the last estate sized lots
left in the Carlsbad Highlands, which is a 29,000 square foot lot. He also stated that he was more or less
comfortable knowing that the zoning is 15,000 square feet on Monroe Street at the proposed subdivision
site. Under those circumstances, the lots would be a fair distance from the street and there would not be
a great number of homes abutting his property, He went on to say that he would prefer to see larger
homes, to protect the value of the surrounding properties, and the larger size lots would quite probably
encourage the construction of single-story homes as opposed to two-story homes. As for the sidewalks
and gutters, Mr. Prentice stated that he has written several letters to the City, endeavoring to get curbs
and gutters and has been told that perhaps once the subdivision is in and the curb and gutter comes up to
his property, there may be a possibility for the rest of the street to have curb and gutter installed. He
pointed out that in his block (where Sunnyhill Drive meets Monroe Street) the road is a crowned road and
pedestrians are forced to walk quite far out into the road where it is very dangerous with cars speeding
around the corner as pointed out by Ms. Ramenofsky. He pointed out that just the day before this
meeting, his neighborhood lost their telephone and cable service because some type of vehicle (car, truck,
crane, etc.) came around that bend and hit the telephone pole at the edge of that crowned roadway.
Joe Collins, speaking on behalf of his brother who is disabled after a serious head injury and who resides
at 4001 Sunnyhill Drive, Carlsbad, stated that just today, his brother’s conservator was hit by a car driving
down Sunnyhill Drive around the blind corner. He stated that his brother has a variety of care givers who
come and go on a daily basis and they fear for their safety. Mr. Collins stated that they have all known
MINUTES LO
PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 1998 Page 7
that the agricultural property would someday be sold but they have always hoped that if a subdivision
were constructed there, it would be somewhat smaller than the proposed project. He asked that the
Commissioner give consideration to the concerns of the residents regarding the traffic.
Frank Radosevic 3960 Scott Drive, Carlsbad (immediately to the south of Lot No. 3) stated that in the
history of this Highlands area, there has only been one two-story home built and that was many years ago
before there were very many homes at all. He stated that, at that time, there was a great deal of
controversy over that two-story house and the residents made it known to the then Planning Commission
that they were concerned for the future of the area. Their main concern was the possibility of other two-
story homes built where single-story homes predominate. Mr. Radosevic further stated that this proposed
development must be designed in such a way as to blend and harmonize with all surrounding houses, by
the size of the houses, the size of the lots, by the density, etc. Mr. Radosevic concluded by asking the
Commission to give deep consideration for keeping conformity with the surrounding area.
Phyllis Naugler, 4010 Sunnyhill Drive, Carlsbad, stated that she has seen traffic building over the years
and is very happy to see that there will be curbs and gutters installed with the advent of this project. She
added that if the density can be better controlled and curbs and gutters built, that would be the answer to
many problems.
Applicant’s representative, Matt Peterson, Attorney at Law, 530 B. Street, Suite 1700, San Diego,
responded to the concerns of those giving testimony as follows:
1. Regarding the subject of two-story homes; This is not the stage during which to address that
issue. The time to address that issue is when the projects come back for individual Coastal
Development Permits, At that time the issues of compatibility to the neighborhood and the
various findings for a Coastal Development Permit will be addressed. This is merely a
subdivision and is a way to clarify and/or re-zone an existing split zone.
2. Regarding compatibility; When the R-l-l 0,000 square foot lots are shown against existing lots,
they line up perfectly as do the R-1-7500 square foot lots. The four lots at the southeast
corner, along the eastern boundary, and the northeast corner respectively, are large irregularly
shaped lots, but they have also been placed adjacent to the existing 15,000 square foot lots.
3. Regarding the affordable housing (second dwelling units); the requirement for inclusionary
housing is in the Carlsbad Municipal Code and must be complied with. The two affordable
units will be in the middle of the project and not on the periphery and adjacent to other single-
family homes. They are designed to be in the middle of the project, on the cul-de-sac.
4. Regarding the view blockage; Mr. Peterson was unsure as to how to address this issue since
there is no View Ordinance in the City of Carlsbad.
5. Regarding safety for children; with the present nursery situation, there are a variety of trucks
entering and exiting the property and to reduce the project to ten or twelve units, it is unclear as
to how that relates to safety for children in the schools. It is assumed that the parents of the
children living in the subdivision will be more careful and give more attention to the safety of
their children than the trucks are likely to give.
6. Regarding the sidewalks, curbs, and gutters; those items are required by the City and if the
City chooses to waive those requirements, the developer will certainly be willing to address the
subject.
7. Regarding the concern for the traffic on Sunnyhill Drive; there is a concern for those residents
in and near the area, as heard in previous testimony, but it is believed that this subdivision will
not affect that particular curve or corner.
MINUTES la’
C
PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 1998 Page 8
Mr. Peterson pointed out that the subdivision before the Commission has been in process for quite some
time, is consistent with the General Plan, is less dense than what would or could be allowed by the
General Plan. He pointed out that is the maximum number of lots allowable for this acreage were to be
built, there would be approximately 17 lots instead of 14. Mr. Peterson urged the Commission’s
recommendation of approval for this project.
Commissioner Compas stated that his interpretation of Mr. Van der Linden’s testimony is that Mr. Van der
Linden’s concern is not for his loss of view but for his loss of privacy.
Mr. Peterson replied that if that, in fact, is a concern, there are many ways to mitigate that concern and
pointed out that trees, fencing, and other landscaping could certainly be used. He further pointed out that
that issue will be addressed when the Coastal Development Permits come before the Commission for
approval.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Noble closed Public Testimony.
Ms. Hysong presented an overhead exhibit of the surrounding lot sizes and pointed out how well the
project will integrate with the present neighborhood and indicated present lots that are approximately the
same size as those proposed. In some cases the existing lots are larger and in some cases they are
smaller. During the earlier part of this subdivision process, staff looked at the surrounding lot sizes to
determine what would constitute a good transition between the existing and the proposed lots and the
proposed subdivision is the result.
Regarding the two-story house issue, Ms. Hysong substantiated Mr. Peterson’s testimony, in that the
issue of two-stories versus single-story, views, etc., will be addressed when individual Coastal
Development Permits come before the Commission and the current proposal is for re-zoning and land
subdivision, not for the actual construction of units. Ms. Hysong pointed out that the City’s Coastal
Development Ordinance does not speak to housing design or view preservation in this area so that there
would be nothing that staff would have to find or, in terms of findings, provide to the Commission to require
single-story units. She also pointed out that Carlsbad’s R-l zone allows a 30 foot maximum height, two-
story, single-family units on R-l lots. Ms. Hysong also mentioned that Mr. Peterson was somewhat
incorrect in his calculation that with smaller lots, it would be possible to have 17 or 18 lots in this
subdivision, She indicated that the General Plan dictates density on property in the City of Carlsbad, and
as indicated in the staff report, the property is designated RLM and would not allow density higher than 0
to 4 dwelling units per acre with a growth control point of 3.2 dwelling units acre, which allows a maximum
of 14 dwelling units on the property. The proposed density increase (second dwelling units) is allowed
through a provision in the General Plan that allows in-fill subdivisions to have the density increased, above
the growth ‘control point and density range to 5 dwelling units per acre, which, for this project, would make
it possible to have up to 18 lots.
Regarding the testimony stating that it is not possible to get 14 lots on this property if the project were held
to the existing zoning. Ms. Hysong stated that perhaps 14 lots would not be possible with the current
zoning and this subdivision design, but she assured the Commission that some other subdivision design,
with the current zoning, would get 14 lots. She suggested that if the zoning were to remain as it is, the
property could be designed with two small 7,500 square foot lots along the cul-de-sac along the Park
Drive frontage, and very large lots along the southern boundary, etc.
Regarding the question about uniform application of the Affordable Housing Ordinance, Ms. Hysong stated
that the City of Carlsbad applies the Affordable Housing Ordinance to every single subdivision that comes
before the Commission. Every subdivision has a 15% requirement which requires the setting aside, or
provision of some other alternative, of 15% of the total number of units for affordable housing. In some cases credits can be purchased. However, in the Northwest Quadrant there is no opportunity for a
subdivision to purchase credits in an off-site combined project, because there is no affordable project that
is available to them. The only other alternative for this project, since the City does not have an in-lieu fee
in place for subdivisions that exceed 7 lots or units, is to either provide the second dwelling units or to set
aside two of the single-family units (on-site) as affordable housing.
-
PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 1998 Page 9
Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Hysong when the Affordable Housing Ordinance was enacted.
Ms. Hysong replied that the ordinance was enacted in 1993.
Mr. Quon, with reference to the intersection of Alder Street and Sunnyhill Drive, stated that that is an
existing, non-complying intersection and while the City recognizes that there may be problems with people
driving at excessive speeds and turning through that intersection, it would be difficult to relate the
improvement of that intersection to this project. To impose the improvement of the intersection on this
project would be excessive because it would require the project to fix an intersection that is not within it’s
frontage or within the boundaries of the subdivision. Mr. Quon further stated that the Traffic Engineering
Department does monitor intersections for accident history and they do take measures, on a periodic
basis, to try to make intersections safer. While the City acknowledges that the intersection in-question is a
non-complying intersection, physically, there is not much that can be done to make the intersection
straight and thus, safer.
With regard to the installation of public improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk), Mr. Quon stated that
that is a standard improvement of streets built today, and this would be the only opportunity to obtain the
improvements along the frontage of the subject property.
Chairperson Noble asked Mr. Quon, for clarification, if he is correct in stating that Mr. & Mrs. Rippberger
will not be required to pay for improvements until such time as the improvements are required on their side
of the street and they will not be required to contribute to the improvements required for this subdivision.
Mr. Quon replied that Chairperson Noble is correct and that when the time comes, the Rippbergers will be
required to construct their own improvements.
Commissioner Welshons asked if her understanding of Ms. Hysong’s clarification pertaining to the Coastal
Development Permit, is correct, in that she understood Ms. Hysong to say that it would be difficult for staff
to make findings to require that this project be conditioned with one-story homes.
Ms. Hysong replied that the Commissioner is correct in her understanding.
Commissioner Welshons then asked if she would be correct in stating that if the Commission chose to
condition this project to single-story homes or a mix of both single and two-story homes, now would be the
time to impose that condition.
Ms. Hysong agreed that now would be the time to impose that condition.
Commissioner Compas asked if the second dwelling unit, on Lot 7, is the one whose parking is provided in
the 3-car garage.
Ms. Hysong replied that she believes that there is a tandem space in front of that garage.
Commissioner Compas then asked how the occupant of that second dwelling unit will get to their unit.
Ms. Hysong replied that they will have to walk around to the unit. She pointed out that there is no specific
design, as yet, and that all anyone can go by is the footprint that has been provided. She further stated
that a walkway will be required for access.
Commissioner Nielsen, stated that he has no problem with this proposed subdivision. As for a condition
for single-story homes, exclusively, he questioned whether or not it is in the purview of this Commission to
make that condition because there is no view ordinance and that mixtures are not normally dictated on R-
1 conforming neighborhoods.
Commissioner Compas stated that he appreciates the concerns of the neighborhood because this in-fill
MINUTES 4 3
PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 1998 Page 10
project will probably change the way things look, but he does not feel that findings can be made that would
cause him to not support the project.
Commissioner Welshons also expressed her appreciation for the public comment which raised some very
good points and raised some very worthwhile concerns. However, she stated that she agrees with both
Commissioner Nielsen and Commissioner Compas and that she is reticent about putting a condition on
the project for single-story homes, exclusively, because such a condition would not prevent any of the
surrounding residences from being increased to two-story dwellings, if the owner(s) desired to do so.
Commissioner Welshons also stated that after hearing the concerns of the currents neighbors, the
developer will probably not design the houses with an over abundance of glass overlooking the backyards.
She also expressed the hope that staff would take care in how the homes are designed and how they
abut to the neighboring homes. In addition, Commissioner Welshons stated that she is comfortable with
the zoning transitions, as they have been explained. Regarding traffic, Commissioner Welshons stated
that there is a trade-off for the additional traffic. She alluded to the fact that even though the residents
would prefer to retain the rural flavor, the addition of the sidewalks, curbs, and gutters are in the interest of
safety and therein lies the trade-off. She expressed her support for the project.
Commissioner Monroy stated that he can support the project, as presented. He pointed out that he has
been an active supporter of pedestrian issues and is wholly in favor of the street improvements that will be
constructed with this project.
Commissioner Heineman stated his support for the project and that he feels that the problems of having
two-story homes adjacent to single-story homes can be mitigated particularly with landscaping.
Chairperson Noble stated that his home is on a 7,000 square foot lot and his neighbor’s lot is 19 feet
lower. He stated that with the landscaping and a four foot fence, he can talk to his neighbor but he can’t
see him and all he can see is his neighbor’s chimney. He pointed out that there were concerns brought
forth during Public Testimony that the Planning Commission has no control over and the only thing the
Commission can do, at this time, is to recommend or not recommend approval of the current applications
to the City Council.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, called the Commission’s attention to two changes that need to
be made to Resolution No. 4328, Page 2, Item B), Line 2X-3, to correct CT 97-24 to SDP 98-05, and to
Resolution No. 4328, Page 3, Line 1, to delete the remainder of the paragraph after MUNICIPAL CCDE.
Mr. Wayne explained that any changes to the second dwelling unit require an amendment.
As a point of clarification, Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Rudolf to explain what the interested parties
can appeal to the City Council.
Mr. Wayne replied that they can appeal any action made by this Commission and the only thing that will
be before the Council will be that portion (or portions) they appeal and pointed out that any final action by
this Commission will have to be appealed to the City Council within 10 calendar days, if they chose to do
so.
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4330, 4325, and 4326, recommending approval of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
ZC 97-08 and LCPA 97-12, and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No.
4327, 4328, and 4329, with the corrections to Resolution No. 4328 as
recommended by Assistant Planning Director Wayne, approving CT 97-24, SDP
98-05, and CDP 97-58, based upon the findings and subject to the coraditions
contained therein.
6-O
Noble, ‘Heineman, Monroy, Welshons, Compas, and Nielsen
None
EXHIBIT 8
DATE: July 27, 1998
TO:
FROM:
BE:
Bobbie Hoder - Planner
Sherrie Worrell - Clerk’s Offic
May Subdivision - CT 97-24/SDP 98-OYCDP 97-58
. . 9,’
,\. , ‘, “. ,’
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date
that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda
bill is signed off by a parties.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the Agenda Bill Preparation
Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council meeting of: .
Signature Date
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive l Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 l (760) 434-2808 h-
, . .. ‘.’ -.-
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
434-2867
ACCOUNT NO. I DESCRIPTION
I _.. I I , :’ : I I /’ i / i -
-.
! I .i\ j& ii t. (. ! -. ’ * :
:
\ ._I > L? i 4 / (L-+.. : 1 I .j I
: I
@ Rintcd on rccyclcd paper. CASH REGISTER
APPEAL FORM
peal the decision of the
arlsbad City Council.
Date of Decision you are appealing: &by 6, /45f 1
Subiect of ADpeak
BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a Cii Engineer’s Decision, please say so. If a proje has
multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, e .) please
list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here. F
Reason(s) for ADDeal: l Please Note l Failure to specify a reason may result in d nial of
the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your ppeal.
BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker en? What about the decision is inconsistent with s te or local
laws, plans, or policy? i
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-“808 k7
@
h
.
Ld$ sizes are not compatible to abutting lots: Lots 1,2 & 3 approx 12000 sq. ft abut 7500 sq. ft lots. Lots 7,8, 9 & 10 are 12000 to 14000 sq. ft. on Park Drive and f 7500 sq. ft. lots directly across the street. Lots 4, 5, 10 and 14 are approx. 10000 sq.ft. and abut properti which are well over 20,000. sq. ft. and zoned Rl 15,000. sq. f
Sites on Monroe street should be no less than 15,000 sq. ft.
The density is definitly increased by at least two dwelling lot per attached map and the project should be reduced to no more than 0 lots to maintain the integrity of the surrounding community. I
The impact on traffic on Monroe street is much greater than sta ed by the planning commission as Monroe has become a direct artery to
Restaurants and Shopping Malls (Jefferson and Marron) Four-in-one movie complex The Van's shopping and banking center Plaza Camino Real Masnolia elementary School Valley Jr. High - Carlsbad High Pilgrim Pre School The Public Pool The Comunity center The Woman's Club The Morman Church Pilgrim Evangelical 78 Freeway access Curch
Monroe is being used as an alternative to the over--crowded El Real endangering our children as they go to and from schools an church.
A traffic study should be done on Monroe and Park Drive during sessions prior any project being approved.
unino
:hool
- ~ EXHIBIT 9
C
c
MAY PROJECT APPEAL SEPTEMBER 8, L998
I PRESENT ZONING
A) City Review of zone changes and General plan ammendments.
B) Purposed project vs. property
Cl May project map
D) Existing zoning map
El Our proposed project map.
1'1 TRAFFIC
A) Over-all map of ares
value.
B) Specifics on Monroe Street (Mapping route)
Cl Blind corner and safety
. .
l
i
L
4
.
4
RPJGH -‘EM. LAYPJT
-WITH EXISTING ZONING- 16 LOT9
L
4
<Its 0; * 1
A PARK DR . ‘r .-
\
I 2 3 -6’ * MIN.
4
6
4 5.’
75oo.SEh4At .T
1
14
MIN. 15
I
. , V’.. ’ :
I
.
&. ,2 . c>
::, I” : . -s 19 ,Q * 8 ‘p c
\ .!a
.’ ‘$ 0
.
.A, .---A-. _ _ . . . . . . _.
-
.
,, ?d\-; i
,, s,i$ : Yj,q .. .I c f .-.;,:. / ‘,, ,’ .t #ii L 5 01; 1 : ‘, I :! 1 I !, :’
;I i ’ ,
+
L
!:
I’ ’
, 1’. :
.C 1:
‘$d :
‘, !I’. ! 1: .I.;,
:‘I(
:I ii
I’ I, j, !‘:
h ::i.
* b ‘:
$
: 3,
: 3:
../,
jl' :
i; ! vi
' /:
./ .m
,j; . b * __ I
.- . 0
-k s i 3;;; Y \/
__-.--- _-.-- -. 4
n “. _...
\I \/-
we, the residents of Carlsbad, California, hereby petition the Mayor . of Carlsbad and the City Council to reject the re-zoning of the property at Park Drive and Monroe Street for the following reasons:
It is not in keeping with the adjoining properties.
It will create a traffic hazard on an already over- used residential street which has become a main thoroughfare to the Carlsbad and Oceanside Malls, theatres, Wal-Mart, banks, restaurants, schools, churches and many other community activities such as the woman's club, swimming pool and culture center..
In order to avoid using over-crowded El Camino Real motorists are increasingly using Monroe Street as a short cut to the 78 freeway.
Monroe to the south becomes Sunnyhill and the huge tract built at the end of Sunnyhill a few years ago increased the traffic flow.
When that tract was built we were promised improved streets, sidewalks and curbs. Our children are still walking to school in the street. All pedestrians safety is at stake.
There is presently very little traffic created by the nursery. The addition of 16 homes will definitely impact the area to a much greater extent than reported.
The developers request 14 additional houses and as if that isn't enough they want two additional units on two of the lots.
As you know there are other ways to take care of the necessary low cost housing requirement.
The owner's desire for top dollar and developer greed are not valid reasons to increase traffic on what, should remain a reasonably used residential street. ,
The City has recognized,the additional traffic hazard by recently replacing an arterial stop sign at the intersection of Chestnut and Monroe with a stop-and-go signal. ',
To our knowledge there has never been a traffic study made in'this area. Surely one should be done during school sessions prior to a zoning change.
If this property is re-zoned then other property owners in similar situations should be allowed to re-zone creating even more traffic as they too split their half acre lots in order to maximize their investments.
We request you protect our city's streets by re-zoning the entire parcel Rl-15000 and denying the second units on two lots which would reduce the project to approximately eleven homes.
J-3 ___
:&- -.--“._
/5- . - ..-_-.
4 _*_.--
/7 . _ I. ._. ._ .
I? . . . ._._-___
/f & .-_-----l_
* &. __. __
x3!-. . ..- .,_--
ow . . . . . -._ __.--
..____. -.._ ..-.... ..1. ...I..- . . . -_ ._..- __I._I_
---.----.-* ..~..---_-. L_.-ee...-.“.e .-,-... _...*-.-... -..-.-I.-.-
--.--... ._. .“-.--- -.. . . _ ,_.^__ ---_--- ._r.._-. --- _
_ . _ _-.. __.---_---.
._- ,. -.__C__,-
1:
/I-. jj ! 1: -$ -
/I
.‘j 1’
I
c
~~~~~~~~._-
’ 9 Id,r Y . “. .-.“r.---- --,_ -_ -__- .----.... -...-.-- .^_ . ._..
WY6 J-.4&&?iki*r,e-~
.- -- ._--L--
__.*..-.
-. --- ,.
3 $L&.. p&.g .“&?!~k!& - . ._. . .“... . - -
* Y/cI -3 yc 0 sro# k-..-.w-__.
a mace.. .d:iE. . . .- .,_ z.:..
is!iis sizqfk&&.~~~, 7
.--_C_-.- -,-..-- . ..“_ __-_._
.I
._ ___, .-_._ ___....-_... -_ _._“l_l_“-., . . . __ _ _..-,, b.+L . . . . ., _ “_ -
.” _-_--., “.mm- ,.‘,-~-GA......,...“,. . .- I.. --.. -.
: :
-“- -----~____ --_-_-- ~.-- ..-. -. “._“.. . . .._ ._-_ ____
‘.
__-_._ A.. .- ---.- . r.______,_.
- --.--.^^----LII.IC,“T..lil. ‘
----_- -_-- .-___.__-.____
I.-- --*,., . . . . . .: _ .1. ‘-. .__A...& ___., _ .._ _. .,-- _-..- ..--. “^.____
------.. _I_ ,, ._ I ” ..,
.“_,,. __-- -----.- ^ --.--. -,_ ..-.. - --..-. -..- --1.1.. *_ .-
*
We, the residents of Carlsbad, California, hereby petition the Mayor . of Carlsbad and the City Council to reject the re-zoning of the property at Park Drive and Monroe Street for the following reasons:
It is not in keeping with the adjoining properties.
It will create a traffic hazard on an already over- used residential street which has become a main thoroughfare to the Carlsbad and Oceanside Malls, theatres, Wal-Mart, banks, restaurants, schools, churches and many other community activities such as the woman's club, swimming pool and culture center..
In order to avoid using over-crowded El Camino Real motorists are increasingly using Monroe Street as a short cut to the 78 freeway.
Monroe to the south becomes Sunnyhill and the huge tract built at the end of Sunnyhill a few years ago increased the traffic flow.
When that tract was built we were promised improved streets, sidewalks and curbs. Our children are still walking to school in the street. All pedestrians safety is at stake.
There is presently very little traffic created by the nursery. The addition of 16 homes will definitely impact the area to a much greater extent than reported.
The developers request 14 additional houses and as if that isn't enough they want two additional units on two of the lots.
As you know there are other ways to take care of the necessary low cost housing requirement.
The owner's desire for top dollar and developer greed are not valid reasons to increase traffic on what should remain a reasonably used residential street.
The City has recognized the additional traffic hazard by recently replacing an arterial stop sign at the intersection of Chestnut and Monroe with a stop-and-go signal.
To our knowledge there has never been a traffic study made in this area. Surely one should be done during school sessions prior to a zoning change.
If this property is re-zoned then other property owners in similar situations should be allowed to re-zone creating even more traffic as they too split their half acre lots in order to maximize their investments.
We request you protect our city's streets by re-zoning the entire parcel Rl-15000 and denying the second units on two lots which would reduce the project to approximately eleven homes.
D ” /.$J;- -_ _..-.
: j+4e . ...“. -“-
<d +ls
I
. _ . ._ . I -. _
If d?l . .- ..__ __..- 2\\1\9%
Q- &?p-
_.- -.. .._- . _ I
?d 3- UL-..
y..-3 -“ry .“. _I---
‘19-3- 9jy .-,.. . “_..__
, .._ _ _..-
L . . .- -._-
c--“-
- ..- .---_.- .--- --
---. _ ._ .__-
Ah!!fz- --__- “.“.- ---
.-.. -.“,-- .-_I_
--_---- m-m--
,. . _ c^ .._ ” ,.._. .._ . .“..,_.-_“-_---
-1 .- ,-.- .- ,. . . _” _... -_ _,_- -..---I_--
--------- _)-.- .--___. *..._. _ “._”
--2-.% l’i nuYlQ6 St- -p-“.---
ro P&g&& ___I_.----. -_ -.._-- -_“. . ..-- -- -. LC.bbiy 4, 39 z2-T Pwk lw;\le k* WK s -.I_---..- -- -__...__ _,.__ ._...._. ‘t:c gixs jq +h%. NL
$966 bt&Q&Gfi
5Ta5*?5@
5q&,&&?e6
3q/smti dh.4. @2& @k - Ljdo-os ..- -- ___-_-__- ..“_,,..“. I _,,.., .I . “_ .” ^../ -_,
L-LiLziudy@ &+@ .--.. . _- -L&&c -L: _ _ _ _ : - ._. f :tLm~m.e _.“_ d
c2~7?rfl&&f?// & _- -!&-:“f-GA
_.__-,._.-. ----“---l.-“.-. ______ .-_.. -_,-“.-- .-)-“._. ..^ __. ,,. ..- ,. _.._” ----_ -.
-,-,.- ..- ,.l . *__.L “.....“.
-- -----..-
p*-.*,.-.” I. . .L. _> _
-.----.-”
,--~-7---...-...-” -=. - .--. j;;;
-.“.Ak..GX” ..__.__.. I . .‘__. --_..
.
-
We, the residents of Carlsbad, California, hereby petition the Mayor . of Carlsbad and the City Council to reject the re-zoning of the property at Park Drive and Monroe Street for the following reasons:
It is not in keeping with the adjoining properties.
It will create a traffic hazard on an already over- used residential street which has become a main thoroughfare to the Carlsbad and Oceanside Malls, theatres, Wal-Mart, banks, restaurants, schools, churches and many other community activities such as the woman's club, swimming pool and culture center..
In order to avoid using over-crowded El Camino Real motorists 'are increasingly using Monroe Street as a short cut to the 78 freeway.
Monroe to the south becomes Sunnyhill and the huge tract built at the end of Sunnyhill a few years ago increased the traffic flow.
When that tract was built we were promised improved streets, sidewalks and curbs. Our children are still walking to school in the street. All pedestrians safety is at stake.
There is presently very little traffic created by the nursery. The addition of 16 homes will definitely impact the area to a much greater extent than reported.
The developers request 14 additional houses and as if that isn't enough they want two additional units on two of the lots. .'
As you know there are other ways to take care of the necessary low cost housing requirement.
The owner's desire for top dollar and developer greed are not valid reasons to increase.traffic on what should remain a reasonably used residential street.
The City has recognized the additional traffic hazard by recently replacing an arterial stop sign at the intersection of Chestnut and Monroe with a stop-and-go signal.
To our knowledge ther,e has never been a traffic study made in this area. Surely one should be done during school sessions prior to a zoning change.
If this property is re-zoned then other property owners in similar situations should be allowed to re-zone creating even more traffic as they too split their half acre lots in order to maximize their investments.
We request you protect our city's streets by re-zoning the entire parcel Rl-15000 and denying the second units on two lots which.would reduce the project to approximately eleven homes. .* L L
R ‘?jxE- -.
L zs-:~, r-5- 7-5 ._. - _ .--_ __ g-5x-9 -- ._ -____.- fz $3 - _. “_ .._
- 8-a-? . __._ I _-
, q- ag-: _ ._._ ._- __..
8 .- . . . -- _“,
- ._._
i -_
t-m..
., -, “” .-.-.
- -. _... - -_._-
L -----
. ---_
&.G-... --_ )&J-&QW w$,&W
&~jtb-L
A @ g sva -- &-.LwFLZ
'3-&J, 3 . P&R- "
--
- --- -- .."_ - ._._ --- -__.--_ . .._ -_-___..-___--
.--. - --....----- -w--m-- -- IC---em-
-_I- .-v-e-..-- -
u q&u W& t ~.%a~ ----.. .- ..__._“.” I-
/ +9-0/ Gflfl;&/); p&&&q/$.a@g / 3974 SC& BL CdshaA CA %loog
sroos 54 4% ;, cL4kuGg@R Pad -- ” - ----._-.“.-, _ . ,---WV-,
,_LJdO -5 j4--glD)(rj). 4!44AhJh. 9ac.Y?F I ‘-..pP-
900 / J&-/J j L-L-& ’ , b/A_, a~~<~~~,,~2~~ / / -.- _^,
3qsa -&v&d -.(Mrv &&&?j&Ji c/i (;zG.t*.s. i -.-1.-.-----w.
.--- -...--.. __1-
C”.ilill . . _ .“... ..-A-.“-
-. .m.“eYI*.I..L. :__ _,A .I_ ._- _.>:..--Iz-
.
-.I-.“,--- “I.. ,..-.-..-
-
We, the residents of Carlsbad, California, hereby petition the Mayor . of Carlsbad and the City Council to reject the re-zoning of the property at Park Drive and Monroe Street for the following reasons:
It is not in keeping with the adjoining properties.
It will create a traffic hazard on an already over- used residential street which has become a main thoroughfare to the Carlsbad and Oceanside Malls, theatres, Wal-Mart, banks, restaurants, schools, churches and many other community activities such as the woman's club, swimming pool and culture center..
In order to avoid using over-crowded El Camino Real motorists are increasingly using Monroe Street as a short cut to the 78 freeway.
Monroe to the south becomes Sunnyhill and the huge tract built at the end of Sunnyhill a few years ago increased the traffic flow.
When that tract was built we were promised improved streets, sidewalks and curbs. Our children are still walking to school in the street. All pedestrians safety is at stake.
There is presently very little traffic created by the nursery. The addition of 16 homes will definitely impact the area to a much greater extent than reported.
The developers request 14 additional houses and as if that isn't enough they want two additional units on two of the lots.
As you know there are other ways to take care of the necessary low cost housing requirement.
The owner's desire for top dollar and developer greed are not valid reasons to increase traffic on what should remain a reasonably used residential street.
The City has recognized the additional traffic hazard by recently replacing an arterial stop sign at the intersection of Chestnut and Monroe with a stop-and-go signal.
To our knowledge there has never been a traffic study made in this area. Surely one should be done during school sessions prior to a zoning change.
If this property is re-zoned then other property owners in similar situations should be allowed to re-zone creating even more traffic as they too split their half acre lots in order to maximize their investments.
We request you protect our city's streets by re-zoning the entire parcel Rl-15000 and denying the second units on two lots which would reduce the project to approximately eleven hbmes.
c
._ . . . . .-..,.--.-
. . - ..-
L . . . . ., __ _ _
b .- .- .-.-.. -
_
--.^MV *-- ,.... . . . . -.“s c --..._ ..o-_e. - “. -- _
._-- . ..__- . . . __, _I . . . _.* _<“. ..,, “.,, .._“_. .,_ _ .,_ . .
- _.-_- -- -... - __ ^_._.^,_.- -- .___. -_ _--__,-._-
-__.^.~.--^-.h..s----
--*--.------
_-..___-__ _.-, __~..__, -----.-..-- ---,. I
___._ ------..- -_--
..-. .._ ,.. .,_ _._,- _, _____- -.--.- .-m.--w--
39 iz%s- /Lb AL &&&.u.m, .+L-.---- -..-... . _ _
iy@y- /“a+./ d/l, @&,&Lg&> &1” -‘.... -.- ____---
32 _,. “9 ~b.J~ ~!iziL----
. . .- ..-.I -__-- -.._. - _^_.._, _____________ ^ .__.,___, . . .-. _ _ .--_ . .
. ..__-__* -..--- ..- ---.. - . . .._._ -.w-,-
.._-. .p._l_l-.--- --------._.- .-._ ,, ,.,. -.
-. --.-_--
. -nmrcmn---,-~L.=‘~~~~~--~Z:: _’ ..LZL.. _ _. ..; _ _ __
_ _ .- . . _-
--- ,e.- _r_F1 . . . . _.-- / ,___ . . . .
- --.-.--..- .-____ - . -.._ - .---- --
. -1- -- -~--.- ---- “. .- ---.---1
-._ --..-..d.-“,-U.,I1...“, ” /
.w ~L~..~~- T.. -~ r -: ZZZL. __: --z..zs..i--. ---.. __- -_._ __-..I___.
“-_--.._- .__.. --.--. .-. - - . . 4..
1
__-- .-._. ._ ., . -. ..-
EDWARDF.WHITKLER M~SHALA.S~ARR h4ATl-HEWA.PETERSON LARRYN.MURNANE LQUISA.GALUPPO JENNIFERL.CUSICK
PETERSON & PRICE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
530 “B” Street, Suite 1700
SawDiego. California 92101-4454
OFCOUNSEL PAULA.PETFiRSON
September 2, 1998
(6 19) 234-4786
E-Mail
LAW@PetersonPrice.com
File No.
5468.001
Mayor Claude ("Bud") Lewis Members of the Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: September 8, 1998 Appeal of the May Subdivision (Rezone Local Coastal Program Amendment Tentative Tract Maps Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit)
Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council:
We represent Jim and Patricia May and Palmtag*Davis Communities with regard to the above-referenced project. We have reviewed a copy of the appeal filed by Mr. and Mrs. Prentice. The appeal focuses on the following three issues.
1. Land use compatibility with the surrounding subdivisions.
2. An alleged increase in density.
3. Traffic issues on Monroe Street (which may endanger children as they go to and from schools and church).
Land Use Comnatibilitv with Surroundina Subdivisions
The 4.67-acre infill site currently has a split designation of R-l- 7,500 on the westerly half of the property and R-1-15,000 on the easterly half of the property. This proposal would involve a rezoning to R-1-10,000 to allow the a 14-lot subdivision for 14 single family homes and two second dwelling units (to satisfy the projects inclusionary housing requirement). . This infill project is located within the LE'MP Zone 1 and is designated for residential low medium density allowing O-4 DU/Acre. This project would result in a density of 3.4 DU/Acre (just slightly above the growth control point of 3.2 DU/Acre. As you know, the General Plan allows for infill subdivisions to exceed to density range of the GCP by up to 25% of the maximum allocation (5 DU/Acre). The increase above the GCP accommodates the 2 Dwelling Units which satisfies the Inclusionary Housing requirement.
Mayor Claude ("Bud") Lewis Members of the Carlsbad City Council September 2, 1998 Page 2
As indicated in your staff report, this rezoning and subdivision will. provide for a logical and compatible transition between the R-1-7,500 along the west and southwest, the R-1-10,000 to the north, and R-1-15,000 to the northeast. Even though the proposal is to rezone the project to R-l- 10,000, the lots will range in size from 10,896 square feet to 16,100 square feet with an average lot size just under 12,000 square feet!
As you can see by the attached lot size compatibility exhibit, the layout of the subdivision, the number of units, and the lot sizes are compatible with the surrounding subdivisions. In fact, if one were to utilize the existing split zone (R-1-7,500 and R-1-15,000), a yield of up to 16 lots could be achieved! However, the layout and the compatibility with surrounding lots would be jeopardized by utilizing the existing zoning.
Increase in Densitv
Although this subdivision results in a 0.2 increase over the GCP, as previously indicated, the General Plan allows for infill subdivisions within LF'M Zone 1 to exceed the density range and the GCP by up to 25% above the maximum allocation. This zone change to R-1-10,000 does not result in the maximum density yield. It is not higher than the existing zoning or the General Plan Designation.
The public facilities are adequate within LF'M Zone 1 to accommodate the proposed units, and, as indicated in your staff report, there are excess dwelling units in the quadrant to ensure that the maximum number of dwelling units in the northwest quadrant would not be exceeded at buildout. By utilizing the existing split zoning on the property, a yield of up to 16 lots could be achieved. As you know, this subdivision only proposes 14 lots which will be in excess of the minimum lot size of the R-1-10,000 zone.
Tra f' f su
The tentative map conditions require that the developer provide for full half street improvements along Park and Monroe. This includes driveways, curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
There appears to be a split in the community between those folks who are concerning over the safety of children and those who are more concerned over retaining the "rural character" of the neighborhood. We believe that. with the installation of curbs and sidewalks that the safety for children _ going to and from schools and church will be dramatically improved. However, it is ultimately the City's discretion as to whether or not to require these improvements. As the staff report indicates, a mitigated negative declaration was prepared which indicates that this project will not result in any significant traffic impacts to the surrounding circulation system.
. ”
-
Mayor Claude ("Bud") Lewis Members of the Carlsbad City Council September 2, 1998 Page 3
Conclusion
This project has been thoroughly reviewed by your staff and has received their recommendation of approval. On Julv 15. 1998. the Plae GG ' s' U est.
In hearing the concerns of some of the neighbors, it became apparent that the real issue may involve the concerns over "a change in their neighborhood as the result of new homes being built." Although we understand that concern, if the proposal complies with all of the development regulations, then the General Plan would not result in adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Consequently, we believe the project should be approved and would respectfully request that you;
1. Certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
2. Adopt the ordinance approving Rezone 97-08 and Local Coastal Proqram Amendment 97-12 and adopt the various resolutions approving the Tentative Tract
Thank you
MapI Site Development Plan, and Coastal Development Permit.
for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
PETERSON & PRICE A Professional Corporation
Ma
cc: Jim and Patricia May Palmtag*Davis Communities Ray Patchett,,City Manager
AllShea ,~a~~~~~~~~~ + t%t$F 4Xiiirld Cindee Hollingsworth, Mayor and City Council Secretary Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Ann Hysong, Planning Department Ron Ball, Esq., City Attorney
I
AAD / \ \ f-288 I/o,SOOI lo,690\ &740 1 cc, CYV .
K -I - IUWJV 24,780. 2/,700 IO, 500 hg%w a,500 ~0,500
MOtiROE S7: I
‘I I .
4 4-.
I ! 9iw
I
am 1 ro,9a5 &poG 10,9m JpRd+ 4
I
l-7 ED I - m,g3gg /7 s”oo I i I ’ / ----I I ///,390
2@34a R - I+ 7500 \ /fFr 939
IS, 436 - 19,360 22,6i!KI
/G,oP2 I /O, /2!!5
12,020 j A3 \ N6~0’~ I 8 1
\ am I/a.sm esv I 8,060 A / /7;650 /1,479
8,//O S,SZ?O
z950 f+wo ---L 7,735
7,735 I 8,920
‘7,735 p540
I- R I - -
r:
-(““I fi /2,070
30,000
I----
PROOF OF PUBLIt- ,-ION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
August 28, 1998
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
San Marcos
Dated at California, this 28th day
of Auq. 1998
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space i. Jr the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Public Hearing
--------------------------
?- ,‘? , ;:5:, L’ ‘, .i$.,
,- ‘:IIDIICI;M
zce7mcPA w-t2 and APPEAL OP CT OT-2usDP -QP 87-62
I’ 7 . ,’ 1 CowLElE DATE: JenumY 2% lose
(Form A)
TO: C1T.Y CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached ate the materials necessary for you to notice
zc g74)8/LCPA 97-12 & APPEAL of CT 97-24/SDP 98-05/CDP 97-58 - May Subdivision
for a public hearing before the City Council,
Please notice the item for the council meeting of First Available Hearing
.
I
Thank you.
Assistant City Han
August 18, 1998
Date
MAY SUBDIVISION
ZC 979081LCPA 97-121
CT 970241SDP 98-OWCDP 97-58
AUGUST l&l998
TO: DEPUTY CITY CLERK
FROM: Administrative Secretary, Planning
NOTICE FORMAY SUBDIVISION - ZC 97-OWLCPA 97-12 AND APPEAL OF CT 97-
24/SDP 98-05KDP 97-58
This notice must be worded exactly as is. I have sent a hard copy and if you would like, I can E-
mail the computer document to you. Please advise. Thank you.
Attachment
.
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
PAMELA J WISCHKAEMPER
4039 SUNNYHILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
NAYDA PRENTICE
3955 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
STE 50
330 GOLDENSHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
(ABOVE ADDRESS - For City
Council Notices Only)
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
DEPT SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
PROJECT PLANNER
ANNE HYSONG
STEVE ZUNIGA
1151 VIA COLINAS
THOUSAND OAKS CA 9 1362-5057
THEODORE SENTINELLA
3970 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2633
ROBERT SAWIN
3980 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2633
JOHN OCONNELL
3990 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2633
JAMES GRISHAM
3995 SCOTT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3625
MARGARET TRAYNOR
3985 SCOTT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3625
FRANCIS SULLIVAN
3975 SCO’IT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3625
VINCENT ERMOVICK
2614 W CALLE PUEBLA
TUCSON AZ 85745-2509
FRANJO RADOSEVIC
3960 SCOTT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3625
DIXIE THOMPSON
3970 SCOTT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3625
GEORGE PATTISON
3964 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2633
FRANK STEBELSKI
3974 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2633
CONSTANCE MIRELL
17 13 CAMINO DE LA COSTA
REDONDO BEACH CA 90277-5444
OLGA HOLGUIN
3994 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2633
TERRENCE TIBBELS
3991 SCOTT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3625
KRESSIN WILLIAM E & MARIAN FAMIL
398 1 SCOTT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3625
JUNE DOAN
4754 BRYCE CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-4289
VANDERLINDEN FAMILY TRUST 09- 1 O-
3961 SCOTT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3625
HANS EDEBOHLS
3964 SCOTI- DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3625
JAMES DUFFY
3974 SCOTT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3625
HELEN HICKEY
POBOX 1182
CARLSBAD CA 92018-l 182
FAIRHURST FAMILY TRUST 03-25-92
3990 SCOTT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3625
DOUGLAS MCGLONE
3999 ALDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3602
H MCSHERRY
3995 ALDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3602
RICHARD DOUTHETT
19088 RAINBOW MINE RD
PINE GROVE CA 95665-9450
RICHARD CASTANEDA
3987 ALDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3602
RICHARD ELLIS
3986 ALDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3601
JOAN MAC ENERY
3990 ALDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-360 1
EUGENE SERGENT
1720 KIRK PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008-362 1
RICHARD PETERSON
1740 KIRK PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3621
JAMES GARCIA
2984 SCOl’T DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6846
MICHAEL STRAUB
3994 SCOTT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3625
KENNETH KEBOW
3997 ALDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3602
D MCKEE
3993 ALDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3602
BARBARA KURILICH
2343 NICKLAUS DR
OCEANSIDE CA 92056-3702
MARK MOREL
2301 SHAWN CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2078
MARIE BROGAN
3988 ALDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3601
BURGER FAMILY TRUST 02-07-95
171OKIRKPL
CARLSBAD CA 92008-362 1
RALPH LAUGHLIN
1730 KIRK PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008-362 1
FRANCES ANDREWS
1735 KIRK PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3621
JOSEPH WOODS
1725 KIRK PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008-362 1
AUBREY POLLARD
PO BOX 1093
CARLSBAD CA 920 18- 1093
DUANE MENDOZA
4012 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2619
MARYLN OWENS
1703 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3629
ANDY SIBLEY
1707 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3629
NAYDA PRENTICE
300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR 108A
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2900
HERBERT COLLINS
5201 RUFFIN RD A
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1699
HEBER PACKARD
3983 PACKARD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-365 1
CHARLES MACBETH
4029 SUNNYHILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-275 1
HOWARD ROWE
1715 KIRK PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008-362 1
JOHN ZAMORA
1720 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3628
ANN HALLOCK
POBOX 11’11
CARLSBAD CA 92018-I 111
GREEN JOHN & BILLIE FAMILY TRUST
1705 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3629
DONNEL FAMILY 1989 TRUST
1709 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3629
THOMAS ORTMAN
3965 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2737
FLOYD PACKARD
4005 SUNNYHILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-275 1
JOSE JOVER
1882 HIGH RIDGE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3759
MICHAEL WISCHKAEMPER
4039 SUNNYHILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-275 1
D STROH
3983 ALDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3602
RANDALL BROWNING
405 1 SUNNYHILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-275 1
JOSEPH CZVIK
4075 SUNNYHILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MINTA WILTERDMG
304 E MISSION RD D
FALLBROOK CA 92028-2 159
JAMES RAMENOFSKY
4020 SUNNYHILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2750
STAPLEY FAMILY TRUST 10-05-96
3960 SUNNYHILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2749
MARK SCHWEI
3975 SKYLINE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2746
ONEIL FAMILY TRUST 07-09-93
3935 SKYLINE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2746
KENNETH JOHNSON
3915 SKYLINE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2746
BRADLEY MISHLER
3915 ALDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2706
WILLIAM HOUTS
4043 SUNNYHILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-275 1
CARTNCI FAMILY TRUST 06-24-94
4065 SUNNYHILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2751
FRANK WALLS
4050 SUNNYHILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2750
TUOMI NATALIE FAMILY TRUST 04-24
4030 SUNNYHILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2750
NAUGLER FAMILY TRUST 07-25-88
4010 SUNNYHILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2750
THOMPSON FAMILY TRUST 12-O l-92
3940 ALDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2705
JAMES BOONE
3955 SKYLINE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2746
H ERGIN
3925 SKYLINE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2746
PHIL JOHNSON
3905 SKYLINE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2746
RICHARD MCDOWELL
39 17 ALDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2706
VIRGINIA BOWEN
3919 ALDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2706
RUDOLPH KEMPTER
3988 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2736
JUNG DOWNING
911 VISTA WAY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054-6446
DAVID RIPPBERGER
3920 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2736
KELLY NG
3900 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2736
MICHAEL MAPLE
3883 WOODVALE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2757
JAMES SWAB
PO BOX 194
CARLSBAD CA 920 18-O 194
ROBERT REINER
3855 WOODVALE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2757
RICHARD PARKER
3784 SKYLINE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008-274 1
NEVILLE THACKER
3810 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2739
ROBERT BORDEN
PO BOX 1244
CARLSBAD CA 920 18- 1244
WILLIAM TIEMAN
3966 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2736
JUNE NELLUMS
3930 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2736
GREGORYABBOTT
3910 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2736
STEPHEN FORD
3869 WOODVALE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2757
FERNANDO ISAZA
3897 WOODVALE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2757
PEARL BERTICS
3892 WESTHAVEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2754
ZELDA MUNROE
3886 WESTHAVEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2754
PAUL GESINO
382 1 WESTHAVEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2755
STEVEN DRAKE
3848 WESTHAVEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2754
ROBERT PRINCE
3865 WESTHAVEN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2755
ELEANOR LUND
3856 WOODVALE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2756
EARL EHRENBERG
8920 MIRAMAR RD C
SAN DIEGO CA 92 126-440 1
AUGUST REILAND
3851 PARR DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2740
COLLINS MAXINE S FAMILY TRUST 11
3830 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2734
ALAN CORKER
3750 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2732
JOHN RANGEL
3770 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2732
WILLIAM GILLEY
3785 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2733
CARLSBAD UNIFIED-S
Pyd- fzxiaczsTRJCT
M ENGSTROM
3859 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2735
JEAN LOFTHOUSE
3870 WOODVALE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2756
DAVID VOGEL
3 860 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2739
KENNETH LANGEN
3831 PARR DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2740
RENIE BAILYN
3897 PARR DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2740
WILLIAM TUSSY
3820 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2734
ANDREW BRUMBAUGH
3760 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2732
EDWARD LANGER
3775 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2733
JULIE SEVERINO
3795 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2733
JOHN CORLEY
3835 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2735
ROBERT TROUT
3865 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2735
RICHARD BOWERS
3885 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2735
BRUCE BOND
3875 MONROE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2735
CATHERINE WALSH
179 1 ANDREA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2623
ANNE MICHEL-DELAUNE
1771 ANDREA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2623
SANDRA HIGLEY
PO BOX 1895
CARLSBAD CA 92018- 1895
BARBARA DILLARD
252 1 CREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008- 1503
PAUL KING
2 156 FIRE MOUNTAIN DR
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
PETER CROSBY
3865 ALTHEA LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2621
JOSEPH LEONCAVALLO
3866 VALLEY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2641
LEONARD HOPKINS
3876 VALLEY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2641
FOX FAMILY TRUST 1 l-20-85
3905 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2634
PHILIP HINDMAN
1797 ANDREA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2623
JOHN PARKER
178 1 ANDREA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2623
MARY EVANS
PO BOX 337
DESERT HOT SPRINGS CA 92240-0337
INGEBORG LEPP
3860 ALTHEA LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2620
MICHAEL RODGERS
3870 ALTHEA LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2620
ALON MASH
3950 STELLA MARIS LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3560
FLOY ANDERSON
386 1 ALTHEA LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2621
CHRISTINA ROSENTHAL
3870 VALLEY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2641
FRANCIS NOLAN
1740 ANDREA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2622
EMOGENE JARRARD
1750 ANDREA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2622
PAUL COSBY
1770 ANDREA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2622
WHITLEY EWING
1790 ANDREA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2622
HOOSHANG KARIMI
3931 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2634
UTKE FAMILY TRUST 02-l 7-92
3945 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2634
JAMES YOUNG
3951 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2634
CRISTINA PHILLIPS
3969 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2634
SCOTT KOOP
1970 MAGNOLIA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-263 1
JOHN FISLER
3975 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2634
MICHAEL ALAYNICK
1644 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2644
EDWIN ENGLE
1760 ANDREA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2622
RUSSELL PARKS
1780 ANDREA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2622
IMOGENE SHARMAN
3915 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2634
RUBEN TORRES
3941 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2634
JOHN PIERCE
3949 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2634
ROBERT GALLOWAY
1706 DOWNS ST
OCEANSIDE CA 92054-619 1
STAUSS ROBERT & JANE FAMILY TRUS
3971 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2634
AUGUST0 GORGUEIRO
3880 ALTHEA LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2620
GARY KOBAYASHI
3985 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2634
MARJORJE HOWARD-JONES
4823 ARGOSY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3779
DAVID WATSON
12727 VISTA DEL NORTE 1201
SAN ANTON10 TX 782 16-802 1
ANDREW FERRIS
3886 VALLEY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-264 1
JIM & PATRICIA MAY
3926 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOE GONZALES
4015 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2635
‘H:\ADMIN\LABELS\LCP
INTERESTED PARTIES
UPDATED 11-96
OLIVENHAIN M.W.D.
1966 OLIVENHAIN ROAD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CRAIG ADAMS
SIERRA CLUB
SAN DIEGO CHAPTER
3820 RAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LESLIE ESPOSITO
1893 AMELFI DRIVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
‘LANIKAI LANE PARK
SHARP; SPACE 3
6550 PONTO DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KIM SEIBLY
SAN DIEGO GAS 8, ELECTRIC
PO BOX 1831
SAN DIEGO CA 92112
PERRY A LAMB
890 MERE POINT ROAD
BRUNSWICK MAINE 04011
RICHARD RETECKI
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
SUITE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DALE/DONNA SCHREIBER
7163 ARGONAURA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
COPIES TO:
CITY CLERK
MAIN.LIBRARY
BRANCH LIBRARY
WATER DISTRICT
CITY OF ENCINITAS
COM.DEV. DEPARTMENT
505 S. VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
REGIONAL WATER QUAL. BD
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SUITE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124
GUY MOORE JR
6503 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CYRIL AND MARY GIBSON
12142 ARGYLE DRIVE
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702
JOHN LAMB
1446 DEVLIN DRIVE
LOS ANGELES CA 90069
MARY GRIGGS
STATE LANDS COMMISSSION
SUITE 100 SOUTH
100 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
JOAN VOKAC - SUITE B-5
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
ANTHONY BONS
25709 HILLCREST AVE
ESCONDIDO CA 92026
MR/MRS MICHAEL CARDOSA
6491 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICES
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TABATA FARMS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 92018
KENNETH E SULZER
SANDAG - EXEC DIRECTOR
IST INT’L PLAZA, SUITE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
JAN SOBEL
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
PO BOX 1605
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BILL MCLEAN
c/o LAKESHORE GARDENS
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SPIERS ENTERPRISES
DWIGHT SPIERS
SUITE 139
23 CORPORATE PLAZA
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
SUPERVISOR BILL HORN
A-I-I-N: ART DANELL
COUNTY OF SD, ROOM 335
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LEE ANDERSON
CRA PRESIDENT
5200 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FLOYD ASHBY
416 LA COSTA AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CARLENE TIMM
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
PO BOX 1831
SAN DIEGO CA 92112
LABELS - 5 163
LCPA MAILING LIST (GOVERNMENT AGENCIES)
SANDAG (SAN DIEGO COUNTY)
WELLS FARGO PLAZA
SUITE 800
APPENDIX A (LIST IS REQUIRED BY COASTAL 401 B STREET
COMMISSION) SANDIEGO CA 92101
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
ROOM 700
110 WEST A STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
350 MCALLISTER STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94 103
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFAIRS
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
ROOM 100
1220 N STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 958 14
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WILLIAM G. BRENNAN ROOM 5504
DEPUTY SECRETARY AND SPECIAL COUNCIL 1120 N STREET
SUITE 2450 SACRAMENTO CA 958 14
980 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 958 14
DISTRICT 11 CALTRANS RESOURCES AGENCY
TIM VASQUEZ, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING RM 1311
2829 SAN JUAN ST 14 16 NINTH STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92138 SACRAMENTO CA 958 12
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
ANNE GERAGHTY, MANAGER
GENERAL PROJECTS SECTION
PO BOX 2815
SACRAMENTO CA 95812
ENERGY RESOURCES, CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
CHUCK NAJARIAN
1.5 16 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
MARINE RESOURCES REGION, DR & G
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR
350 GOLDEN SHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
SOUTHERN REGION
JOHN WALSTROM, TECHNICAL SERVICES
8885 RIO SAN DIEGO DRIVE
SAND DIEGO CA 92108
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
DWIGHT SANDERS
SUITE 1005
100 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95 825-8202
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
SUITE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
RONALD D REMPEL, CHIEF
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
RM 1341
1416 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 958 14
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIROMENTAL COORD
RM 1516-2
14 16 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
BILL TRAVIS
30 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 95814
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
PO BOX 100
SACARAMENTO CA 95801
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SUITE B ROBERT L. ERWIN, DIRECTOR
9771 CALAIREMONT MESA BLVD SUITE 1037
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 630 SANSOME STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ATTN: GARY
RESOURCE CONSERVATIONIST
SUITE 102
2121-C SECOND STREET
DAVIS CA 95616
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL
L McGILVRAY
1825 CONNECTICUT AVENUE
WASHINGTON DC 20235
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SUITE 700
333 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
JOHN B. MARTIN, REGIONAL DIRECTOR
SUITE 2 10
1450 MARIA LANE
WALNUT CREEK CA 94596-5368
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION
IRWRIN HOFFMANN
SUITE F
194 W MAIN STREET
WOODLAND CA 95695
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CHAIRMAN
722 JACKSON PLACE NORTH WEST
WASHINGTON DC 2006
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ENGINEER
PO BOX.271 1
LOS ANGELES CA 90053
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
COMMANDANT, ELEVENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
DISTRICT CIVIL ENGINEER
SAN DIEGO CA 92132
U. S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
2135 BUTANO DRIVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
LOWER COLORADO REGION
PO BOX 427
BOULDER CITY CO 89005
SUPERINTENDENT
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
190 1 SPINNAKER DRIVE
SAN BUENAVENTURA CA 93001
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
RONALD M. JAEGER
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SUITE 200
3 111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIRECTOR
SUITE 350
901 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVE
DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REGIONAL ADMIN
450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
MID-PACIFIC REGION
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
DOUGLAS WARNOCK, SUPERINTENDENT
REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK
DRAWER N
1111 2mSTREET
CRESCENT CITY CA 95531
U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
SUITE 130
33 10 EL CAMINO AVENUE
SACRAMENTO CA 95821
BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WESTERN REGION
PO BOX 92007
LOS ANGELES CA 90009
LEONARD HOPKINS
#C 206
1088 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-I 858
JULIE SEVERINO
2959 LEXINGTON CIRCLE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6564
SCOTT KOOP
3886 ALTHEA LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2520
CONSTANCE MIRELL
APT 47
3230 MERRILL DR
TORRANCE CA 90503-7109
MARK SCHWEI
3461 INDIAN CREEK DR
LONGVIEW WA 98632-5322
CITY OF CARLSBAD I -. *. ir 1200 CARLSBAt VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, bALIFORNIA 92008
434-2867
REC’D FROM r&qA 9. t-3 f,Y\~ h r/L ?
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION
RECEIPT NO. 53.9 .!.f$ NOT VALID UNLESS VA
@ Fhted on recycled paper.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
July 27,1998
Bobbie Hoder - Planner
Sherrie Worrell - Clerk’s Offic
May Subdivision - CT 97-24/SDP 9%OYCDP 97-58
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date
that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda
bill is signed off by all parties.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the Agenda Bill Preparation
Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council meeting of: ,
Signature Date
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive l Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 l (760) 434-2808
APPEAL FORM
appeal the decision of the ~&NNOA? co/wiss/D J
to the Carisbad City Council.
Date of Decision you are appealing:
Subiect of ApDeal:
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.
Reason(s) for ADDeal: l Please Note l Failure to specify a reason may result in denlal 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?
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 l (819) 434-2808 @
, . , 1
Ld sizes are not compatible to abutting lots: Lots 1,2 & 3 approx 12000 sq. ft abut 7500 sq. ft lots. Lots 7,8, 9 & 10 are 12000 to 14000 sq. ft. on Park Drive and face 7500 sq. ft. lots directly across the street. Lots 4, 5, 10 and 14 are approx. 10000 sq.ft. and abut properties which are well over 20,000. sq. ft. and zoned Rl 15,000. sq. ft.
Sites on Monroe street should be no less than 15,000 sq. ft.
The density is definitly increased by at least two dwelling lots per attached map and the project should be reduced to no more than 10 lots to maintain the integrity of the surrounding community.
The impact on traffic on Monroe street is much greater than stated by the planning commission as Monroe has become a direct artery to:
Restaurants and Shopping Malls (Jefferson and Marron) Four-in-one movie complex The Van's shopping and banking center Plaza Camino Real Magnolia elementary School Valley Jr. High Carlsbad High Pilgrim Pre School The Public Pool The Comunity center The Woman's Club The Morman Church Pilgrim Evangelical Curch 78 Freeway access
Monroe is being used as an alternative to the over--crowded El Camino Real endangering our children as they go to and from schools and church.
A traffic study should be done on Monroe and Park Drive during school sessions prior any project being approved.
.I . . .-
.
EDWARD F. WHITRER
MARSHAL. A. SCARR
MATI’HEW A. PETERSON
LARRY N. IwllJfWANE LOUIS A. GALUPPO
1ENNIPER L. CUSICK
PETERSON & PRICE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
530 “B” Street, Suite 1700 San Diego. California 92 101-4454
OF COUNSEL
PAUL A. PElZRSON
July 15, 1998
Telephone (619) 234-0361
Fax (619) 234-4786
E-Mail LAW@PetersonPrice.com
File No.
4667-001 VIA FACSIMILE
Mr. Ray Patchett City Manager CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009
Re: July i5, 1998, Agenda Item Xl ZC 97-08/LCPA, 97-12/C!T., 97024/SDP, 98-05/CDP May Subdivision
Dear Mr. Patchett:
We represent James and Patricia May, owners of the real
property subject to the current entitlement process referenced
above. As of this date, the items referenced above are scheduled
for Planning Commission consideration at 6:00 p.m. this evening.
Assuming that the Planning Commission agrees with the staff
recommendation for approval, the entire process will move onto the
City Council for consideration and, because of the ZC 97-08/LCPA,
then forwarded to the Coastal Commission. Unfortunately, because
of the various discretionary hearings involved with the different
agencies, the approval process has become critically time
sensitive.
With this in mind, we would hereby respectfully request
consideration of an expediting process to insure that the
referenced items can be heard by the City Council and subsequently
(assuming approval) be lfibatchedll and forwarded to the Coastal
Commission to enable public hearings in November, 1998. In order
to achieve this goal, taking into consideration the August, 1998
Council recess and the Coastal Commission holiday recess, we would
c
Mr. Ray Patchett City Manager July 15, 1998 Page 2
ask your consideration of scheduling this matter for City Council
consideration on August 4, 1998.
I thank you in advance for your consideration of our request,
and should you or your staff have any questions regarding the
sensitivity of our request, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
A. Peterson
MAP:arl cc: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, City of Carlsbad City Clerk, City of Carlsbad James 61 Patricia May
EDWARD E WHITlLEFl
MARSHAL A. SCARR
MATTHEW A. PETERSON
LARRY N. MURNANE
LOUIS A. GALUPPO
JFiNNIPER L. CUSICK
OF cowsEL
PAUL A. PFXERSON
PETERSON
Union Bank of Califor
530 “B” Street. Su
Carlsbad Office
Palomar Airport Road
San Diego, California 92 10 l-4454 Carlsbad, California 92009-1026 Telephone. (X$9) 234-036 1 Telephone (760) 43 l-4575
Fax (619) 234-4786 Fax (760) 43 l-4579
September 9, 1998
File No.
4667.001
Mr. Ray Patchett, City Manager
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: May Subdivision
ZC 97-08/LCPA, 97-12/CT, 97-24/SDP, 98-05/CDP, 97-58
Dear Ray:
Thank you for your assistance in moving the project through
the system. As you can imagine, our clients were very pleased at
the City Council's denial of the appeal and approval of the
project.
Please be advised that the new ownership entity for purposes
of preparing the Permits and Resolutions is Carlsbad Estates, LLC,
mailing address, 110 Juniper St., San Diego, CA 92101, telephone
number (619) 702-2042, fax number (619) 702-5154. The contact
person and signatory for purposes of the Permits and Map would be
Mr. Herbert Palmtag, its Manager.
We would respectfully request that the Notice of Determination
get posted immediately for the certified Mitigated Negative
Declaration. We would also request whatever assistance you could
give us in assuring that the Local Coastal Program Amendment is
Mr. Ray Patchett
City Manager
September 9, 1998
Page 2
immediately submitted to the Coastal Commission so that it can make
it into the next available batch.
Once again, thank you for your assistance and all of your
staff's assistance in processing this project.
Sincerely,
PETERSON 61 PRICE
Mdtthew A.' Peterson
cc: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, City of Carlsbad
Anne Hysong, Associate Planner
Ken Quon, Associate Engineer
Herbert Palmtag, Manager, Palmtag - Davis Communities
%ity
September II,1998
Mrs. Nayda J. Prentice
3955 Monroe Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: APPEAL ON MAY SUBDIVISION - CT 97-24/SDP 98-5/CP 97-58
Enclosed for your records are copies of City Council Agenda Bill, Resolutions No.
98-300 and 98-301, and Ordinance No. NS-456 (which will come back to Council for
adoption). These documents went before Council on September 9, 1998, where they
were approved, denying your appeal and upholding the Planning Commission approval.
If you have further questions on this project, or need clarification, please call Ann
Hysong, Planning Department, at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4477.
KATHLEEN D. SHOUP
Sr. Office Specialist
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, CA 92008-l 989 - (760) 434-2808 @