HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-20; City Council; 14902; Rancho Carrillo Villages E, F, G, K, And PCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGEWA BILL
/$‘fj?& ii
‘4 94 VQ 0
AB# DEPT. HD. Iv&
MTG. 10/20/98 RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G, K, AND P CITY All-Y. + cs CT 97-031PUD 97-03
DEPT. PLN @ CITY MGRa
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
gk3M That the City Council ADOPT City Council Resolution No. APPROVING CT 97-03 and PUD
97-03 as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On September 2, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the Ranch0
Carrillo Villages E, F, G, K, and P residential subdivision/planned development project located in the
southeast quadrant within the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan and the Ranch0 Carrillo
Master Plan. The Planning Commission recommended approval without revisions (4-0, Nielsen,
Savary, Welshons absent) to subdivide 188.34 acres into 396 lots for 384 single family dwelling
units and a planned development which includes design guidelines for the construction of those
units. The project is subject to and in compliance with the General Plan, the Ranch0 Carrillo Master
Plan and certified EIR, all applicable zoning ordinances and the Subdivision Ordinance (Titles 20
and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code), and the Draft Habitat Management Plan. See the attached
staff report to the Planning Commission, dated September 2, 1998, for a complete analysis of the
project’s compliance with the subject policies, plans, and ordinances. No public testimony occurred
during the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts from the future development of the
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan were analyzed by the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) 91-04. The project qualifies as being within the scope of both the City’s Master
Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan and Final EIR 91-04 in accordance with Section
21083.3 of the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore, the Planning Director issued a Notice
of Prior Environmental Compliance on August 19, 1998. With regard to air quality and circulation
impacts, the City’s MEIR found that the cumulative impacts of the implementation of projects
consistent with the General Plan are significant and adverse due to regional factors, therefore, the
City Council adopted a statement of overriding consideration. The project is consistent with the
General Plan as to these effects; therefore, no additional document is required.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
The project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 18. The Growth Control Point is 3.2
dwelling units per acre for the RLM General Plan Land Use designation of Villages G and K, while
the project is proposing 2.4 and 3.4 dwelling units per acre respectively. The density for Village K is
higher than the density allowed by the Growth Management Control point designated for this village.
The increase in density is allowed per the approved Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and was found to
be acceptable because the maximum number of units allowed by the Master Plan, 1816, is below
the 2091 units allocated to Zone 18 by its approved Local Facilities Management Plan. Villages E,
F, and P have a General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Medium (RM). The Growth
Control Point is 6 dwelling units per acre for this designation while Villages E, F, and P are
proposing 5.4, 4.0, and 4.0 dwelling units per acre respectively. The project is located within CFD
No. 1 and as part of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan is proposing an assessment district for the
construction of Melrose Drive, and has entered into an agreement with the San Marcos Unified
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA wrLL NO. kg 980%
School District which proposes a Mello-Roos financing vehicle estimated to be in the amount of $12
million for school facilities funding.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact will result from the project since it is consistent with the Zone 18 Local Facilities
Management Plan. All necessary major capital facilities will be provided concurrent with
development and funded by the developer of the project. A financing plan that comprehensively
addresses the provision of public facilities within the facility zone has been approved by the City
Council and this project has been conditioned to participate in the identified financing mechanisms.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 9P”J9?f
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4385 and 4386
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 2, 1998
5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated September 2, 1998.
1
;
‘:
4
4 .d
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. 98-348
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP
AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO SUBDIVIDE THE
PROPERTY INTO 396 LOTS OF WHICH 384 LOTS WOULD BE
FOR THE PURPOSE OF SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, 11
LOTS WOULD BE FOR OPEN SPACE, AND 1 LOT WOULD BE
USED AS A PRIVATE STREET ALL ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
ROAD, EAST OF MELROSE DRIVE, AND NORTH OF
POINSETTIA LANE.
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G, K
and P
CASE NO.: CT 97-03/PUD 97-03
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, on September 2, 1998, the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider a Tentative Map (CT 97-03) and Planned Development
Permit (PUD 97-03) and adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4385 and 4386
respectively, recommending to the City Council that they be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 20 th day of
October , 1998, held a public hearing to consider the recommendations and heard all
persons interested in or opposed to CT 97-03 and PUD 97-03.
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 the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of
the Tentative Map (CT 97-03) is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4385, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
3. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of
the Planned Development Permit (PUD 97-03) is approved and that the findings and conditions
of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 4386, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated
herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
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. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial
Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been
made applicable in the City of Cartsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking 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 20 dayof October 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Finnila, Kulchin and Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk \
(SEAL)
-2-
-
EXHIBIT 2
\.
“a d ‘ij \ ?5. -k-a -G-i
RANCH0 CARRILLO
VILLAGES E, F, G, K, P
CT 97903iPUD 97-03
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4385
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 97-03 TO
SUBDIVIDE 188.34 ACRES INTO 396 LOTS ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND EAST OF MELROSE
DRIVE AT THE EASTERN TERMINUS OF THE CITY IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 18.
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G,
KANDP
CASE NO.: CT 97-03
WHEREAS, Continental Ranch, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Continental Ranch, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
Those portions of Section 18 and 19, Township 12 South, Range 3
West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “U” dated September 2, 1998, on file in the Planning
Department RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G, K and P, CT 97-03, as provided by
Chapter 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 2nd day of September 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 persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Tentative Tract Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F,
G, K AND P, CT 97-03, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
Findinps:
1. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as
conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any
applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State
Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the
project is designed in accordance with the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan; is
proposing densities that are consistent with the RM and RLM land use designations
of the Land Use Element of the General Plan; prior to the recordation of any final
map the deeding of an acceptable school site to the San Marcos Unified School
District and a financing plan approved by the San Marcos School District
guaranteeing the construction of the necessary school facilities must occur; the
mitigation of onsite surface runoff so as not to affect on and offsite downstream
properties is required; major offsite sewer line construction is required; prior to
recordation of the final map an affordable housing agreement must be entered into
which provides for and deed restricts dwelling units as affordable to lower income
households for the useful life of the dwelling units; over 35% of the net developable
acreage of the Master Plan has been left as open space; the construction of Melrose
Drive and access to this subdivision from it is required; prior to occupancy the
construction of noise walls to meet the standards contained within the General Plan
is required; a parks agreement between the City of Carlsbad and the property
owners has been completed; and all setbacks, parking, recreational space, streets
and storage meet the minimum standards of the Planned Development Ordinance.
2. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for residential development on the General Plan
and the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan. The Palomar Airport Road right-of-way
separates this site from non-residential uses to the north.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density
proposed, in that the product type is in accord with the Master Plan and the dwelling
unit count is less than that allowed by the Master Plan .
4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in
that the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department has reviewed the subdivision for
such conflicts and found none presently existing. The City of Carlsbad had an
PC RESO NO. 4385 -2- 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
L
access easement through the site for accessing the Carrillo Ranch Park Site, but that
has since been abandoned with the construction of Melrose Drive.
That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that the lots are situated in
such a manner as to allow for a variety of building placement alternatives, including
adequate separation to allow the dominant sea breeze and solar radiation patterns
to influence the utilization of natural heating and cooling opportunities.
That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed
by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs
against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental
resources.
That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that all applicable biological mitigation measures required by Final EIR
91-04 and MEIR 93-01 have been incorporated into the project and/or added to the
project as conditions of approval.
That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the sewer and
drainage requirements of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and EIR 91-04 have
been considered and appropriate sewer and drainage facilities have been designed
and will be secured. In addition to City Engineering Standards and compliance
with the City’s Master Sewer and Drainage Plans, National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) standards will be satisfied to prevent any discharge
violations.
10. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for Ranch0
Carrillo Villages E, F, G, K and P, CT 97-03, is in conformance with the Elements of
the City’s General Plan, based on the following:
a. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan Residential
Medium (RM) land use designation and Residential Low Medium (RLM)
designation since the proposed densities for Villages E, F, and P are 5.4, 4.0,
and 4.0 respectively consistent with the General Plan designation for these
villages of RM (allowing 4-8 dwelling units per acre), while Villages G and K
are proposing 2.4 and 3.4 dwelling units per acre respectively consistent with
the General Plan designation of RLM (allowing O-4 dwelling units per acre).
The density for Village K is higher than the growth management control
point for this land use. The increase was allowed by the Master Plan because
the maximum number of units allowed by the Master Plan was below the
PC RESO NO. 4385 -3- 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
g-
C
number of units allocated by the Local Facilities Management Plan.
Circulation - The project is conditioned to complete all necessary onsite and
offsite roadway improvements prior to occupancy of any unit in each phase.
Additionally, all roadway improvements to serve this portion of the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan must be guaranteed and substantially completed prior
to occupancy of units in Villages E, F, G, K and P.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a detailed
noise study addressing conformance with the Noise Element of the General
Plan.
Housing - That the project is consistent with Policy 3.6.a of the Housing
Element of the General Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as
Villages E, F, G, K and P is covered by the Ranch0 Carrillo Affordable
Housing Agreement approved by the City Council.
Open Space and Conservation - The project is consistent with the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan and Zone 18 LFMP in that 189.9 acres of performance
standard open space will be provided throughout the Master Plan. This is
over 35% of the net developable acreage of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan
which exceeds the 15% Growth Management requirement.
Public Safety - In accordance with the Ranch0 Carrillo mass grading plan
(HDP 91-17) and the Village E, F, G, K and P grading plan and final soils
report, all unacceptable soil conditions shall be mitigated to facilitate
construction. Standard engineering grading conditions will be required for
all requisite grading.
The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan has entered into a Parks Agreement with
the City of Carlsbad which required the dedication of land.
11. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the final map will not be approved
unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve the project.
In addition, the project is conditioned such that a note shall be placed on the final
map that building permits may not be issued for the project unless the District
Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur
within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the District
Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the
General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
b. In accordance with the Zone 18 LFMP special conditions for schools, the
project is conditioned to require that an acceptable school site is deeded to
PC RESO NO. 4385 -4- 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the San Marcos Unified School District guaranteeing the construction of
necessary elementary school facilities in Zone 18 prior to final map
recordation or building permit issuance.
C. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
d. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
e. The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan has entered into a Parks Agreement with
the City of Carlsbad.
12. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 2 1.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
13. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18.
14. The Planning Commission finds that:
a. the project is a subsequent development as described in CEQA Guidelines 15 168
(c)(2) and (e), and 15183;
b. the project is consistent with the General Plan Master EIR (MEIR 93-01) and
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan EIR (EIR 91-04);
C. there were EIRs certified in connection with the prior 1994 General Plan
Update and Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan;
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as significant
in the prior EIRs;
e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 162 or 15 163 exist.
15. That all feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01
and EIR 91-04 which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated
into this Subsequent Project.
16. That MEIR 93-01 found that air quality and circulation impacts are significant and
PC RESO NO. 4385 -5- /o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
adverse; therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations.
The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those effects, no additional
environmental document is required.
That the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the
McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April 1994, in that as conditioned the applicant shall
record a notice concerning aircraft noise.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 90-384.
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused the project.
The project, as designed, implements certain objectives and mitigation measures
established by the General Plan Master EIR to reduce cumulative air quality and
circulation impacts as applicable to a residential project of this scale. These include:
providing links to public sidewalk systems that connect with transportation
corridors, future schools, parks, and trail systems; providing for safe pedestrian and
bicycle movements within the project and designing the project to accommodate
pedestrian spaces as well as proposed parking areas and building locations.
Panhandle lots within Villages E, G, and K are appropriately sited as:
a. They improve the street scene by creating a variable setback along the street
frontage;
b. Additional privacy for future residents of the panhandles lots is provided due
to the increased front yard setbacks;
C. Adequate on-site resident parking and visitor parking in close proximity to
the panhandle lots is provided as all streets allow parking on both sides and
all lots propose minimum two car garage units;
d. The Engineering Department has determined that adequate and safe access
can be provided to all panhandle lots and those lots will not preclude or
adversely impact the ability to provide access to other properties within these
villages, through the use of Engineering Department standards.
Conditions:
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map document(s) necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development
PC RESO NO. 4385 -6- II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
approval of this proposed major subdivision, must be met prior to approval of a final
map.
3. Approval of CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 supersedes previous approval of tentative maps
and planned unit development permits for Villages E, F, G, K and P.
4. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the City of Carlsbad and Council members, officers, employees, agents,
and representatives from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands,
claims, and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising ,
directly or indirectly from (a) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action,
whether discretionary or non discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated
herein, and (b) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted
hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by
the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions.
5. The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24-inch by 36-inch mylar copy
of the Tentative Map as approved by the final decision making body. The Tentative
Map shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The Map copy shall be
submitted to the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or
improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
,6. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of the approving resolutions on a 24” by 36” blueline drawing.
7. The final map shall not be approved unless the City Council finds as of the time of such
approval that sewer service is available to serve the subdivision.
8. The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28,
1987 (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any development
fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 2 1.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or Facilities
and Improvement Plan and to fulfil1 the subdivider’s agreement to pay the public facilities
fee dated February 13, 1997, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is
incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid, this application will not be
consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
9. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
PC RESO NO. 4385 -7- /a
h
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10.
11.
12.
as part of the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this residential
housing project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in
Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this
approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the
condition complies with all requirements of law.
Approval of CT 97-03 is granted subject to the approval of Planned Unit Development
Permit 97-03. CT 97-03 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 4386 for the Planned Unit Development Permit, PUD 97-03.
The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the
Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official
CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning
Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions:
a. General Enforcement bv the Citv The City shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in
favor of, or in which the City has an interest.
b. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements In the
event that the Association fails to maintain the “Common Area Lots and/or the
Association’s Easements”, the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to
perform the necessary maintenance. If the City elects to perform such
maintenance, the City shall give written notice to the Association, with a copy
thereof to the Owners in the Project, setting forth with particularity the
maintenance which the City finds to be required and requesting the same be
carried out by the Association within a period of thirty (30) days from the giving
of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to carry out such
maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association’s Easements within
the period specified by the City’s notice, the City shall be entitled to cause such
work to be completed and shall be entitled to reimbursement with respect thereto
from the Owners as provided herein.
C. Special Assessments Levied bv the Citv In the event the City has performed the
necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association’s
Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs
incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and
or Association’s Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to
each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to
pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection
PC RESO NO. 4385 -8- /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
against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said
invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of
receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full
within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be
subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of
the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by
means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available
to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot
in the Project for an equal prorata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such
special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing
lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in
the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special
assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal
actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and
his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment.
13. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of
Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of
the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the
City of Carlsbad has issued a Tentative Map by Resolution No. 4385 on the real property
owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description,
location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as
well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction.
The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice
which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer
or successor in interest.
Landscape
14.
15.
16.
. , .
The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with
the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The plans
shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director prior to the
approval of the final map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first. The
Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and
maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and
debris.
The first submittal of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanied by the
project’s improvement and grading plans.
Prior to occupancy of individual units, the applicant shall construct the community
theme/noise attenuation walls shown on the Landscape Concept Plan Exhibit.
PC RESO NO. 4385 -9- /if
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a detailed noise
study for those lots impacted by noise levels 60 dBA CNEL or greater, addressing
necessary interior noise mitigation measures for Villages E, F, G, K and P, such that
at a minimum the following mitigation shall be ensured: (1) the interior noise levels
shall be mitigated to 45 dBA CNEL when openings to the exterior of the residence
are closed; and (2) if openings are required to be closed to meet the City standard,
mechanical ventilation shall be provided.
Sipns and Identification
18. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a uniform sign
program for this development prior to occupancy of any building.
19. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings
so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or
addresses shall contrast to their background color.
Miscellaneous Planninp Conditions
20. The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales offtce at all
times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
21. All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be
limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks, and streets.
22. Prior to the occupancy of any dwelling units in Villages E, F, G, K and P, these same
Villages E, F, G, K and P shall be annexed into the Ranch0 Carrillo Master
Homeowner’s Association.
Environmental
23. The Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of, all applicable
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR 91-04 and MEIR 93-01 that are found
by this resolution to be feasible.
24. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the applicable
mitigation measures contained in the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan Final EIR Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
25. The Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the project site with the
project as described in the Final EIR 91-04, except as modified by this resolution.
26. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
PC RESO NO. 4385 -lO- M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
. 28
27.
28.
may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridors
(Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road), in a form meeting the approval of the
Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #l on file in the Planning
Department).
Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar
Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney
(see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
The Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales and/or rental offices
associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be
approved by the Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the Planning
Department).
Ewineering
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall comply with the
requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a
program is formerly established by the City.
This project is approved for up to five final subdivision maps for the purposes of
recordation.
If the developer chooses to record a final subdivision map out of the phase shown on the
tentative map, the new phasing must be reviewed and approved or conditionally approved
by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
The developer shall provide an acceptable means for maintaining the private easements
within the subdivision and all the private: streets, sidewalks, street lights, storm drain
facilities and sewer facilities located therein and’ to distribute the costs of such
maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the
subdivision. Adequate provision for such maintenance shall be included with the CCL!?&
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
All concrete terrace drains shall be maintained by the homeowner’s association (if on
commonly owned property) or the individual property owner (if on an individually
owned lot). An appropriately worded statement clearly identifying the responsibility
shall be placed in the CC&Rs (if maintained by the Association) and on the Final Map.
The developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers,
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the City, the
PC RESO NO. 4385 -ll- lL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
35.
36.
37.
Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the City within
the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City
Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and
requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
Rain gutters must be provided on structures located on lots with less than a 5’ setback
from the perimeter of the structure to the lot flowline, in accordance with City
Standard GS-15, to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or street to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The developer shall provide for sight distance corridors at all street intersections in
accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement on the
final map (and in the CC&Rs):
“NO structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the
street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight
distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section
8.B.3. The underlying property owner or homeowner’s association shall maintain this
condition.”
Fees/Agreements
38.
39.
40.
41.
Prior to issuance of a building permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the
property owner shall pay a one-time special development tax in accordance with City
Council Resolution No. 9 l-39.
The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless
regarding drainage across the adjacent property.
The subject property is within the boundaries of Assessment District No. 96-1 (Melrose
Drive). Upon the subdivision of land within the district boundaries, the owner may pass
through assessments to subsequent owners only if the owner has executed a Special
Assessment District Pass-through Authorization Agreement. Said Agreement contains
provision regarding notice to potential buyers of the amount of the assessment and other
provisions and requires the owner to have each buyer receive and execute a Notice of
Assessment and an Option Agreement. In the event that the owner does not execute the
Authorization Agreement, the assessment on the subject property must be paid off in full
by the owner prior to final map approval.
PC RESO NO. 4385 -12- 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
42. As required by state law, the subdivider shall submit to the City an application for
segregation of assessments along with the appropriate fee. A segregation is not required
if the developer pays off the assessment on the subject property prior to the recordation of
the final map. In the event a segregation of assessments is not recorded and property is
subdivided, the full amount of assessment will appear on the tax bills of & new lot.
43. The owner shall execute a hold harmless agreement for geologic failure.
44. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner shall give
written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the
subdivision plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping
District No. 1 on a form provided by the City.
Grading
45.
46.
47.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
tentative map, a grading permit for this project appears to be required. The developer
must submit and receive approval for grading plans in accordance with City codes and
standards prior to issuance of a building permit for the project.
Upon completion of grading, the developer shall ensure that an “as-graded” geologic plan
is submitted to the City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed
by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and
must be based on a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. This
plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist. The plan
shall be prepared on a 24” x 36” mylar or similar drafting film and shall become a
permanent record.
No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision
unless a grading or slope easement or agreement is obtained from the owners of the
affected properties and recorded. If the developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope
easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case the developer must
either amend the tentative map or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the
project site in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved tentative map as
determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
Dedications/Improvements
48. Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be provided or
installed prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit as may be required by
the City Engineer.
49. The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and
easements required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be
PC RESO NO. 4385 -13- lf
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
made by a certificate on the final map for this project. All land so offered shall be
granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the
City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated.
50. Direct access rights for all lots abutting Palomar Airport Road, Melrose Drive, and
Street “A-B” shall be waived on the final map.
51. The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best
management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management
Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge
to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
A.
B.
C.
All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
Best Management Practices shail be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
52. The design of all private streets and drainage systems shall be approved by the City
Engineer. The structural section of all private streets shall conform to City of Carlsbad
Standards based on R-value tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall be
inspected by the City. The standard improvement plan check and inspection fees shall be
paid prior to approval of the final map for this project.
53. Drainage outfall end treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road for
maintenance purposes is not provided, shall be designed and incorporated into the
grading/improvement plans for the project. These end treatments shall be designed so as
to prevent vegetation growth from obstructing the pipe outfall. Designs could consist of a
modified outlet headwall consisting of an extended concrete spillway section with
longitudinal curbing and/or radially designed rip-rap, or other means deemed appropriate,
as a method of preventing vegetation growth directly in front of the pipe outlet, to the
satisfaction of the Community Services Director and the City Engineer.
PC RESO NO. 4385 -14- /?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
Final Man Notes
54. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the final map as non-mapping data:
A. All improvements within Village G are private and are to be privately maintained
with the exception of the water lines.
B. Geotechnical Caution:
1. Slopes steeper than two parts horizontal to one part vertical exist
within the boundaries of this subdivision.
2. The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its
successors in interest has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify
the City of Carlsbad from any action that may arise through any
geological failure, ground water seepage or land subsidence and
subsequent damage that may occur on, or adjacent to, this
subdivision due to its construction, operation or maintenance.
C. No structure, fence, wall, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street
level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a
sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standards. The underlying
property owner, or homeowner’s association shall maintain this condition.
Master Plan Improvements
55. Prior to approval of any final map, the following improvements as required in the
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan (MP) and Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP)
for Zone 18 shall be guaranteed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These
improvements shall be substantially completed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit within Ranch0 Carrillo:
A. Melrose Drive - Alpa Road to Palomar Airnort Road
a Complete grading to ultimate right-of-way width to prime arterial
standards.
0 Construction of a median and two lanes in each direction and
intersection improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
B. Poinsettia Lane - Melrose Drive to Zone 18 Western Boundarv
l Complete grading to ultimate right-of-way width to major arterial
standards.
l Construction of full major arterial standards from the intersection
with Melrose Avenue to the entrance to Village J and the school site.
~ PC RESO NO. 4385 -15- do
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
56. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall reimburse the City of
Carlsbad for frontage improvements for Palomar Airport Road, in accordance with
the “Zone 18 Cost Distribution for Palomar Airport Road East, Project No. 3166.”
57. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be
C.
D.
E.
El Fuerte Street - ThrouPh Zone 18
l Complete grading to ultimate right-of-way width.
l Construction of one lane in each direction from the southerly
boundary of the Master Plan to the entrance to Village T.
Sewer Facilities, including:
l 12” main in Melrose Drive
l 12” main in, or adjacent to Poinsettia Lane
l Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section A
l Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section C
l Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section D
l Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section F
l Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section G
l North La Costa Lift Station
Water Facilities. including:
l A portion of the proposed potable l&inch main in the future
alignment of Melrose Avenue.
l The proposed potable 30-inch transmission line in the proposed
alignment of El Fuerte within Zone 18.
l A portion of the proposed reclaimed &inch main in the proposed
alignment of Melrose Avenue.
l The proposed reclaimed 8-inch main in the proposed alignment of El
Fuerte within Zone 18.
l The proposed potable 10” and 8” mains from Melrose to El Fuerte
through service Area E.
F. Drainape Facilities, including:
l Proposed double 5’ x 5’ box culvert under Melrose Drive.
l Detention basins, channel and flood control improvements necessary
to mitigate for erosion and protect on site Master Plan and off site
downstream properties from significant impacts.
PC RESO NO. 4385 -16- 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
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the
developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided
by law, improvements shown on the tentative map, and the following improvements:
Phase 1 Imnrovements
a. Full-width improvements to all streets within the Phase 1 boundaries.
b. Melrose Drive along the Phase 1 boundary to include the following
improvements:
l No. 3 northbound through lane
l Northbound bicycle lane
l Curb, gutter, sidewalk
l Street lighting
l Raised landscaped median
l Landscape area between sidewalk and theme wall
l All utilities generally placed beneath the required travel lane and
sidewalk
C. Prior to occupancy of the 51”’ unit or prior to the occupancy of any unit
located 1200’ or greater from the intersection of Melrose Drive and
Poinsettia Lane, secondary access shall be provided to the project to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Phase 2 Improvements
a. Full-width improvements to all streets within the Phase 2 boundaries.
b. Full-width street improvements to “A-A” Street along the Phase 2
boundaries from “A-B” Street to “F-A” Street.
C. Full-width street improvements to “A-B” Street from “A-A” Street to
Palomar Airport Road.
d. A fully actuated signal at the intersection of “A-B” Street and Palomar
Airport Road.
Phase 3 Imnrovements
a. Full-width improvements to all streets within the Phase 3 boundaries.
b. Palomar Airport Road along the project boundary to include the following
improvements:
PC RESO NO. 4385 -17- sa
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
0 No. 3 eastbound through lane
l Eastbound bicycle lane
l Curb, gutter, sidewalk
0 Street lighting
0 Raised landscaped median
0 Community theme wall
l Landscape area between sidewalk and theme wall
l All utilities generally placed beneath the required travel lane and
sidewalk
Phase 4 Imnrovements
a. Full-width improvements to all streets within the Phase 4 boundaries.
b. Palomar Airport Road along the project boundary to include the following
improvements:
l No. 3 eastbound through lane
l Eastbound bicycle lane
0 Curb, gutter, sidewalk
0 Street lighting
l Raised landscaped median
l Community theme wall
l Landscape area between sidewalk and theme wall
l All utilities generally placed beneath the required travel lane and
sidewalk
Phase 5 Imurovements
a. Full-width improvements to all streets within the Phase 5 boundaries.
b. Melrose Drive along the Phase 5 boundary to include the following
improvements:
l No. 3 northbound through lane
0 Northbound bicycle lane
a Curb, gutter, sidewalk
0 Street lighting
0 Raised landscaped median
l Landscape area between sidewalk and theme wall
l All utilities generally placed beneath the required travel lane and
sidewalk
PC RESO NO. 4385 -18- 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
58.
59.
60.
Fire
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
C. Full-width street improvements to the public road connecting Melrose Drive
with Village G.
d. Prior to occupancy of any unit located 1200’ or greater from Melrose Drive,
secondary or emergency access shall be provided to the project, as shown on
the tentative map and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
A list of the above improvements, as well as the site specific private improvements
indicated on the tentative map, shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the
final map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. All
Improvements shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured
improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
All streets shall be constructed in accordance with City Standards and the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan.
All street improvement plans shall include separate traffic signing and striping
plans.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall evaluate building plans
for conformance with applicable fire and life safety requirements of the sate and local
Fire Codes.
Provide additional public fire hydrants at intervals of 500 feet along public streets and/or
private driveways. Hydrants should be located at street intersections when possible, but
should be positioned no closer than 100 feet from terminus of a street or driveway.
Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts
location of required, proposed, and existing public water mains and fire hydrants. The
plan should include off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways, and
traffic circulation for Fire Department approval.
An all weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles shall be
provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the Fire Chief, the
access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other reason, he may,
in the interest of public safety, require that construction operations cease until the
condition is corrected.
All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational before
combustible building materials are located on the construction site.
PC RESO NO. 4385 -19- aY
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
67.
68.
69.
70.
Prior to final inspection, all security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be
equipped with a “Knox” key operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall contact
the Fire Prevention Bureau for specifications and approvals prior to installation.
Prior to building occupancy, private roads and driveways which serve as required access
for emergency service vehicles shall be posted as fire lanes in accordance with the
requirements of Section 17.04.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The applicant shall provide a street map which conforms to the following requirements:
A 400 scale photo-reduction mylar, depicting proposed improvements and at least two
existing intersections or streets. The map shall also clearly depict street centerlines,
hydrant locations and street names.
Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall obtain fire department, State
of California Department of Fish and Game, and the United States Government
Fish and Wildlife Service approval of a wildland management plan. The plan shall
clearly indicate methods proposed to mitigate and manage fire risk associated with native
vegetation growing within 60 feet of structures. The plan shall reflect the standards
presented in the fire suppression element of the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines
Manual. Prior to occupancy of buildings, all wildland fuel mitigation activities must be
complete, and the condition of all vegetation within 60 feet of structures found to be in
conformance with an approved wildland fuel management plan by the Fire Department.
Housing
71. The Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the
project’s market rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the City and
the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule
for development.
General:
72. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Tentative Map.
Code Reminders:
73. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
PC RESO NO. 4385 -2o- G?a-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at the time of
building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Planning and Building.
The Developer shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name policy
and subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval.
This approval shall become null and void if a final map is not approved for this project
within 24 months from the date of project approval.
Prior to the recordation of the first final map the property owner shall execute a
Hold Harmless Agreement that removes the City or any other public agency from
liability for any damage to the driveways for Lots Nos. 116,117,161,180,186,247,
249, and 252 when being used to perform a public service.
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not
limited to the following:
The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer.
Some improvements shown on the tentative map and/or required by these conditions are
located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient title or
interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or interest.
The developer shall conform to Section 20.16.095 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from September 2,1998, to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you
protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
PC RESO NO. 4385 -21- a,6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning.
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on-the 2nd day of September 1998. by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, and
Monroy
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
ABSTAIN:
BAILEY NOI@, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
\
Planning Director
I PC RESO NO. 4385 -22-
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. 4386
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A 384 DWELLING UNIT PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PUD 97-03 ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
ROAD AND EAST OF MELROSE DRIVE AT THE EASTERN
CITY BOUNDARY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 18
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G,
KANDP
CASE NO.: PUD 97-03
WHEREAS, Continental Ranch, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Continental Ranch, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
Those portions of Section 18 and 19, Township 12 South,
Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad , County of San Diego, State of California.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planned Unit
Development Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “U” dated September 2, 1998 ,on file in the
Planning Department, RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G, K AND P, PUD 97-03, as
provided by Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 2nd day of September, 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 persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Planned Unit Development Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F,
G, K AND P, PUD 97-03, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
FindinPs:
1. That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with
Chapter 21.45 of Title 2 of the General Plan, the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, and all
adopted plans of the City and other governmental agencies, in that the residential
development standards and design criteria specified by the Planned Development
Ordinance are generally adhered to within the Master Plan. Where modifications
have occurred as allowed by the Master Plan process, it is in keeping with the
overall intent and purpose of the Master Plan to protect sensitive environmental
resources and to provide a variety of housing opportunities within this residential
community.
2. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the
neighborhood and the community, in that it offers safe, attractive single family
residential uses with a wide range of price in a variety of locations.
3. That such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity in that the project is conditioned to comply with the Zone 18 Local Facilities
Management Plan ensuring that the necessary public facilities and infrastructure
will be provided concurrent with demand and that grading will be in accordance
with the provisions of the Grading Ordinance and the recommendations of the
geotechnical analysis, and that adequate access to the site will be provided from
Melrose Drive.
4. That the proposed Planned Development meets all of the minimum development
standards set forth in Chapter 21.45.090 the design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.080,
and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design
Guidelines Manual, in that the project provides the necessary public and private
street widths, conveniently located private recreation areas, adequate resident and
guest parking, setbacks and landscaping.
5. That the proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural
topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on the
site, in that the project grading is consistent with the approved Ranch0 Carrillo
Master Plan Hillside Development Permit, HDP 91-17, and units will provide
variation in architecture and roof colors as well as landscaping and uniform fencing
on HOA maintained slopes to screen structures from surrounding roadways.
PC RESO NO. 4386 -2- 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6. That the proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site is
compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or
disruptive element to the neighborhood, in that the project is consistent with the
development type and intensity approved for Villages E, F, G, K and P by the
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan. Villages E, F, G, K and P abut Palomar Airport
Road and Melrose Drive and are surrounded by other villages designated for single
and multi-family development.
7. That the project’s circulation system is designed to be effkient and well integrated with
the project and does not dominate the project; in that its road design will provide
automobile and pedestrian access to each of the units via a public and private street
system as well as satisfy guest parking requirements in proximity to the individual
units.
8. The Planning Commission finds that:
a. the project is a subsequent development as described in CEQA Guidelines
15 168(c)(2) and (e), and 15 183;
b. the project is consistent with the General Plan Master EIR (MEIR 93-01) and
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan EIR (EIR 91-04).
C. there was an EIR certified in connection with the prior 1994 General Plan and
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan;
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as significant
in the prior EIRs; and
e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or a Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 162 or 15 163 exist.
9.
10.
11.
12.
That all feasible mitigation measure; or project alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01
and EIR 91-04 which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated
into this Subsequent Project.
That MEIR 93-01 found that air quality and circulation impacts are significant and
adverse; therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding
considerations. The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those
effects, no additional environmental document is required.
The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the
McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April 1994, in that as conditioned the applicant shall
record a notice concerning aircraft noise.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 90-384.
PC RESO NO. 4386 -3- 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, .a11 corrections
and modifications to the Planned Unit Development document(s), necessary to make
them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. Approval of PUD 97-03 is granted subject to approval of CT 97-03. PUD 97-03 is
subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4385.
3. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Condominium Permit.
4. This approval shall become null and void if a final map is not approved for this project
within 24 months of the date of project approval.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of City Council approval to protest imposition of these
fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in
Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with
the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030.
Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set
aside, void, or annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
PC RESO NO. 4386 -4- 3/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a NOTICE similar to this. or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of September 1998. by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman. and
Monroy
ABSENT: Commissioners Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD FLANNINO COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H%iMftLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4386 -5-
-1ne City of CARLSBAB Plaming Department EXHJBIT 4 6% A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION -’
Item No. 1 0
P.C. AGENDA OF: September 2,1998
Application complete date: November 27, 1998
Project Planner: Brian Hunter
Project Engineer: Kenneth Quon
SUBJECT: CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G, K and P
- Request for a Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development Permit to
subdivide the 188.34 acre parcel into 396 lots to include 384 single family units,
11 open space lots and 1 private road lot within Villages E, F, G, K and P of the
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and Local Facilities Management Zone 18.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4385 and 4386
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Tentative Tract Map CT 97-03 and Planned Unit
Development PUD 97-03 based on the findings and subject to the conditions therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is requesting approval of permits to subdivide a 188.34 acre site into 384 single
family lots with a minimum lot size of 3,500 square feet, 11 open space lots and one lot for
private street purposes. As designed and conditioned, the project is in conformance with the
General Plan, Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan (MP 139F) and its proposed amendment (MP 139G),
the Subdivision Ordinance, and the relevant Zoning Chapters of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Villages E, F, G, K and P of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan are located adjacent to the City of
San Marcos to the east, adjacent to Palomar Airport Road to the north, and to Melrose Drive to
the south. The site has been previously graded per Hillside Development Permit HDP 9 1-I 7.
The proposed subdivision is located in the P-C Z.one, within the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan,
and has Residential Medium (4-8 du/ac), Residential Low-Medium (O-4 du/ac) and Open Space
General Plan designation. As shown on Exhibits “A” - “U”, Villages E, F, G, K and P includes
384 single family residential lots for the development of single family detached homes, 11 open
space lots and one private road lot. The minimum lot size for Village E is 3,500 square feet, for
Villages F and P is 4,500 square feet and for Villages G and K, the minimum lot size is 5,000
square feet. The development of 384 units is 32 units less than the amount permitted by the
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, which allows for the development of up to 4 16 units. Access to the
site is from Melrose Drive.
CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RNvCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, CT, k & P
September 2, 1998
Page 2
All tentative maps which create lots less than 7500 square feet in size must process a Planned
Unit Development Permit .pursuant to Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
concurrently with the Tentative Map per the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan (III. Development
Review Process, page 29). The Ranch0 Carrillo Development Review process allows for
delayed architectural review. Consistent with this provision, tentative maps and planned
development permits are processed through Planning Commission and City Council with Design
Guidelines instead of floor plans and elevations. These guidelines address such things as
building envelopes, setbacks from slopes, building separations, the Small Lot Architectural
Guidelines, compliance with the Hillside Architectural Guidelines, and the mixture of one and
two story units. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting the approval of proposed Design
Guidelines for Villages E, F, G, K and P as part of this project.
Before obtaining a building permit the applicant shall submit floor plans and architecture for staff
review to ensure compliance with these guidelines. After reviewing these plans and determining
that they are in conformance with the design guidelines that were approved as a part of the
Tentative Map, staff shall present the floor plans and architecture to the Planning Commission as
a minor Planned Unit Development Amendment. The Planning Commission’s review shall
focus on architecture only. The previously approved Tentative Map shall not be opened for
review and no new conditions shall be added to the Tentative Map. Any new conditions added to
the resolution approving the Planned Development Permit Amendment shall be limited to
dealing with architecture and floor plans only.
Since all of these Villages have been before the Commission previously, a brief synopsis of their
history follows:
Village E, a 104 unit duplex project, including 20 affordable two and three bedroom units was
approved via CT 95-06/PUD 95-041 SDP 95-12 by the City Council in 1996.
Villages F, G, and P were approved via CT 93-07/PUD 93-06/SDP 94-01. This project consisted
of 117 single family lots and 1 multi-family lot (Village F) which had a development potential of
120 dwelling units. The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR
91-04) recognized the environmentally constrained nature of Village G and allowed reduced
setbacks to help minimize the impact to the environmentally sensitive areas, and deleted the
requirement for common active recreation open spaces.
Villages J and K were originally approved via CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-OS/SDP 95-l 3. The map
included 18 1 single family dwellings and 27 second dwelling units. The map for Village J has
finalled and is not part of this action. The current proposal, if approved, will supersede previous
approvals on Villages E, F, G, K and P.
The project is subject to the following land use plans, policies, and programs and zoning
regulations:
A. General Plan;
B. Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan (MP- 139F); 34
CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, CT, K & P
September 2, 1998
C. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance), Chapter 21.45 - Planned
Development Ordinance;
D. Inclusionary Housing (Chapters 21.85 and 21.53 of the Zoning Ordinance)
E. Growth Management Ordnance, (Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan); and
F. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance).
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 regulations/policies using both text and tables.
A. General Plan
As discussed below, the proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the
General Plan as originally conditioned via the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for that document.
Land Use - Villages E, F and P have a General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential
Medium (RM) which allows 4-8 dwelling units per net developable acre with a Growth
Management Control Point of 6 dwelling units per acre. Villages E, F and P are proposing 5.4,
4.0, and 4.0 dwelling units per acre respectively.
Villages G and K have a General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Low-Medium
(RLM) which allows O-4 dwelling units per net developable acre with a Growth Management
Control Point of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. Villages G and K are proposing 2.4, and 3.4
dwelling units per acre respectively. The density for Village K is higher than the density allowed
by the Growth Management Control point designated for this village. The increase in density is
allowed per the approved Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and was found to be acceptable because
the maximum number of units allowed by the Master Plan, 18 16, is below the 2091 units
allocated to Zone 18 by its approved Local Facilities Management Plan.
The Land Use section of the General Plan includes service and performance standards for public
facilities. Public facilities of note are drainage and sewer. A major drainage issue associated
with this project is the mitigation of on-site surface runoff so as not to adversely affect on and
off-site downstream properties. Runoff attenuation measures have been installed, concurrent
with the Ranch0 Carrillo mass grading operation to mitigate surface run-off impacts. Ranch0
Carrillo currently does not have any accessible sewer facilities. Therefore major offsite sewer
line construction is required. This construction will occur across adjacent property ownership.
The tentative map will be conditioned so that occupancy of units cannot occur until such time as
sewer facilities are made available to the project.
-
CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RriluCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G, K & P
September 2, 1998
Housing - With the recent approval of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan Amendment of the City
Council (Ordinance No. NS-425 adopted on lo-28-97), it is the applicant’s intention to relocate
the previously approved affordable housing sites to Village B (SDP 97-15, CT 97-02 and PUD
97-02). CT 97-03 has been conditioned that prior to recordation of the final map an affordable
housing agreement must be entered into which provides for and deed restricts dwelling units as
affordable to lower-income households for the useful life of the dwelling units in accordance
with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Open Space - 189.9 acres (over 35% of the net developable property) of the Master Plan has been
left as open space.
Circulation - Two items with regards to circulation are associated with this and future Ranch0
Carrillo projects. First, major roadway infrastructure must be constructed to gain site access.
This will include construction of Melrose Drive to the ultimate design configuration.
Additionally, each Ranch0 Carrillo tentative map, as a condition of approval of the project, will
be required to complete the roadway system which is needed to access the given site.
Noise - Prior to dwelling unit occupancy the applicant shall construct community theme, noise
attenuation walls to meet the standards contained within the General Plan and submit a detailed
noise study addressing necessary interior noise mitigation measures for these Villages.
Parks and Recreation - A parks agreement has been entered into between the City of Carlsbad
and the Zone 18 property owners.
Public Safety - The proposed project is required to provide sidewalks, street lights, and fire
hydrants, as well as contribute to the public facilities fee program, as shown on the tentative map,
or included as conditions of approval.
B. Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan
The Master Plan designates Village E for single family development with a density range of 4-8
dwelling units/acre. The proposed project consists of 95 single family units on 17.7
unconstrained acres for a density of 5.4 du/ac which is consistent with the Master Plan. Village
E is to be developed as a single family subdivision with a minimum lot size of 3,500 square feet.
The Master Plan designates Village F for single family development with a density range of 4-8
dwelling units/acre. The proposed project consists of 99 single family units on 25.0
unconstrained acres for a density of 4.0 du/ac which is consistent with the Master Plan. Village
F is to be developed as a single family subdivision with a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet.
The Master Plan designates Village G for single family development with a density range of O-4
dwelling units/acre. The proposed project consists of 39 single family units on 16.2
unconstrained acres for a density of 2.4 du/ac which is consistent with the Master Plan. Village
G is to be developed as a single family subdivision with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet.
TABLE 1: VILLAGES E, F, G, K AND P DESIGN GUIDELINES SYNOPSIS
Unit Mix
Plotting of Units
m of 3 floor plans with a minimum of 3 front building elevations for each
No floor plan shall be plotted for more than 60% of the total units on a street; no two
units with identical front facades closer than 100’ on the same street; and building
Front: All villages except for Village G in accordance with Section
2 1.45.090(b)(2)(A) of Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Village G: 10’ minimum, 15’ average to livable portion of building or
garages turned 90 degrees from the street; and 20’ for garages facing the
15’ deep minimum flat usable yard
Architecture
5’ minimum, 10’ minimum for comer lots from street ROW and large slopes
Minimum 20’ x 20’ interior dimension. Street-facing garages shall be 20’ from ROW
for driveway parking. Garage doors shall be set into .the walls a minimum of 3”.
Three car garages shall be limited to no more than 50% of the units in a village.
s serving 3 car garages shall have a minimum width of 24’ at the back of
CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - &,ucHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G, k & P
September 2, 1998
Pane 5
The Master Plan designates Village K for single family development with a density range of O-4
dwelling units/acre. The proposed project consists of 95 single family units on 27.8
unconstrained acres for a density of 3.4 du/ac which is consistent with the Master Plan. Village
K is to be developed as a single family subdivision with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet.
The Master Plan designates Village P for single family development with a density range of 4-8
dwelling units/acre. The proposed project consists of 56 single family units on 14.0
unconstrained acres for a density of 4.0 du/ac which is consistent with the Master Plan. Village
P is to be developed as a single family subdivision with a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet.
The Master Plan allows delayed architectural review with the adoption of design guidelines at the
tentative map stage. Table 1 summarizes the design guidelines for Villages E, F, G, K and P.
CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - I&vCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, b, I( & P
September 2, 1998
Page 6
Second Dwelling Units Up to 20% of the lots in Villages E, F, G, K and P may be developed with second
dwelling units. All second units to conform with section 2 1.10.0 15 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance, the Ranch0 Carrillo Master
Plan and Villages E, F, G, K and P Design Guidelines.
Minor Modifications Allows a change to five or less of these provisions per Planning Director approval if
determined to be in substantial conformance with the approved project. I
The project is consistent with the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan as discussed below.
4 Review of the project plans for the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
approved Hillside Development Permit (HDP 91-17) and the subdivision grading
design is consistent with the approved mass grading design.
W A 50’ landscape setback is required along Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport
Road to screen the units from the roadway and to buffer residential units from
traffic noise. The proposed landscaping within this setback area is consistent with
the Master Plan landscape guidelines. Streetscape landscaping, community theme
walls and fences, village fences, as well as Village entry monumentation into the
project, are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan.
C> The project is conditioned to require that all public facilities necessary to serve the
project are provided prior to, or concurrent with, development in accordance with
the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. Two major items with regard to
circulation are associated with this and future Ranch0 Carrillo projects. Major
roadway infrastructure must be constructed to gain site access to the Master Plan
area. This will include full width construction of Melrose Drive. An assessment
district has been formed to help finance this improvement.
The circulation systems for Villages E, F, G, K and P have been laid out in
accordance with the requirements of the approved Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan.
The road system consists of a public street system which has been designed to
consist of curb, gutter, and sidewalk contained within the street sections specified
in the Master Plan. A real benefit from a circulation standpoint is with the
redesign of Villages K and P; a through road is now proposed between Poinsettia
Lane and the rest of the villages, where previously Village K’s internal circulation
system at the intersection of Melrose Drive and Poinsettia Lane was a cul-de-sac.
Further, the connection between Village G and Village F has been reduced to a
24’ all weather emergency access easement, thereby reducing the impact to the
natural open space from physical construction as well as from use.
CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - Rhl\tCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, b, K & P
September 2, 1998
VILLAGE E, F, G, K and P
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE
Standard Required Proposed
Lot Size (min.):
Village E 3,500 square feet 3,500 square feet minimum
Village F 3,500 square feet 4,500 square feet minimum
Village G 3,500 square feet 7,580 square feet minimum
Village K 3,500 square feet 5,560 square feet minimum
Village P 3,500 square feet 4,360 square feet minimum
Front Yard Setback, Villages 20 feet when garage faces Same as required
E, F, K and P: directly onto a street; however
setbacks may be varied to a
fifteen foot average with a ten
foot minimum.
Village G: 10’ minimum with a 15’ average
to the livable portion or garages
turned 90 degrees from the
street. 20’ minimum for a
garage facing the street.
Building Separation 10’ minimum 10’ minimum
Building Height 30 feet 30 feet maximum
Public Street Width, Villages
E, F, K and P: 36 feet (parking both sides) Public streets with a minimum 36’
32 feet (parking one side) curb to curb face width
30 feet (no parking) Private streets with a minimum 36’
Private Street Width, Village curb to curb face width
G:
C. Planned Development Ordinance
The proposed 396 lot subdivision consists of 384 single family lots, 11 open space lots and one
private road lot. All of the Villages are being processed under one PUD. Villages E, F, K, and P
are small lot planned unit developments. Village G is being processed according to the Planned
Development Ordinance because all lots will front on a private street.
Table 2 below summarizes Village E, F G, K and P compliance with the Planned Development
Ordinance development standards:
39
.-
CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - I&lqCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G, K & P
September 2, 1998
Page 8
. ,
Parking: 2 car garage/unit minimum = 768
Resident 2 per unit = 768 spaces spaces
Guest (384 -10) x .25 + 5 = 99 spaces Over 300 On-street parking spaces
RV Storage 20 sq. ft. per unit Reservation of 7,680 square feet
384 units x 20 = 7,680 sq. ft. of RV storage in the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan Recreational
Vehicle Storage Lot.
Storage Space 392 cubic feet per unit Required space provided in 2 car
iiw%e
Recreation Space: 200 sq. ft./unit x 384 units = 124,800 sq. ft.
76,800 square feet (half of (private rear yards - 86,400 sq. ft.;
which may be provided as common rec. areas - 38,400 sq. ft.)
private yards)
With the following exceptions (see the Master Plan specific design criteria), Villages E, F, G, K
and P will satisfy the Planned Development Ordinance requirements for single family
development: (Theses exceptions are allowed by the Master Plan) 1)in Village G single family
development with lots less than 7,500 square feet in size shall not be required to provide
common recreational facilities if the majority of the lots in the subdivision have a lot size of
7,500 square feet or greater. In addition, this Village is completely surrounded by open space
and has several points of access to the community trail system which provides for recreational
opportunities; 2) in Village G reduced front, rear and side yard setbacks may be permitted in
order to protect sensitive plant species; 3) panhandle lots shall be permitted under certain
conditions (see Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan; Villages E, G and K Special Design Criteria).
The project design is consistent with design criteria specified by the Planned Development
Ordinance. The proposed internal circulation pattern, which includes 36’ to 40’ wide (curb to
curb) public streets in Villages E, F, K and P and 32’ to 36’ wide (curb to curb) private streets in
Village G, is designed to provide direct access to individual units which contain at a minimum
two car garages. The street system will provide on-street guest parking. The architecture will be
consistent with approved and/or proposed development in the surrounding Ranch0 Carrillo
villages.
D. Inclusionary Housing (Chapters 21.85 and 21.53 of the Zoning Ordinance)
The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan requires project compliance with the City’s Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance; therefore, 15% of the total number of proposed units must be affordable to
low income households. Additionally, 10% of the required affordable units must be three
bedroom units. The required findings include consistency with General Plan goals and policies,
adequacy of the site and street system, and a determination that the affordable units are
compatible with surrounding uses, and will not adversely impact the site or surrounding areas
including traffic circulation.
CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RAKHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, CJ, K & P
September 2, 1998
Page 9
As mentioned previously most of these units, including the three bedroom units, will be provided
in Village B. A portion of the Inclusionary requirement may be provided onsite as second units
pending the outcome of SDP 98- 12 which is presently being processed.
As stated in the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, the majority of the affordable Housing for Ranch0
Carrillo will be located in Village B as multi-family condominiums or apartments. Village B is
located adjacent to the intersection of Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road. This location
puts. it in proximity to jobs along the industrial corridor of Palomar Airport Road and bus stops
on Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road.
E. Growth Management Ordinance - Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan
The project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 18 in the City’s southwest
quadrant and is subject to the conditions of the Zone 18 LFMP. The 384 unit project is 32 units
below the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance of 416 units. The impacts on public
facilities created by this project and compliance with the adopted performance standards are
summarized as follows:
TABLE 3: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
Standard Impacts Compliance
City Administration 1,335 square feet Yes
Library 712 square feet Yes
Waste Water Treatment 384 EDU Yes
Parks 2.67 acres Yes
Drainage PLDA D Yes
Circulation 3,840 ADT Yes
Fire Stations 2,5, and 6 Yes
Open Space 189.9 acres (Master Plan Yes
Performance Standard OS)
Schools San Marcos Unified School Yes
District
Sewer Collection System 384 EDU Yes
Water 249,600 GPD Yes
CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RA&HO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G, K & P
September 2, 1998
F. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the CMC)
The Carlsbad Municipal Code requires a subdivision map to be filed in accordance with Title 20
for any subdivision project. As conditioned, the proposed tentative map is in compliance with
the City’s Subdivision Ordinance in compliance with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance in that the
lots are in accordance with the provisions of Title 21 (Planned Development Ordinance) and all
of the necessary infrastructure improvements would be provided. The findings required by Title
20 can be made for this project and are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4385,
dated September 2, 1998. Essentially, those findings state that the proposed map and the
proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, is consistent with and
satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious
public. health problems, in that the project is designed in accordance with the Ranch0 Carrillo
Master Plan; is proposing densities that are consistent with the RM and RLM land use
designations of the Land Use Element of the General Plan; prior to the recordation of any final
map the deeding of an acceptable school site to the San Marcos Unified School District and a
financing plan approved by the San Marcos School District guaranteeing the construction of the
necessary school facilities must occur; the mitigation of onsite surface runoff so as not to affect
on and offsite downstream properties is required; major offsite sewer line construction is
required; prior to recordation of the final map an affordable housing agreement must be entered
into which provides for and deed restricts dwelling units as affordable to lower income
households for the useful life of the dwelling units; over 35% of the net developable acreage of
the Master Plan has been left as open space; the construction of Melrose Drive and access to this
subdivision from it is required; prior to occupancy the construction of noise walls to meet the
standards contained within the General Plan is required; a parks agreement between the City of
Carlsbad and the property owners has been completed; and all setbacks, parking, recreational
space, streets and storage meet the minimum standards of the Planned Development Ordinance.
The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding
properties are designated for residential development on the General and the Ranch0 Carrillo
Master Plan. The Palomar Airport Road right-of-way separates this site from non-residential
uses to the north Plan.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is
adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed, in
that the product type is in accord with the Master Plan and the dwelling unit count is less than
that allowed by the Master Plan.
The design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in
that all applicable biological mitigation measures required by Final EIR 91-04 and MEIR 93-01
have been incorporated into the project and/or added to the project as conditions of approval.
The discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California
Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the sewer and drainage requirements
of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and EIR 91-04 have been considered and appropriate sewer
CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RhlqCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G, K & P
September 2, 1998
and drainage facilities have been designed and will be secured. In addition to City Engineering
Standards and compliance with the City’s Master Sewer and Drainage Plans, National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards will be satisfied to prevent any discharge
violations.
Sewer service to this project will be provided by public sewer lines that will tie into a 12” sewer
main to be installed to serve the entire Ranch0 Carrillo development. This sewer main will then
connect with an offsite pump station, which will pump sewage to the existing Buenakn Marcos
Interceptor system presently located on El Camino Real. As sewer improvements have yet to be
installed for the entire Master Plan area, a condition of this project will specify that sewer line
improvements be guaranteed prior to approval of any final map.
Domestic water will be provided to the project from tmnk lines of the 16” water main beneath
Melrose Drive. The 16” water main will be installed concurrently with the construction of
Melrose Drive. An 8” reclaimed water line will be installed in Melrose Drive and will be tapped
for irrigation of the slope areas. As water improvements have yet to be installed for the entire
Master Plan area, a condition of the project will specify that water line improvements be
guaranteed prior to approval of any final map.
Surface drainage will be conveyed by standard curb and gutter to drain to an underground storm
drain system, with various approved outlet areas. A broader drainage issue associated with the
entire Ranch0 Carrillo development is to provide drainage improvements to mitigate onsite
runoff upstream of this project to prevent adverse affects to downstream onsite and offsite
properties. A condition of this project will specify that construction of drainage mitigation
improvements be guaranteed prior to approval of any final map.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is located within the boundaries of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan (MP-139(F))
which regulates the entire 188.34 acre site. The direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental
impact from the future development have been analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR 91-04) certified by the City Council on July 27, 1993. Additional project level
studies have been conducted including a supplemental noise analysis and soils contamination
assessment. These studies provide more focused and detailed project level analysis and indicate
that additional environmental impacts beyond what was analyzed in Final EIR 91-04 would not
result from implementation of the project. This project qualifies as subsequent development to
both the Ranch0 Carrillo EIR and the City’s MEIR as identified in Section 21083.3 of the
California Environmental Quality Act; therefore, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Prior
Environment Compliance on August 19, 1998. The applicable mitigation measures of Final EIR
91-04 and MEIR 94-01 are included as conditions of approval for this project. With regard to air
quality and circulation impacts, the City’s MEIR found the cumulative impacts of the
implementation of projects consistent with the General Plan are significant and adverse due to
regional factors, therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations.
The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those effects, no additional
environmental document is required.
.4
CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RhldCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G, R & P
September 2, 1998
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4385 (CT 97-03)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4386 (PUD 97-03)
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Statement
Local Facilities Impact Assessment
Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance, dated August 19, 1998
Environmental Impact Assessment Form Part II, dated August 11, 1998
Design Guidelines Village E, F, G, K & P
Reduced Exhibits Exhibits “A” - ” U ‘I, dated September 2, 1998.
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 97-03/PUD 97-03
CASE NAME: Ranch0 Carrillo Villages E. F, G. K and P
APPLICANT: Continental Ranch, Inc.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: 396 lot residential subdivision (384 single family lots, 11 onen
snace lots, and one urivate road lot) and a nlanned unit development on pronertv generally
located south of Palomar Airnort Road, North of Carrillo Way, and East of Melrose Drive .
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Those nortions of Section 24. Townshin 12 South, Ranpe 4
West, San Bernardino Meridian and a nortion of Section 18 and 19 , Townshin 12 South. Range
3 West, San Bernardino Meridian. in the Citv of Carlsbad. Countv of San Diego, State of
APN: 221-012-08.09, and 18 and 222-010-02 Acres: 188.34 Proposed No. of Lots/Units:
3961284
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RLM. RM, and OS
Density Allowed: RLM O-4 du/acre, RM 4-8 du/acre Density Proposed: 32 d/u less than MP
Existing Zone: Planned Communitv
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning
Proposed Zone: Planned Communitv
Land Use
Site Planned Community
North Planned Community
South Planned Community
vacant
vacant and raceway
single and multi-family
housing
vacant and single family
housing
vacant
East Planned Community
West Planned Community
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: San Marcos Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 384
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated-:Februarv 13, 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
cl Negative Declaration, issued
cl Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
lxl Other, Prior Comuliance
C-“ty of C)F A sbaci c2 so’ -t -
DISCLOSURE S-UTE~?IT
~PLIC.~lTSSTXTr?rlENTOFDISCLOSUR~ORCE~T~NOW~E~SHIPlNTERE~SONhLL.~PLIC~~O~S ’
I-IICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETOYXRY AL7ION ON 'i3.E PART OF-ME ClTf COCNCIL OR A.XY ?POI- BOARD.COMMISSfO?4 OR COXl&KITEE
..,
z foilowing information musf be ‘disclosed:
List the names and addresses of all persons having a Snanciai interest in the application. Continental Ranch, Inc.
12636 High Bluff Drive, Ste. 300
San Dieuo, CA 92130
Owner --.. List the names and addressees of all ptrson having any ownership interest in the propey involve: Continental Ranch, Tnc-
12636 Hiah Bluff Drive, Ste. 300
If any person identir’ied pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the mm
and addresses of all individuals owing more than IO5 of :he shares in the corporation or owni.
any pamenhip interest in the parmership.
-. If any person identiried pursuant to (1) or (2) a&v: Is a non-yofit organization or a test. list names and addresses or'any person seming as oF,c:: sr director of the non-profit organization as remet or beneficiary of the mm.
DISCLOS.mI P-AGE 1 or:,
2OiE 44 ~3s 73lmas Drrve - Cartsozc. Cal~r=r-lz SZGOS- 1576 - 16; 0; LC0-T 767
.
Disdosure Statement
(Over)
Page 3
5. Have you had more than S250.00 wonh of business transacted with any member of City staff.
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s) X
Person is defined as ‘Any individual, fum, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate. ttusf, receiver, syndicate, this and any other wuntv, city and county, ciry municipality, district or other
political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
\ )l&w-Al.
Signature of Owner/date
?‘k’-V/b &a Lo% d&v/& R. LQ7-m
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
&&&ad. &
Signature of applicant/date
PAGE 1 cd247
CERTIFICATE OF CoBpoBATE RESOLUTIOX OF coNT- RANCH, Ixc.
I, Julie E. Collins, Secretary of CO NTINENTAL RANCH, INC., a Delaware corporation ("corporation@~), do hereby certify that I am a duly elected, gualified and acting officer of the Corporation and, as such, I am familiar with the books, minutes and records of the Corporation; that no provision of the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws of the Corporation requires that any action or signature of the Corporation be attested by a corporate officer; that there is no provision in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws of the Corporation limiting the power of the Board of Directors to adopt the hereinafter stated resolutions; that the following is a true and accurate copy of resolutions duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, on October 14, 1996 either at a duly held meeting of the Board of Directors or by unanimous written consent of all members of the Board of Directors of the Corporation; and that said resolutions have not been modified, rescinded or revoked and are now in full force and effect:
RESOLVED, that one signature from the President or any of the Vice Presidents of the Corporation listed below is required for any and all documents related to planning, engineering, =uWng r development or construction associated with property owned by Continental Ranch, Inc.; including but not limited to maps, easements, agreements, permits, dedications, etc.; and
RESOLVED, the following persons are the duly elected President and Vice Presidents of the Corporation:
Chris Chambers President Donald R; Loback Vice President W. Thomas Hickcox Vice President Donald W. MacKay Vice President David Lother Vice President
RESOLVED FUR-, that one signature from the President or any of the above-designated Vice Presidents is sufficient by itself to bind the Corporation in furtherance of these Resolutions.
WITNESS my hand on this 14th day of October, 1996.
CONTINENTAL RANCH, INC., a Delaware corporation
-Secretary
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: Ranch0 Carrillo Villages E, F, G, K and P. CT 97-03/PUD 97-03
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: .l& GENERAL PLAN: RLM RM OS
ZONING: PC
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Continental Ranch, Inc.
ADDRESS: 12636 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300, San DiePo. CA 92130
PHONE NO.: (619) 793-2580 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 221-012-08.09, and 18 and 222-
010-02
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 188.34 ac.
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: unknown
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 1.335
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 7 12
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 384 EDU
Park: Demand in Acreage = 2.67
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin = D
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 3.840
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 2.5, and 6
Open Space: Acreage Provided = 250 bv Master Plan
Schools: San Marcos Unified
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDU 384
Identify Sub Basin = Buena/San Marcos
Interceptor
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD = 249,600
The project is 32 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
City of
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Please Take Notice:
The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the
project described below have already been considered in conjunction with
previously certified environmental documents and, therefore, no additional
environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed.
Project Title: Ranch0 Carrillo Village “E,F,G,K and P” (CT 97-03/PUD 97-
03)
Project Location: South of Palomar Airport Road, West of Eastern City
Boundary, North of Carrillo Way, East of Bressi Ranch
Project Description: A 396 lot, 384 dwelling unit tentative map and planned
development permit.
Justification for this determination 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 20 days of
date of publication.
DATED: AUGUST 19, 1998
CASE NO: CT 97-03/PUD 97-03
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES “E,F,G,K AND P”
PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 19, 1998
MICHAEL J. H~LZ~LLER
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 l (760) 438-l 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 a9
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 97-03/PUD 97-03
DATE: August 11, 1998
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Ranch0 Carrillo Villatzes “E,F.G.K and P”
2. APPLICANT: Continental Ranch , Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 12636 High Bluff Drive. Suite 300, San
Dieao.CA 92130(619)793-2580
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 2- 13-97
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for apuroval of a Tentative Map and a Planned Unit
Development Permit. The Tentative Mau and Planned Unit Development Permit will allow for
the development of 384 sinple familv units within Villages “E,F.G,K, and P” of the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan .
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 c] Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems
cl Water
q Air Quality
0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
cl Hazards cl Cultural Resources
cl Noise cl Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
I Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
cl
cl
cl
cl
lxl
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment. but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Plaliner Signature
6 s9f3
Date
Planning Directox SigMure Date
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration. or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
a “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is nr$ adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment. but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed prqject, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
I-
* If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant. and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect. or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
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): (Potentially significant unless
mitigated)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (No impact: 1; p. 122-144)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (see Lb above)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (see Lb. above)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (see 1.b above)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (No impact; 1; p. 247)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (see II a above)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (see II a above)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a)
b)
c)
4
e)
f-l
Fault rupture? (No impact; 1; p. 107)
Seismic ground shaking? (No impact; 1; p.102 -
109)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(No impact; 1; p. 99-10 1)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (No impact;
1: Appendix E)
Landslides or mudflows? (No impact; I; p. 107-
111)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (No
impact; 1; page 99- 10 1 and 106- 111)
Subsidence of the land? (No impact: 1; Appendix
E) Expansive soils? (No impact: 1; p. 102-I I 1)
Unique geologic or physical features? (No impact;
I p. Appendix E))
Potentially Significant
Impact
cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
0
Cl
cl
0
cl
Cl
0
cl
cl
0
cl
Cl
0
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Cl
cl
cl
0
Cl
cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
0
0
0
0
Cl
cl
Less Than
Significant
impact
Cl
cl
Cl
cl
0
Cl
cl
Cl
0
cl
cl
0
0
0
0
Cl
cl
No
Impact
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
5 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
b)
Cl
4
e)
f,
g)
h)
9
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (No impact;
1; p. 96-100)
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (see a.)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (No impact, 1; p. 99 and
101)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (see a.)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (see a.)
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? (No impact; 1; p. 95- 100)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(see f.)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (see f.)
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (see f.)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (No
impact: 1; p 120 and 228, see attached
explanation)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (No
impact; 1; p 112-120)
c) Alter air movement. moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (see b.)
d) Create objectionable odors? (see b.)
VI. TRANSPORTATlON/ClRCULATlON. Would the
proposal result in:
4
b)
cl
d)
e>
f-J
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (No
impact: 1; p. 164- I 88, see explanation attached)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (see a.)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (see a.)
InsuffIcient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(see a.)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(see a.)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (see a.)
6
Potentially
Significant
impact
0
q
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl cl
cl
Cl
0
q
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
incorporated
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
a
Less Than
Significant
Impact
cl
0
0
cl
C
cl
cl
II
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
0
cl
0
NO
Impact
IXI
lxl
Ix1
[XI
lx
!xl
El
IXI
lx!
Ix)
IXI
IXI
!x
txl
[XI
El
lx
IXI
1xI
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
Less Than
Significant
Impact
cl
No
Impact
VII.
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (see a.)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a)
b)
cl
4
e>
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (No impact; 1; p. 54-
81)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(No impact, 1; Appendix B)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (No impact; 1; p. 54-
81) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (No impact; 1; p. 54-81)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (see a.)
cl 0 0 [XI
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
El
cl
El
0
El
El
El
El
[xl
cl
Cl
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(No impact; 1; p. 247)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (see a.)
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? (see a.)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
0
cl
0
cl
lxl
1x1
[XI
a>
b)
c)
4
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (No
impact; 1; p. 247)
Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No impact; 1;
p. 248)
The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (see b.)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (see a.)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush.
grass, or trees? (No impact; 2; p. IV.Fl-F3)
cl cl cl El
0
cl
cl
El
0
cl
cl
El
IXI
lxl
Ix)
Ix)
cl
cl
cl
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (No impact; I ;
p. 189-207)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (see a.)
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon. or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
Rev. 03/28/96 7
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
b)
c>
4
e>
Fire protection? (No impact: 1; p. 2 18 and 220)
Police protection? (No impact; 1; p. 2 18)
Schools? (No impact; 1; p. 2 19 and 221)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(No impact; 1; p. 220-221)
Other governmental services? (No impact; 1; p.
218-221)
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
xv.
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? (No impact; 1; p.247)
b) Communications systems? (No impact; 1; p. 249-
250)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (No impact; 1;; p.2 19-221)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (see c.)
e) Storm water drainage? (No impact; 1; p. 99-100)
f) Solid waste disposal? (No impact; 1; p.224)
gj Local or regional water supplies? (see c.)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (No
impact; 1; p. 156)
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
(No impact; 1; p. 156 and 161-163)
c) Create light or glare? (No impact; 1; p. 247)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
4
b)
cl
4
Disturb paleontological resources? (No impact; 1;
p. 82-92)
Disturb archaeological resources? (see a.)
Affect historical resources? (see a.)
e)
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(see a.)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (see a.)
RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (No impact;
l:p.218and220)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (No
impact; 1: p. 208-221)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
II
cl
El
cl
•J
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
q El Cl cl
cl
cl cl
cl
cl cl 0 cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl cl q
cl
cl
0
Less Than
Significant Impact
cl
0
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
El
cl q
cl
cl
cl
cl
0 cl cl
cl
cl
0
No
Impact
lxl
!xl
El
Ix1
[XI
ixl
El
El
Ix]
El
IXI
lxl
[XI
IXI
lxl
El
ixl
El
!zl
lxl
la
El
8 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially Potentially Less Than NO Significant Significant Significant Impact
impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce 0 cl 0
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 eiiminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
q 0 0
(“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 cl 0 cl
beings. either directly or indirectly?
Ix)
lxl
Ix]
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.
cl Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan is located on approximately 690 acres north of Alga Road.
south of Palomar Airport Road. east of Bressi Ranch, and west of the City of San Marcos. The
last revision to the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan was made in October of 1997.
This prqject is a request for a subdivision and planned unit development permit to allow the
development of Villages E,F,G,K, and P, which would have 396 lots and384 single family units.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan was evaluated in the “Ranch0 Carrillo Environmental Impact
Report” (EIR 9 l-04) approved by the City Council on July 27, 1993. EIR 91-04 analyzed the
following environmental issue areas: Agriculture, Biology, Cultural Resources, Paleontological
Resources, Hydrology, Water Quality, Geology, Soils, Air Quality, Land Use, Visual Aesthetics,
Grading, Circulation, Noise, Public Facilities, Solid Waste Disposal, and Cumulative Effects. A
Mitigation and Monitoring Program has been approved for the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and
all mitigation measures applicable have been incorporated into the project design or are required
as conditions of approval for the project. The proposed Master Plan amendment will not alter
any mitigation measures previously determined for the Master Plan. The proposed development
is less intense than what is allowed by the Master Plan.
Applicable references are provided next to each item on this environmental impact assessment
form. A few of the items required further explanation:
LAND USE
A Master Plan Amendment is being processed as part of this application and will result in the
project being consistent with the City’s General Plan as the Zoning Code implements the General
Plan and it requires underlying zoning for the Master Plan.
AIR OUALITY:
The Previously certified EIR for the existing Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan made the finding that
if the Master Plan incorporated the recommended mitigation measures that direct impacts to air
quality would be mitigated to below a level of significance. Subsequent to the certification of
that EIR, the City of Carlsbad prepared a Master EIR for the 1994 update of the General Plan.
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.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
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-O 1, 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.
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 minimize 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
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan. therefore. the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246. included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project. therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
Minor revisions to the internal circulation system of the Master Plan will delete the public street
connections between Villages F and G. A public street connection has been established between
Villages K and p to provide a second access into the northeast corner of the Master Plan. The
Traffic Study Update prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. for the previous General Plan
and Master Plan Amendment approved by the City Council in October of 1997 address the
proposed closure of the access between Villages F and G and concludes that it will have no
adverse impact on circulation within the Master Plan.
Source Documents
All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive.
Carlsbad. CA 92009. Phone (760) 438 1161.
1. “Ranch0 Carrillo Environmental Impact Report” (EIR 91-04) certified by the Carlsbad
City Council on July 27, 1993.
2. “Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update” March 1994.
3. “Traffic Study Update for the proposed Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan Amendment”
prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. January 1997.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
12 Rev. 03/28/96
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 Signature
13 Rev. 03/28/96
VILLAGES E,F,G,K,&P
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1. INTRODUCTION
Villages E,F,G,K,&P cover 188.34 gross acres and consist of 382 single family lots,
11 open space lots, and 1 street lot in the northeastern portion of the Ranch0 Carrillo
Master Plan (MP 139E). The minimum lot size for Village E is 3,500 square feet, for
Villages F&P is 4,500 square feet, and for Villages G&K is 5,000 square feet.
2. UNIT MIX & SIZE
The project shall include a mix of floor plans and elevations as follows:
Village E
Minimum Maximum
Number of floor plans 3 8
Number of front elevation
treatments per floor plan 3 6
Village E, F, G, K, &P Design Guidelines 1 October 1997
Village F
Number of floor plans
Number of front elevation
treatments per floor plan
Village G
Number of floor plans
Number of front elevation
treatments per floor plan
Villape K
Number of floor plans
Number of front elevation
treatments per floor plan
Village P
Number of floor plans
Number of front elevation
treatments per floor plan
Minimum
3
3
Minimum
3
3 6
Maximum
8
6
Maximum
8
Minimum Maximum
3 8
3 6
Minimum Maximum
3 8
3 6
The maximum size of the units in Villages E,F,&P shall be as follows:
Single Story Units - Maximum Size - 2,300 sq. ft. (including the area of a
second dwelling unit)
Two Story Units - Maximum Size - 3,500 sq. ft. (including the area of a second
dwelling unit)
Village E, F, G, K, &P Design Guidelines 2 October 1997
The maximum size of the units in Villages G & K shall be as follows:
Single Story Units - Maximum Size - 2,800 sq. ft. (including the area of a
second dwelling unit)
Two Story Units - Maximum Size - 4,000 sq. ft. (including the area of a second
dwelling unit)
3. PLOTTING
All units shall be plotted within the prescribed building envelope as shown on the
Architectural Data Exhibit approved as a part of the tentative map for Villages
E,F,G,K,&P. Plotting shall alternate floor plans so that no individual floor plan is
plotted for more than 60% of the total units on any individual street. No two units with
identical front facades shall be plotted closer than 100 feet of each other on the same
street. Units may be plotted in phases or sequences as long as they are plotted in
conformance with the requirements of the Villages E,F,G,K,&P Design Guidelines. If
the units platted on these lots by the builder do not utilize the entire building envelope,
future homeowners shall have the ability to construct a room addition within this
envelope, as long as the overall building coverage does not exceed 50% of the lot area.
Room additions or accessory structures that are within the building envelopes will not
require an amendment to the Planned Development Permit for this project.
The matrix included as Exhibit A of these conditions shall be attached to the plot plan
for each building phase of each village. This matrix shall show how each phase and the
overall village complies with the percent requirements of Sections 3 (Plotting), 5 D, E,
F & G (Architecture), 6 C (Garages) and 10 (Lot Drains) of these guidelines. This
matrix may be modified subject to the approval of the Planning Director when the floor
plans and elevations for each village are approved.
4. SETBACKS
Melrose Drive &
Palomar Airport
Road All units shall maintain a 50’ minimum setback from Melrose
Drive and Palomar Airport Road ROW
Front All villages except for Village G shall have front yard setbacks in
accordance with Section 21.45.090(b)(2)(A) of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. The front yard setback for Village G shall be
from the backside of the sidewalk as follows: 10’ minimum with
Vilkzge E, F, G, K, & P Design Guidelines 3 October 1997
a 15 ’ average to the livable portion or garages turned 90 degrees
from the street. 20’ minimum for a garage facing the street.
Rear All units shall have a minimum 15 ’ deep, flat usable rear yard.
Side 5’ minimum
10’ minimum for comer lots from street ROW and large slopes
(Per grading ordinance).
Building Separation All units shall comply with the building separation requirements
of the Planned Development Ordinance, Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 21.45.090(5).
5. ARCHITECTURE
A. The architectural theme of this project shah be selected from one or more of the
following styles that have been approved as a part of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master
Plan:
Spanish Colonial Revival
California Mission
Monterey
Spanish Eclectic
Craftsman
Bungalow
Prairie
California Ranch
Whichever style or combination of styles is used, it should be compatible with
the surrounding Villages. Architectural styles are described in the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan, General Community Development Standards pages 31-35.
B. When three or more 2 story units are in a row situated less than 15 feet apart, at
least one of the three units shall have a single story building edge with a depth
of not less than 10 feet adjacent to one of the other units. The roof covering the
single story element shall be substantially lower than the roof for the 2 story
element to the unit (this is not intended to preclude long shed-type roofs falling
to a single story element).
C. When three 2 story units in a row situated between 15-20 feet apart, at least one
of the three units shah have a single story building edge with a depth of not less
than 5 feet adjacent to one of the other units. The roof covering the single story
units shall be substantially lower than the roof for the 2 story element to the unit
(this in not intended to preclude long shed type roofs falling to a single story
element).
Vihizge E, F, G, K, % P Design Guidelines 4 October 1997
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
0.
Thirty-three per cent of all units shall have a single story edge for 40% of the
perimeter of the building. For the purpose of this guideline, the single story
edge shall be a minimum depth of 3 feet. The units qualifying under the 33%
shall be distributed throughout the project.
At least 50% of the units in this project shall have at least four separate building
planes on street side elevations. The minimtm~ offset in planes shall be 18
inched and shall include, but not be limited to building walls, windows and
roofs. The minimum depth between the faces of the forward-most plane and the
rear plane on the front elevation shall be 10 feet. A plane must be a minimum
of 30 square feet to receive credit under this section.
Rear elevations shall adhere to the same criteria outlined in paragraph E for
front elevations, except that the minimum depth between front and back planes
on the rear elevation shall be 3 feet.
At least 50% of the units in this project shall have one side elevation where
there are sufficient offsets or cutouts so that the side yard setback averages a
minhnlml of 7 feet.
50% of exterior openings (doors/windows) in the front of each unit shall be
recessed or projected a minimum of 2” and shall be with wood or colored
aluminum window frames (no mill finished).
The building materials for each unit shall be compatible and complementary to
one another as well as being compatible with surrounding villages.
The design of the units shall be varied to create variety and interest within the
village.
A maximum of two chimneys shall be permitted on any on residence.
At least three color schemes shall be provided for the stucco portions of the
units within this village.
Windows shall be phased to maximum privacy. Windows shall be located so
that they are offset from windows in adjacent units, where that is not possible
landscaping or opaque windows shall be used to provide privacy.
At least three different roof colors shall be used on this project.
A combination of the following materials may be used in the front elevations of
these units to create a varied streetscape: vinyl, brick or brick veneer, wood
trim, stucco and stone.
Village E, F, G, K, &P Design Guidelines 5 October 1997
6. GARAGES
A. All garages shall have a minimum interior dimension of 20’ by 20’.
B. All garages that face on to the street shall provide a minimum of 20’ between
the face of the garage and the ROW to allow for driveway parking.
C. No more than 50% of the units in a village shall have three door garages. Units
with three car garages shall be distributed throughout the project. Driveways
serving three car garages shall have a maximum width of 24’ at the back of the
sidewalk and have a curvilinear side flaring to its greatest width at the entrance
to the garage.
D. Garage doors shall be designed to set into the walls a minimum of 3” rather than
being flush with exterior walls.
7. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Accessory structures shall be permitted as allowed by section 21.10.050(1)(D) of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code (R- 1 Zone). Accessory structures constructed in
conformance with this standard shall not require an amendment to the Planned
Development Permit for this project unless the lot coverage as provided for in these
guidelines would be exceeded.
8. WALLS AND FENCES
Walls and fences shall be provided as shown by the Villages E,F,G,K,&P Landscape
Exhibit.
9. SIGN AGE
Signage will be provided to identify the Villages and provide directional information. All
Signage will be developed in accordance with the Villages E,F,G,K,&P Landscape Exhibit.
The exact location of these signs will be determined prior to issuance of the first building
permit. Signage shall be approved pursuant to Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code.
Village E, F, G, K, &P Design Guidelines 6 octobf?r 1997
10 LOT DRAINS
Private lot drains are approved for lots fronting on steep streets. Lot drains allow pad
elevations to be lowered along steeper streets thereby increasing rear yards and setbacks
from the tops of slopes. The maximum number of lots using these drains shall be
limited as follows:
Street Maximum % of Lots
<2.5% 50%
~2.5 - 5% 75%
<5 - 7.5% 90%
<7.5 - 12% 100%
11.
12.
13.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
All development in Villages E,F,G,K,&P shall comply with the requirements of
Chapter 21.45 (Planned Development Ordinance) of the Carlsbad Municipal code,
except as may be modified for the approved affordable housing incentives package for
the combined affordable housing site.
SECOND UNITS
Up to 20% of the lots in Villages E,F,G,K,&P may be developed with second dwelling
units. All second units shall be developed pursuant to Section 21.10.015 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code and processed in conformance with the requirements of the
Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance, the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, and the Villages
E,F,G,K,&P Design Guidelines. The developer has the option to develop the second
units concurrently with the primary units. The units may be approved as part of the
Minor Planned Development Permit that approves the floor plans and architecture as
long as they are processed consistent with Section 21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code.
MINOR MODIFICATIONS
A cumulative change to five or less of these provisions of these guidelines is considered
a minor modification and may be approved by the Planning Director. However, each
change must be determined to be in substantial conformance with the approved project.
Second dwelling units shall be processed pursuant to the requirements of Section
21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Village E, F, G, K, &P Design Guidelines 7 October 1997
[z? L ;+w :s s :‘5 E lJ?.s :na IEB
is= !S
0: I;i;Z inn ’ B .a i UI~ c+ [SE : Ia5
ig2
‘“p
>
:
i
:, : I‘
5 2 !, I
‘i !Z rw E . ‘C Ew !P j .p :P 1 ‘5 ja :g b.e )o
?
i
: ! I
: : t . GE JO z ‘i:
;f
1 -z
is
2.z
35
g&f
JOY
is
jm
?E
> _m
)P
? i : ! J
: d t i ; id ! 5 ez jg w ?L :m jS! SE jm ?E >_m ,n
)‘oE ; w:z :iii E IC m :om ‘- w ¶ca ;*$ E
jiE g )3(11
a
k ~amoc S!CCCC ~SS_m L nnna LLLL ggg: Giiciii
% u’ c!i i l&i
3
? f > I
ifi
mE .- B E
0”
F
g n
P .x z
iz
b
i,
;d
ss I 1
I )
W
s
fi
i 0
2 a
m u; I
?iSUfDUC t?!CCCC GiZ-mSS L nnnn
b B bt &.-a;
:,
,
ip!
;2i
IS I I
I I
0 I I w ZiamOc Pcccc
L ~S_mS nnno. LLLL oooc 0000 iizliii
T-
m
ii
Pam00
$)Gss L hhhh
t5sbb8 _o,P_o LLLLU.
ui 3 5 $ 5 P = > g* I 8 e!
E cti
5 g; 0 .- .- = “g E 8 .c
s ge s:(D
P zs mu) .- t:
,o
4 .E
n . . $3
h ‘E 76s f 52 x ‘C .- F 3 $5
t;i .s 0 E E &
II f
I iJ ;i7 I9 ! I
I )
*am00 I! tj!jclfT L ILBCH
bssb 0000 GLiiE
0 E 8 $9 nm WD .r 0 c- m 3 E
3
w
u;
~arnoa gccrr cnSSl,m anno. LLLL
8888 GiiGL
5) i
Y ic
;a 59 s 3
5 1
W
%
n -a
!I 0
2 n
W ki
zamoc e! L tjsiis: hhCL LLLL 8”0008 GiiGiZ
3 E 8 $8 [La W* $ g
s
z
0'
a
L
ZamoP g! &iii55
hEthE LLLL 0000 P_O_OS LLl.LlL
% !
3 ii2 La
Ilo
5s
I a
I >
m
CL ii e! FJ
cm00
iSE2 ihh6 ;8bb !,o 0 0 .Lixii
Q I 8 S$ nm wn .z s
1
z
3
m
u1
~amoo jj:rccr v)mmmm hhhb LLLL
8888 GGEE L
w
3
E 0. u
L
al I:
e n
al
8
I j,
$5 wa .z 9 _m
I i
5
0)
I 22
1 ij
n 0
~ /!J
.
I
0
L.
Zamoa gcccc u)l,mrnS nnnn
‘olsbb oooa GGGii
5 z
s iis LO
II*
58
I
2
5 >
m
3 R
a
4
Zamoc f! $ifSE hbEE
'obst oooc GiiEii
hl
% 74
n
0
<
- L
Ll
I-
rprP rinnd 055; A--,. cccc
r lk’ Y [I
1
e
pi I
- a6a.n --sm.. .A. .,.,cmU
I
I
I
I
-
D
-
I
78
I
1
B :I I ,f ~
4
rst I’ 8 0 4
5 B
i 8 I f ! 2 mw
I, pJ
‘j
I
f 19 /I 1 Ii
“Ji ; i d
i-t 1 Cl
/I 1 ,
4
I /
5&
- ,-
: ‘, d
; = 2 i
.1 E ; ;
: : . 0 ;-: E
$ :
; * h 2 i i . ;i i t 2
t :i i it :: :z : 2: ” il
. ‘-..“. r ‘..
. !!i%l -.---
i -s------- :-- ---- --“-- I-
mmaw!-mmB~-I
.- c-2 .Ir:
- *WV “Y”m
--....- 4--
-- ZIL I-
--.---.-.-mm
-i------------.~- ---...-..-M ------ -e-
m9w.mw.-er(o mL.r .c -II..---- II- .._._ -_ --.-.----z w-_.-_ -- --w-k ZlZX ^----- ---- Jz5T.z -------ml .- SC
L-
.k
- ‘mm
Me----.-. -v--- ____ -.------~ -1--.- -‘-a.-.----.----- --...--.--l.- NOTE!5 - Z-- -WE-. --
.- .C- LIm--w”-LLcI*” m-m.--
IIICIIIIIII--lm-wm -l-w-.-* r--Y- .-“-m r--1
m”IIIIml-.--dv II--k*.---- ---lLI”csIaP
mnc---II.-- -.-IIIa.-*.LI
~*=-----
II-8m.vYII- .mwmw-“-~I~~ m-r*---
--an4.h-L”m.u -WLY-.c-mmvmBu-
‘c.Yzzr---- c RI-- -.- --- cm~.-----~~ ---- -.....--I -w-d-
mp.davmallqrr.lln*ru*rr
.- u-
.- h
ZZ- - .ccamwru
-= rmromfw ~rrou.~,
mAka!--- WI
-VI- --m-w- II- --- ----
ll-Il
.--Tmw m-m
El-..--.-- ..-_ -.---.--PusI gmDLIL . .‘.~,-~-~-~ -.-- Pm -- -- ____ - _.._.- -.-.--.-JIM-
LNdI*IW.II- c-
-- ._--_._- -.... --klm.mwm. -~--.- ._-.-- ---01111 -- ..__ -_------ _..-- -
P nu a- ._._...___ YTiZS -urr. . . ..____..____ -___ --- ---.--km-k -----
rr-
.M II- *c-
h: u-
Iauk..---.- . . ..____ -----..-Dhk
-7l.W --
-- -_.- ._. _._- .-..----. -Pco-v* RI-. . ..__.. ___. -. --- __-. --.-...P Lr*curulc .._.___.._ -.--.---..-.~*D-
- MOII.... ‘C”
-
_
.- *
rrll_.._ - .---..- --_-.-.- _I ---._. -.--..-.-.---.--.-- -~...-..---..-~Imm
mN-..._------AZ L ..-_
----..--__---1__ -- .--. -..- .-_._. -_- -zrdz2 -- _...... _--._~___~ ---...--- .____ d- _-. . . - . . ..--.. -- .___._-- -LD -- .__.... --.---.-a- --tie .___.. .._. _---- .-.mmLL
~~-.-~~~----. --- --.-------.--AV- -r---- -_-. ---.-*- -L-e.--- -----
-01...____._ --_---.--- -- -- . .._. -..- .--. ..- . .._ -_- .-.- mm -‘OWL-..--. .-._.. -.- --.-.-- - --I- ..-...- _.._.__ --.-1IT.W -Ly.-....- -------.--.---.---- -ame- LDE,
m
*------mw..m.e ---‘zw~ w-s- CL- .Ikl: - .L-n -7 -.._ -- -.--..-..-.wmdh -- . ..-- .._-..- -.-. -.--.--.--- --.. - - .-.. _.....-..__. -_ .---kb .- uy: W- *c-
.-YN --
-B&WC .._. . ._.... .- ____ - .._ OLM,lW v-.. ..^. - _- _..- ---...--_r-nra, -. . . ._-_-_- _.__.. .a-Rnri
-.-.-- ---VA-.-- .?LwEl6I -
V.--m11 -- .L- .-w--w m---.3--.-C
--lrrrranao-
.RN: I,N.J .C” pII----.--. . ..__ -- .___ --_ meti Be..--. .___ --._-_- ._____..._... - --.. . . . -- .-..-. -_-- _...... mat- -s.. . .._ ._ . .._. _.____ - _-...-- .-Wm.% Me...--. .____._ -- . .__.._ -.--sm- --... ___,.._.__. - _....____ -_ ._.. Illl- m-.. ..__._ __ _....^._..______ ML- - IL-
-e... .--._~ -.---.... - -II------.-.--....--.-.Ja- ----~----~-.-ma IYI-W-II- m..r e-f-3
-- ._._ -..-.-----yI -L- . .._ _- ._ ---_. _--.-.-.-A- UC”. ._ .__- . ..-..--..- -.--- m-. ..______...____ -..--%a.
‘L-
~~..----..-~--~~~ c I - rp-
.II: NU
I)rr? ICma
WI.. . _.___ ..-. - ..-..--~on --. . ._.... - . . ..-... --.-..--Ims
-1 ..__ _ _ .. . ... _ ... _.___ -_ ---. ...... a-. ....... .._ __ ......... ._ _ . .._ _ .. ..- a
--a-Pm. ._.. .- _------ .---Ah -- _._._._. ___.._..... -------1II?w” mm... ______, ._..._...__.__. ----k‘ -L _. ..__ .__._.._.._._._... _ ___.._. --d-
LIB.-.--.-.-.--..-? -II1?ra PII ._.......^__. .___ -..-.--..ll-,r~
R A N C H 0 ,
Landscape I
Plant Palette i24
-G--.-- 1.
ml
r.-.-I.--------- --.-I------.--c - --.-I..---- .-s--w -m-c-- v.C.--.---- s------n.----- --.a- #.-.-----we-----.--- m...-
-- .__ --------.--km LL- ____ -..-.--..-u(I
- mu
-- ..__-___ --or- -~-.-.-^_-- ---- - -1-.----.-----..SWti -.- .-.___ --.-mm -rc---.- --.----- ti-
-- -.-
-L*h---cILII”wr) --.--- -_ --“VU ~~----.--..---.I-~-~
-,-IDSI--- -2T!?E
..-.--.w-------- --.-.-..--a-.--- D -m-m---w- .---.... ----mm mm.--.--- .------= B-m w-d- s.-.------;------.--” --m
---~--.-----~ -- ._.______ --_----.-uQ
- - Lu
“-&- ..__. - _..-. ~ --..- ---a
E,- .__.._._ - -..- ---.--..---mow --- -...- ._._ -.- . ..--- -.---m ~--~..--------c..-
-- -.-
..I.m...B..L.---m- -w-.----w-.“=- h -..--I---- .---a.- -=-c-w ,.C.-ll---- .---m--Ie.a.-- w-e- ..-.------------.--” I.,._
--.-- __._ --.--.-__-- ..-... .5ra -.- .____.....___.-. ---- .._ OIUQ
Y- ___.._____ -.------.-- -I -_______ ------ .___ - -- __.. _ _.____._ --..-.- .___.__ -mwLI t ._-- ___._____. -- .-...-.--.-. -aa -- -____. _.__- .____........ .-u-
-- -- L
-o---poIc~ -2 ia ---------C-m--- - =-~~~-~~~~~-..--“‘- 1. *
-L- -- 7zz
- -- - ,. ~----*Iyr - .w;Rn=“c
-w
=ZL--- ---7szzz ,-IN-
ma-.. . _^_.. ._..._....--..---..--. hM,ICoc) -PNen.- ._...___....-- .--. . . . ..ATolruwc.
-rvurnmcl.u ZEG
?.-.-...-~--~-~-I -w-r---“--.“-- n -..--I---- .-I-.” ---mm- “.-.--.-s”1 .-------L---m. D-e- 1-.--.--s-1--..-.--- -.--
--- ..... .... - .___ .._-. -. .... -.-..-~ .aum. --. -. ... .._ ............ - ... ..__ .. .._ _ EIuol
I-.. . .._._......__... .-_ ._.._ ..___. _._ aq...- -w __._.,__,._ - ._.__.... --..--Dunr -s.--..- .__......--... -..-.-.-.- ._._ IvmLI -.- . ..__ __ . .._..._.._._ -- _.__. -.-am ---.-..- _,,_..__.._.. -..--.--cc-
-- --
mm.-.- . . . ..__._..-..----- -~“s%z, ----.a .._._.._. -.. . .-.-- - . . .-B.Pb.,rcmc, rrc..-.. ._. _.--..- .- ._..._ - .**-(WC,
Lanciscape
Concept Details 26
P I g;
5: 6:
.PS 0. Z” 2 I
Yc ,-. : .= - .’ P :s ‘. 5 . . Pf & 5% $5 =g IJ
-.____._~ - ._.._ ___ .-. ~__ __ ._._ -__ ~-.. ._ -_ ____ --___--. --._ ,..:- - ‘L . ..L A .,.. . .../. r 1P
I :. ii ;i
I: Sji w .z
ii
ii
I : 2 -: i . :; 1 ,i,
: : ;
: 11
j; a: :. +2
0 C
I.
. . . . . . . . r li -. . . . . P 1
p
. . ., ‘_ ., -__-- _,” . . . . . ,_ Y... . . .._ .- ‘, -.._ ‘. i 2%
-. .._ ” . -.-. ‘\. - -.
~.,...-:-.~,--::,..~~~ .,,... /
. ._ .; I, . ..- L..-_---- :
. . .-i : . . . =-_-._
‘.-.-___- -..__ 1
-.. ---.
--. \ .___.. .-- .. .._ ‘\, ‘. %.
, .~--+‘, _ _ .--y,;y/e
. _- //.---Lx ,,;) ., ----- ; up :---, ’ -. / ,..--N. .,--” 1.. .I __.f,,-- _-.A- ------ 2.. \
‘- . ..__ /--.-- _I--- -F/ .-----...- ‘\ .._ --I ‘.. “..
C C . . . . ,‘,\, \ . 1 -, ~ . .._*_, j ‘~ I. _I ..\ ,. ~,; , 1 .\ U-
I-3. -
‘< /J’ K _ .’ _-- ., p- <;
Z I ,/ ,i&“‘/ K
p
‘. I /“I
gi
p jji :3
P Y$
.
s
/
/’
Y
?
.a I’ 7’
7
7 7 i, .-
7 se
‘. _/- ,-- f
... ” .__, _ ‘. , *’ ., / ;
.. . _,I ,’ : _ -- .Y’ _1 ,__
‘_ .’ <: i -------.’ _- ‘I,/, I
,-, .,/-. _’ ; : ‘.
/’ ,.^ I ,.I /
. . , I I i : :-’ ,’ ,~~-.-J...‘~.;~-. ,/.,~>Y -- : i
/ ---------;-..,&““ - .-- \ / ‘--.-/A- : i , : : ---Jp.k
,;; -_, _,” ,j / .------l\ ‘- ---Y --...,&/T
,’ ; : I -* .-,i‘ ’
- . .._______ _-.--.
I----._-,
EXHIBIT 5
11. Cl 97-93/PUD 9743 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES E. F. G. K AND P - Request for a
Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development Permit to subdivide the 188.34 acre parcel
into 396 lots to include 384 single-family units, 11 open space lots, and 1 private road within
Villages E, F, G, K, and P of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and Local Facilities Management
Zone 18.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne introduced this item and stated that Senior Planner, Brian
Hunter, would present the staff report.
project Planner, Brian Hunter, presented the staff report and described the project as follows: This is a
subdivision of Villages E, F, G, K, and P, consisting of 384 single-family lots and 11 open space lots.
Originally E (140 unit duplexes) and F(a potential development of 120 dwelling units) were designated as
the affordable villages. The Master Plan amendment moved the multi-family up into Villages A and B and
turned them into high density. At the same time, there was a concern from the Fish and Wildlife Service,
the Army Corps of Engineers, and the State Department of Fish and Game, regarding the wildlife corridor
along the eastern boundary of the project, They wanted to see to it that the corridor be maintained as
coherently and contiguously as possible, so there were some impacts to Village G. One of the good
things, from environmental and open space standpoints, is that rather than having a full scale roadway
between Villages G and F, now there is only an emergency access which will mean considerably less
grading and lower vehicle impact to that site. Previously, Poinsettia Lane, where it enters Village P, was a
culde-sac area. Wti this proposal, there will now be three streets that go up into the other villages which
enhances circulation for the Master Plan and avoids a wncentration of traffic in specific areas such as
Street “A-A”. Also, when Villages G and K were approved there was no requirement for wmmon active
recreation lots because the villages were adjacent to the open trail system. The current proposal has
22,700 square feet of open space lots and together with the trail system, the total square footage
increases to over 50,000 square feet of active space. 22,690 square feet of open space wvers the requirement for the other villages which, translated, is approximately 100 square feet of open space for
each of the remaining 232 dwelling units.
w MINUTES
n
PLANNING COMMISSION September 2,1998 Page 17
Commissioner Compas asked where the nearest fire station is located.
Mr. Hunter replied that this project will be served by two fire stations; one located adjacent to the Car&bad
Safety Center, and; one located off Ranch0 Santa Fe Road.
Commissioner Compas asked how wide the emergency access road in Village G will be and how many
vehicles will it be able to accept.
Mr. Wojcik replied that the road will be 24 feet wide and ample for 2 vehicles to pass each other.
Applicant, Mike Howes, Hofman Planning Associates, 5900 Pasteur Court, #150, Carlsbad, concurred
with staffs presentation and requested that the Commission recommend approval of this project to the
City Council. Regarding Condition No. 70, Resolution No. 4385, Mr. Howes, stated that the issue of
approvals from the fire department, State of California Department of Fish and Game, and the United
States Government Fish and Wildlife Service, of a wildland management plan has already been taken
care of and corroborating documentation will be presented to staff prior to the City Council meeting on
September 8, 1998.
Commissioner Heineman expressed his concern regarding the lack of any recreational facilities other than
trails, and asked what other recreation amenities will be available.
Mr. Howes replied that there are four common lots, some of which are play areas with play equipment and
other passive facilities.
Commissioner Heineman asked what recreation will be available for adults.
Mr. Howes replied that there will be more passive facilities, such as sitting area with benches.
David Lother, Continental Homes, 12330 El Camino Real, #300, San Diego, stated that some of the
reasons they have not included a large pool or clubhouse or other active recreation are: 1) there many
vertical drops throughout the project; 2) they have been struggling to keep the master homeowners
association fees to a reasonable amount which is currently around $80 per person at build out. That is
without a pool or clubhouse; 3) they have complied with the City’s ordinance for recreational area for each
village, on its own, by providing the tot lots and the trail systems; 4) they have dedicated 250 acres of
open space, which is close to 40% of the overall area; and, 5) they have dedicated a lot of park land for
what they feel will be a very nice park.
Commissioner Heineman asked if the open space is going to be accessible to the residents.
Mr. Lother replied that it will be very accessible and, by indicating the trail on a wall exhibit, showed the
path of the trail throughout the entire project.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Noble closed Public Testimony,
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4385 and 4386, recommending approval of a
Tentative Tract Map CT 97-03 and Planned Unit Development PUD 97-03, based
upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
4-o
Noble, Heineman, Monroy, and Compas
None
None
MINUTES 9 5-
-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G, K, P
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you because your interests may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, October 20, 1998, to
consider an application for a Tentative Map and a Planned Unit
Development Permit to subdivide 188.34 acres of property into 396
lots, to include 384 single family units, 11 open space lots, and 1
private road lot, within Villages E, F, G, K, and P of the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan, in Local Facilities Management Zone 18, and
more particularly described as:
Those portions of Section 18 and 19, Township 12
South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
Those persons wishing to speak on this matter are invited to attend
the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after October 16, 1998. If you have any questions regarding this
matter, please call Brian Hunter, in the Planning Department, at
(760) 438-1161, ext. 4457.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map and/or Planned Unit
Development in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this tentative
subdivision map, if approved, is established by state law and/or city
ordinance, and is very short.
APPLICANT: Continental Ranch, Inc.
PUBLISH: October 9, 1998
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
H
I .‘\,
c
!
!
1
.
I
I
! I
I
J 8
RANCH0 CARRILLO
VILLAGES E, F, G, K, P
CT 97-031PUD 97-03
h -
(Fern A)
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROHZ PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notide
CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - Ranch0 Carrillo Villages E, F, G, K, P
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council neetlng of First Available Hearing
Thank you.
Assistant City Han-- #
September 23, 1998
Date
F“/C capy A -
City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council
Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, September 2, 1998, to consider a request for a Tentative Tract Map and
Planned Unit Development Permit to subdivide the 188.34 acre parcel into 396 lots to
include 384 single family units, 11 open space lots and 1 private road lot within Villages
E, F, G, K and P of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and Local Facilities Management
Zone 18 and more particularly described as:
Those portions of Section 18 and 19, Township 12 South,
Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after August 27, 1998.
If you have any questions, please call Brian Hunter in the Planning Department at (760)
438-l 161, extension 4457.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this , if approved, is established by
state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the in court, you may
be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at
or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 97-03/PUD 97-03
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G, K, P
PUBLISH: AUGUST 20, 1998
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2075 La Palmas Dr. l Cartsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-l 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 @
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST VALLECITOS WATER DIST
801 PINE AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
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
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
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
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBD
PROJECT PLANNER
BRIAN HUNTER
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
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
(ABOVE ADDRESS - For City
Council Notices Only)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES E,
F, G, K, & P
CT 9?-03/PlJD 97-03
CITY COUNCIL LABELS
ML HOMEBUILDING PARTNER CARRILLO RANCH0 PARTNER RACEWAY PROPERTIES L L 300 S GRAND AVE 591 CAMINO DE LA REINA 9754 WHITHORN DR LOS ANGELES C 90071-3109 SAN DIEGO CA 92108-3108 HOUSTON TX 77095-5024
CARRILLO CONTINENTAL R,A&H INC
UFF DR 300 CA 92108-3108 92130-2071
CONTINENTAL RANCH INC VISTA PALOMAR PARK L L GREYSTONE HOMES INC 12636 HIGH BLUFF DR 300 PO BOX 9300 24800 CHRISANTA DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92130-2071 RANCH0 SANTA 92067-4300 MISSION VIEJO 92691
ALAN SALONER WILLIAM H BURGESS
3802 RIVIERA DR 4 1720 KINGLET RD SAN DIEGO CA 92109-6304 GO CA 92130-2071 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5104
STEPHEN S KOTFICA FISCHER MARY C BURGESS
1716 KINGLET RD 1710 KINGLET RD 1704 KINGLET RD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5104 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5104 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5104
MAYES ISABEL B EST OF STEVEN J ELLIOTT JOSEPH E & DONNA BROWER
1700 KINGLET RD 283 HILLCREST DR 1828 TOWHEE ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5104 ENCINITAS CA 92024-1562 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140
TERRY HENDERSON DAVID E GILMORE MARK C & PATRICIA MOYER
1824 TOWHEE ST 1820 TOWHEE ST 1816 TOWHEE ST
SAN MAFCOS CA 92069-5140 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140
LILIA & HAYNES OSPINA DAVID L & MARY BUNKER LG 1812 TOWHEE ST 1808 TOWHEE ST 1819 VIA GAVILAN SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5154
RODNEY A MILLER LARRY P ROSEFELD JOHN E & RACHEL SUYDAN 1800 TOWHEE ST 1803 TOWHEE ST 1807 TOWHEE ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140
JESS R GONZALES MICHAEL J & JANE KURTH DOUGLAS J KIBBE 4061 STARFLOWER RD 1819 TOWHEE ST 1825 TOWHEE ST CASTLE ROCK C 80104-8457 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140
c’
KATHRYN M JUDD 1831 TOWHEE ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140
RICHARD SAUERHEBER
1826 REDWING ST
SAN MAFCOS CA 92069-5137
BARNES ROBERT & LORRAIN
1814 REDWING ST SAN M?iRCOS CA 92069-5137
ELIZABETH M CADELL 1744 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5135
GREGORY WILSON
1726 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5135
MARY E BOYLES
1708 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5135
ANNA B BULAY
1719 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5134
LEBEDEFF
1737 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5134
JAMES R PURDY 1823 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5136
LOYAL T & NANCY CARLIN 1905 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5138
RICHARD G LAMBERT
1719 KINGLET RD SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5103
JOHN T & JANICE HART 1822 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5137
MARVIN L & DOROTHY WEST
1810 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5137
THOMPSON M JOAN TR 1738 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5135
GERARD S ANDERBERG 1720 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5135
LG 1819 VIA GAVILAN SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5154
DONALD W & SUSAN DENNY
1725 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5134
MICHAEL S DAWKINS
1743 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5134
JAMES R PURDY 1827 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5136
STEVEN ii JUNE SOURIS
7955 REPRESA CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-9148
BEHNAM & KHALILI VESSAL 657 SANTA CAMELIA DR SOLANA BEACH 92075-1611
JONNIE S FOWLER 1818 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5137
JAMES T & YVONNE KILEY
1806 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5137
STEVEN D SAVAGE 1732 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5135
LOUIS K & KAREN WALKER 1714 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5135
WILLIAM H BURGESS 1713 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5134
JAMES T & LILA STURGES
1731 REDWING ST SAN MAFCOS CA 92069-5134
BARBARA K HEIDE 1745 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5134
WALTER G & SUSAN MOISE 1727 KINGLET RD SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5159
ML HOMEBUILDING PARTNER CARRILLO RANCH0 PARTNER RACEWAY PROPERTIES L L
300 S GRAND AVE 591 CAMINO DE LA REINA 9754 WHITHORN DR
LOS ANGELES C 90071-3109 SAN DIEGO CA 92108-3108 HOUSTON TX 77095-5024
RACEWAY PROPERTIES L L
9754 WHITHORN DR HOUSTON TX 77095-5024
CARRILLO RANCH0 PARTNER CONTINENTAL RANCH INC 591 CAMINO DE LA REINA 12636 HIGH BLUFF DR 300 SAN DIEGO CA 92108-3108 SAN DIEGO CA 92130-2071 .,' __ ,
CONTINENTAL. RANCH INC VISTA PALOMAR PARK L L GREYSTONE HOMES INC 12636 HIGH BLUFF DR 300 PO BOX 9300 24800 CHRISANTA DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92130-2071 RANCH0 SANTA 92067-4300 MISSION VIEJO 92691
ALAN SALONER CONTINENTAL RANCH INC WILLIAM H BURGESS 3802 RIVIERA DR 4 12636 HIGH BLUFF DR 300 1720 KINGLET RD SAN DIEGO CA 92109-6304 SAN DIEGO CA 92130-2071 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5104
STEPHEN S KOTFICA FISCHER MARY C BURGESS
1716 KINGLET RD 1710 KINGLET RD 1704 KINGLET RD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5104 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5104 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5104
MAYES ISABEL B EST OF STEVEN J ELLIOTT JOSEPH E & DONNA BROWER
1700 KINGLET RD 283 HILLCREST DR 1828 TOWHEE ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5104 ENCINITAS CA 92024-1562 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140
TERRY HENDERSON DAVID E GILMORE MARK C & PATRICIA MOYER 1824 TOWHEE ST 1820 TOWHEE ST 1816 TOWHEE ST SAN M?U?COS CA 92069-5140 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140
LILIA & HAYNES OSPINA DAVID L & MARY BUNKER LG 1812 TOWHEE ST 1808 TOWHEE ST 1819 VIA GAVILAN SAN MAFXOS CA 92069-5140 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5154
RODNEY A MILLER LARRY P ROSEFELD JOHN E & RACHEL SUYDAN 1800 TOWHEE ST 1803 TOWHEE ST 1807 TOWHEE ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140
JESS R GONZALES MICHAEL J EC JANE KURTH DOUGLAS J KIBBE 4061 STARFLOWER RD 1819 TOWHEE ST 1825 TOWHEE ST CASTLE ROCK C 80104-8457 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140
KATHRYN M JUDD
1831 TOWHEE ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5140
RICHARD SAUERHEBER
1826 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5137
BARNES RGBERT & LORRAIN
1814 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5137
ELIZABETH M CADELL
1744 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5135
GREGORY WILSON 1726 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5135
MARY E BOYLES 1708 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5135
ANNA B BULAY
1719 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5134
LEBEDEFF
1737 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5134
JAMES R PURDY
1823 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5136
LOYAL T & NANCY CARLIN 1905 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5138
-
RICHARD G LAMBERT 1719 KINGLET RD SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5103
JOHN T & JANICE HART 1822 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5137
MARVIN L & DOROTHY WEST
1810 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5137
THOMPSON M JOAN TR 1738 REDWING ST SAN M?iRCOS CA 92069-5135
GERARD S ANDERBERG
1720 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5135
LG
1819 VIA GAVILAN SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5154
DONALD W & SUSAN DENNY 1725 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5134
MICHAEL S DAWKINS
1743 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5134
JAMES R PURDY
1827 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5136
BEHNAM & KHALILI VESSAL 657 SANTA CAMELIA DR SOLANA BEACH 92075-1611
JONNIE S FOWLER
1818 REDWING ST SAN MARC0.S CA 92069-5137
JAMES T & YVONNE KILEY 1806 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5137
STEVEN D SAVAGE 1732 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5135
LOUIS K & KAREN WALKER 1714 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5135
WILLIAM H BURGESS 1713 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5134
JAMES T & LILA STURGES
1731 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5134
BARBARA K HEIDE 1745 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5134
WALTER G & SUSAN MOISE 1727 KINGLET RD
SAN MAFXOS CA 92069-5159
A notirp I-, ~r-1 ; *ted to
all pr -7ants
STEVEN & JUNE SOURIS 7955 REPRESA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-9148
Signatuk Z? G 5 -.-.e-