HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-06; City Council; 15297; Magnolia Gardensr
F - 97 L P CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGEMA BILL 1310
AB# r5~G7 _ =:
MTG. 716199
DEPT. PLN ti
MAGNOLIA GARDENS
CT 98-IPlSDP 98-22
DEPT. HD.
2/E CITY ATTY. l
ClTYMGR-Z@
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 9qmaq3 , APPROVING a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CT 98-12, and SDP 98-22.
1 ITEM EXPLANATION:
On May 19, 1999, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended
approval of the Magnolia Gardens project by a vote of 5-1. Commissioner Nielsen voted against the
project because of concerns with the counting of second dwelling units as presently administered
toward meeting the inclusionary housing requirement. The project site is located north of Magnolia
Avenue and west of Valley Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
The proposed project is for the creation of a 15 lot single-family residential subdivision on an infill
site. The project will consist of 15 single-family residences on lots all with areas greater than 7,500
square feet. Two of the lots will contain a second dwelling unit with the single-family residence to
satisfy the majority of the affordable housing requirement for the project. The fractional affordable
housing requirement of .55 of a unit will be satisfied by the payment of a fee as permitted by Section
21.85.040(c)(2) of the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance. Because of the unusual configuration of the
site seven panhandle lots are proposed. Alternative designs to provide public access to the property
in lieu of panhandle lots have been explored but none were possible without violating city
requirements such as minimum lot depth. The design complies with all panhandle standards and
the required findings can be made. City Council approval is required for panhandle lots in major
subdivisions.
The site development plan is required to demonstrate the design of the second dwelling unit. A
building floor plan and elevations are proposed for the unit which includes the second dwelling unit.
The second dwelling unit is 606 square feet in area and is located on the second floor above the
garage with a separate entrance to the outside. Plans for the remaining units are not required by
the existing land use designations. Proposed units will be checked for compliance with the
standards of the R-l zone at the time building plans are submitted for permitting.
Several property owners adjacent to the project provided comments at the Planning Commission Hearing. The comments provided dealt with concerns of compatibility of the project with adjacent
properties particularly relating to access, the type and location of proposed fencing, soil erosion, soil contamination, the type of architecture proposed, low income housing, loss of property for proposed
street improvements, the disposition of an existing irrevocable offer of dedication, and panhandle lot
access. The Planning Commission determined that existing city requirements and proposed
conditions of approval adequately addressed the issues raised by those persons providing public comments. The only revision made by the Planning Commission was to modify condition number
20 of Planning Commission Resolution Number 4549 to add three additional lots as possible sites for the two required second dwelling units. The final locations will be determined in the affordable
housing agreement. More detailed information is included in the attached staff report to the
Planning Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed for the project. The project is within the scope of the
City’s Master Environmental Impact Report which is utilized to address the project’s cumulative air
quality and circulation impacts. The initial study prepared in conjunction with the project determined
- h
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA dLL NO. I$ h??
that potentially significant impacts could be created as a result of agricultural chemical residue that
may exist in the soil on site which could affect the health of future residents. The required mitigation
measure of Master Environmental Impact Report 93-01 prepared for the General Plan Update
requires a mitigation measure which has been applied to the project. The mitigation measure requires soils testing and analysis to evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic use,
handling, or storage of agricultural chemicals. If hazardous chemicals are detected at
concentrations in the soil which would have a significantly adverse affect on human health mitigation
measures included in the required report will be implemented. The project has also been
conditioned to pay its fair share of the Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real intersection “short-
term improvements” thereby, guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All required improvements needed to serve this project will be funded by the developer.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 9 ? -dq 3
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4548,4549, 4550
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 19, 1999
5. Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated May 19, 1999.
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
follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-243
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
AND REPORTING PROGRAM, TENTATIVE TRA
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO SUBDIVIDE
15 LOTS WITH TWO SECOND DWEL
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED N
AVENUE AND WEST OF VALLEY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 11
The City Council of the City of Ca d, California, does hereby resolve as
e Carlsbad Planning Commission held a duly
ed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
ve Tract Map, and Site Development Plan to create
and develop a 15 I ivision with two second dwelling units, and adopted
Planning Commission 4548,4549, and 4550 recommending to the City Council
aration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
Tentative Tract Map, velopment Plan be approved; and
e City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on day of
duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation and
heard all persons int ted in or opposed to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Re ing Program, Tentative Tract Map, and Site Development Plan; and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of
d Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative
98-12, and Site Development Plan 98-22 is approved and that the findings and tained in Planning Commission Resolutions No.
erk and incorporated herein by reference, are the
findings and conditions of the City Council.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The Provisions of Chapter 1 .I6 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial
Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT’
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been
made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be
filed in the appropriate court no later than the ninetieth day following the
date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days
after the decision becomes final a request for the record of proceedings
accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the
estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not latter than the thirtieth day
following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or
mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written
request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed
with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.”
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the day of 1999, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
EXHIBIT 2
MAGNOLIA GARDENS
CT 9842lSDP 98-22
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
EXHIBIT 3
c P ANN N
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE 4.93 ACRES INTO
15 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH
OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND WEST OF VALLEY STREET
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME: MAGNOLIA GARDENS
CASE NO. . . CT 98- 12lSDP 98-22
WHEREAS, Pacific Scene Financial, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Gloria Aguilera Goitia,
“Owner”, described as
That portion of Tract 245 of Thum Lands, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Map thereof No. 1681, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, December 9,1915
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of May 1999, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby JXECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated January 29, 1999, and “PII” dated
January 13, 1999, and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinq:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein
identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project. Based on the EIA Part II and
comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment and hereby
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance
with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and
the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this project have been
incorporated into the project.
. . Condlt Ions:
1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Magnolia Gardens
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
. . .
PC RESO NO. 4548 -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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of May 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners L’Heureux, Segall, Trigas,
and Welshons
NOES: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSENT: Commissioner Compas
ABSTAIN:
COURTNEY E. HE-, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4548 -3-
-&ty of
MITIGATED NEwlYE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: North of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street
Project Description: A Tentative Tract Map to create 15 lots greater than 7,500 square
feet in area for single family detached residences and a Site
Development Plan for two second dwelling units to satisfy
requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance on a 4.93 acre
site.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EL4 Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Don Neu in the Planning
Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4446.
DATED: JANUARY 29,1999
CASE NO: CT 98-12/SDP 98-22
CASE NAME: MAGNOLIA GARDENS
PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 29,1999
Planning Director
9
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-l 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894
FORM - PART IJ
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 98 12/SDP 98 2.2
DATE: January 13.1999
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: mlia Gardens
2. APPLICANT: Pacific Scene FM. J.J,C - Big
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2505 Congress Street. Suite 200. San
CA 92110: (619) 799-5112
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: a.1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 15 lot tentative subdivision map proposing single family home
lots greater than 7,500 square feet in area with two second dwelling units to comply with the
requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance proposed for a 4.93 acre site located north
of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street. The entire site is proposed to be graded. The site
is currently covered with agricultural greenhouses used for growing flowers.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning q Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing /-‘J Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems
Cl Water
0 Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
El Hazards Cl Cultural Resources
q Air Quality cl Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96 /5
DETERlvIINATION. -
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
cl
[XI
Cl
Cl
Cl
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because. the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed ain an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-Ol),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature
/-z-97
Date
IlzS/&
Date ’
Rev. 03/28/96
-
IRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
l A brief explanation is required for all answers except ‘Wo Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
l “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
l “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
l Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but fl potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
l When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
l A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
l If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
l An EIR Dulsf 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 DISCjJWON OF ENVIRONMENTAT, EVATUA~. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96 13
C
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with .general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a)
b)
c>
4
e>
f)
g)
h)
9
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (#l:Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Potentially Significant Impact
Cl
Cl
Tl
Cl
cl
Cl
cl
Cl
cl
0
0
Cl
cl
Cl
Cl
cl
Cl
Cl
cl
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Cl
cl
cl
cl
0
0
Cl
cl
cl
cl
El
cl
cl
cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Cl
0
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
0
Cl
cl
Cl
0
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
Cl
cl
No
Impact
[xl
lx
IXI
El
151
lx
Is1
IXI
IXI
Ix]
lz
lxl
Ix)
lxl
Ix1
Ix1
El
txl
lxl
5 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
cl
d>
e)
f)
g>
h)
0
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
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 grotmdwater recharge
capability? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TR4NSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a)
b)
c)
4
4
f)
g)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22)
Potentially
Significant Impact
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
El
q
cl
cl
[XI
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Cl
cl
q
Less Than
Significant
impact
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
NO
Impact
lx
IXI
El
[xl
IXI
lx
El
q
IXI
lxl
El
q
Ix]
E3
lx
Ix1
El
Ix1
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Jnfoxmation Sources). -
a>
b)
cl
4
e)
VIII.
4
b)
cl
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l :Pgs 5.4- 1
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &5.13-l - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-l - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
4
b)
c>
d)
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Potentially Significant Impact
Cl
cl
cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
cl
cl
0
Cl
Cl
0
cl
cl
Cl
Cl
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
cl
Cl
0
Cl
0
Cl
Cl
0
Cl
Cl
El
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
0
cl
Less Than Significant Impact
0
0
Cl
Cl
cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
0
cl
0
0
0
cl
Cl
cl
Cl
cl
No
Impact
1x1
[XI
txl
Ix]
IXI
lxl
lx
[XI
Ia El El
7 Rev. 03/28/96 16
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). -
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l,
pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
4
b)
c>
4
e)
f)
g)
XIII.
4
b)
c)
XIV.
4
b)
cl
4
e)
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l :Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs 5.11-l
- 5.1 l-5)
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l - 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5)
CIJLmL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs’5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l :Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially Sigriiticanl Impact
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl q cl cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl cl
cl.
cl
cl
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
Less Than
Significant
Impact
El
cl
cl
cl
cl
III
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
0
0
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
No
impact
Ix1
!z
El
El
Ix]
Ix] lxl
IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
- A
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
b)
c>
-
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fsh or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated
cl cl
txl cl
0 IXI
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q
cl
cl
No
Impact
lx
0
0
9 Rev. 03128196
XVII. EARLIER AF@&YSES.
Earlier analysis ofthis proposed single family residential project has been completed through
the General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR
93-01) . The MEIR is cited as source #l in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent
with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a project that was described
in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. There will be no additional significant impacts due to this
development that were not analyzed in the MEIR and no new or additional mitigation measures
or alternatives are required. This project is, therefore, within the scope of the prior MEIR and
no new environmental document nor Public Resources Code 2108 1 findings are required. All
feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this project
have been incorporated into this project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DES~~P’I’ION/EN~IRO~ENT~ !WI”I’ING
The Magnolia Gardens project is a proposal to demolish the existing greenhouses on a 4.93 acre
site and construct a 15 lot single family detached residential project with two second dwelling
units. A public street is included as are numerous panhandle lots necessary because of the lot
configuration and surrounding land development. The project site is located north of Magnolia
Avenue and west of Valley Street within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Grading for the
project includes 10,150 cubic yards of cut, 8,850 cubic yards of fill and the export of 1,300 cubic
yards of dirt. The project site is designated as RLM (Residential Low-Medium Density) on the
General Plan Land Use Map. The zoning for the site is R-l (Single Family Residential) which
has a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet. The proposed street design provides for the
extension of a proposed public street to the north of the project site to provide access to that
adjacent property should it ever-be developed in the future with single family residences. Plans
for a second dwelling unit are included with the project. A second dwelling unit is proposed for
two lots to satisfy the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in additional to
payment of an in-lieu fee to satisfy the requirement for the fractional unit resulting from the 15
percent calculation.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
- * II. RONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
V. a) Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfiu, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin’, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
VI. a) Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
12 Rev. 03t28196 df
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commui 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.
IX. d) Hazards
Master Environmental Impact Report 93-01 prepared for the General Plan Update requires the
following mitigation measure for proposed residential development in areas that are presently or
have previously been used for agricultural production. Chemical residue may exist in soil and
affect the health of future residents. The project site has been occupied by greenhouses which
have been used to grow flowers. Therefore, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented to reduce impacts related to hazardous materials to less than significant:
1. Prior to the approval of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs
first, a detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils
engineer, and submitted to City and County Health Departments for review and approval.
This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic use,
handling, or storage of agricultural chemicals restricted by the San Diego County
Department of Health Services. The report shall also identify a range of possible
mitigation measures to remediate any significant public health impacts if hazardous
chemicals are detected at concentrations in the soil which would have a significantly
adverse effect on human health.
13 Rev. 03128196 dd
-
III. &$3L&&WALYSES USED -
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Pahnas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(760) 438-l 161, extension 4471.
1. bl Master En- for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
14 Rev. 03/28/96 23
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) -
1. Prior to the approval of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first,
a detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer,
and submitted to City and County Health Departments for review and approval. This report
shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic use, handling, or storage of
agricultural chemicals restricted by the San Diego County Department of Health Services.
The report shall also identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate any
significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at concentrations in the
soil which would have a significantly adverse effect on human health. The developer shall
implement one of the mitigation measures identified in the report prior to the issuance of
building permits should mitigation be necessary so as to reduce the impact below a level of
significance. The Developer shall implement one or more of the mitigation measures
identified in the report prior to the issuance of building permits should mitigation be
necessary so as to reduce the impact below a level of significance.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
15 Rev. 03/28/96
PI XANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEAST JRFS -
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
16 Rev. 03128196 a5
I
: i c t . . li
1 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
8 P NNIN
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 98-12 TO
SUBDIVIDE 4.93 ACRES INTO 15 LOTS ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE
AND WEST OF VALLEY STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME: MAGNOLIA GARDENS
C E .: ;
WHEREAS, Pacific Scene Financial, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Gloria Aguilera Goitia,
“Owner”, described as
That portion of Tract 245 of Thum Lands, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Map thereof No. 1681, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, December 9,1915
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “H” dated May 19, 1999, on file in the Planning Department
MAGNOLIA GARDENS - CT 98-12, as provided by Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of May 1999, 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:
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)
W
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
COMMENDS APPROVAJ, of MAGNOLIA GARDENS - CT 98-12, based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
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 lots
being created satisfy all minimum requirements of Title 20 governing lot sizes and
configuration and have been designed to comply with all other applicable City
regulations.
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for Residential Low to Medium Density (RLM)
development on the General Plan, in that this is the same general plan land use
designation as the project site and surrounding development is residential or
agriculture.
That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density
proposed, in that the project site can accommodate the proposed residential
development while providing all required setbacks and improvements required by
applicable City regulations.
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in
that the project is designed and conditioned to avoid conflicts with any established
easements.
That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that the 8,173 square foot
and larger lot sizes allow for a variety of building placement alternatives, including
the adequate placement and separation of the future residential units to provide
residents with adequate air circulation within and surrounding any future
residential units to provide 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.
PC RESO NO. 4549 -2- a7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- -
8. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that there is no sensitive habitat on the site or offsite which the project will
impact.
9. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project has
been designed in accordance with the Best Management Practices for water quality
protection in accordance with the City’s sewer and drainage standards and the
project is conditioned to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) requirements.
10. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the following:
A. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed
density of 3.45 du/ac is within the density range of 0 - 4 du/acre specified for the site
as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is above the growth
control point of 3.2 du/acre. Although the project exceeds the growth control
point, it is consistent with the General Plan provision allowing an infill
subdivision located in LFMP Zone 1 to exceed the density range and/or Growth
Control Point in certain circumstances. Public facilities are adequate in LFMP
Zone 1 to accommodate the proposed units and there are excess dwelling units in
the northwest quadrant to ensure that the maximum number of dwelling units in
the northwest quadrant would not be exceeded at buildout.
B. Circulation - The circulation system is designed to provide adequate access to the
proposed lots and complies with all applicable City design standards.
C. Housing - That the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General
Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the Developer has been
conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to construct two
second dwelling units and purchase a .55 unit credit.
D. Public Safety - The project is required to construct public streets to City
standards with sidewalks, street lights, and fire hyrants in addition to providing
automatic fire sprinkler systems in structures on specified lots.
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
PC RESO NO. 4549 -3- 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
B.
C.
D.
E.
- h
-
satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plar
have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified
School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities.
Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required a6
conditions of approval.
The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriatr
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and paymenl
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
The project 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 avai,lability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
That the property cannot be served adequately with a public street without panhandle lots
due to unfavorable conditions resulting from unusual topography, surrounding land
development, or lot configuration, in that the configuration of the property precludes
the placement of public streets in the areas where panhandle lots area proposed.
That subdivision with panhandle lots will not preclude or adversely affect the ability to
provide full public street access to other properties within the same block of the subject
property, in that the proposed public street provides access to adjacent properties
which may be subdivided in the future.
That the buildable portion of the lots consists of an area of at least 8,000 square feet,
which meets the requirements of Section 21.1.0.080(d)(l) of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code;
That the front, sides, and rear property lines, for purposes of determining required yards,
are as shown on Exhibit “B” of the Tentative Map, on file in the Planning Department.
That this project could have a potentially significant negative cumulative traffic
impact on the Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real intersection. However, this
project has been conditioned to pay its fair share of the “short-term improvements”
thereby, guaranteeing implementation of a mitigation measure that reduces the
potential impact to a level of insignificance. ’
PC PESO NO. 4549 -4- 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
19.
20.
21.
22.
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.
The project is not required to provide additional public facilities for the density in
excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s public facilities plans
will not be adversely impacted, in that public facilities are adequate in Zone 1 to
accommodate the additional 1.2 units above the Growth Control Point.
There have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities below the
control point to cover the units in the project above the control point so that approval will
not result in exceeding the quadrant limit.
All necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance will be
constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them
created by this development and in compliance with adopted City standards.
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
shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
3. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its 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 and issuance of this Tentative Tract Map; and, (b)
City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein.
. . Maps and ExU&
4. The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, 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.
PC RESO NO. 4549 -5- 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Facilities and Services
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The final map shall not be approved unless the City Council finds as of the time of such
approval that sewer service is available to serve the subdivision.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the
District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application
for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. A note
to this effect shall be placed on the final map.
The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28,
1987, (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any development
fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or Facilities
and Improvement Plan and to fulfil1 the developer’s/subdivider’s agreement to pay the
public facilities fee dated July 29, 1998, 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.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its
obligation to provide school facilities.
The developer shall post a sign in the sales office in a prominent location that
discloses which special districts and school districts provide service to the project.
Said sign shall remain posted until ALL of the units are sold.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
11. 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.
12. Approval of CT 98-12 is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and SDP 98-22. CT 9%
12 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4548
and 4550 for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and SDP 98-22.
PC RESO NO. 4549 -6- 32
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. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit or approval 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(n) Tentative Map
and Site Development Plan by Resolution No. 4549 and 4550 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.
17.
18.
19.
The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with
the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The plans
shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director prior to the
approval of the final map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first. The
Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and
maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and
debris.
The first submittal of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings
so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or
addresses shall contrast to their background color.
The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales office at all
times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be
limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks and streets.
The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Magnolia Gardens
Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Housing:
20. Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, or where a map is not
being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the
Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide and
deed restrict two second dwelling units (including: Second Dwelling Units on Lots 1,2,
or 3 and 11 or 12) 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 and provide for payment of a fractional amount
equal to .55 of the affordable housing fee credit listed in the most recent fee
PC RESO NO. 4549 -7- 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21.
22.
23.
-
schedule. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning
Director no later than 90 days after City Council action on the project. The recorded
Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in
interest.
The Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the
project’s market rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the City and
the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule
for development.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for any unit within the project, the
Developer shall apply for and obtain from the Planning Director a Second Dwelling
Unit Permit per Section 21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code for each second
dwelling unit.
The Developer shall pay its fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El
Camino ReaYPalomar Airport Road intersection prior to approval of the final map
or the issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. The amount shall be
determined by the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but not
limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffk impact fee; an increased or new Zone 1
LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a
Mello-Roos taxing district.
Enpineerinp Conditions:
24. 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.
25. There shall be one final subdivision map recorded for this project.
Note: Unless the specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions
upon the approval of this proposed major subdivision must be met prior to approval of a final
map.
26. The 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 CC&Rs
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
27. The developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, offricers,
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. 4549 -8- 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
.7
.8
.9
!O
!l
!2
!3
!4
!5
!6
!7
!8
_-
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.
28. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, the developer shall submit to an 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.
29. 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 place or permitted to encroach
within the area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance
with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3
The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition.”
Fees/Agreements ’
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
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 owner shall enter into a lien contract for the future public improvement of Highland
Drive along the subdivision frontage for a half street width of 30 feet. Public
improvements shall include, but not be limited to, paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and
gutter, medians, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities,
sewer, water, tire hydrants, street lights and retaining walls.
The owner shall execute a hold harmless agreement for geologic failure.
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.
Gradin
35. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
tentative map grading permit for this project will 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.
PC RESO NO. 4549 -9- 35
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
-
36. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the
developer shall submit proof that a Notice of Intention has been submitted to the State
Water Resources Control Board.
37. 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.
38. 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.
. Ications/Imr,rovements
39.
40.
41.
42.
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,
The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and
easements required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map the offer shall be
made by a certificate on the final map for this project. All land so offered shall be
granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the
City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated.
The drainage system shall be designed to ensure. that runoff resulting from lo-year
frequency storms of 6 hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are equal
to or less than the runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration under existing
developed conditions. Both 6-hour and 24-hour storm duration shall be analyzed to
determined the detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results.
The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.. The developer shall provide best
management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management
Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge
to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
PC RESO NO. 4549 -lO- 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. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and County requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
43. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the
developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided
by law,. improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements:
A. Street “A” full improvements where project fronts on both sides of the street,
and half street plus 12 feet improvements and full width grading where
project fronts on one side of the street. A temporary turn around shall be
constructed within the subdivision boundary at the end of the street.
B. Half street improvements at Valley Street.
C. Half street improvements at Magnolia Street.
D. Storm drain system from Valley Street to Street “A”.
A list of the above improvement shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final
map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements
listed above shall be constructed with 18 months of approval of the secured improvement
agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
44. The developer shall install street lights along all public and private street frontages in
conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards.
45. The developer shall install sidewalks along all public streets abutting the project in
conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards prior to occupancy of any buildings.
46. Prior to occupancy of any buildings, the developer shall install wheelchair ramps at the
public street comers abutting the subdivision in conformance with City of Carlsbad
Standards.
PC PESO NO. 4549 -ll- 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
47. 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.
Final Map Notes
48. Notes(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the final map as non-mapping data:
50.A. All improvements are private and are to be privately maintained with the
exception of the following:
1. Street “A” improvements.
2. Existing improvements public storm drain system along lot 8.
3. New public storm system along lots 9 through 14.
50.B Geotechnical Caution:
5o.c.
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.
No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30
inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach
within the area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with
City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The
underlying property owner shall maintain the is condition.
49. Fire hydrants are required at lots 1,8 and 13.
50. driveways serving lots 10 through 13, and lots 6 and 7 must be designated and
posted as “Fire Lanes” per CMC 17.04.020.
51. A monument sign listing addresses served is required at the entrance to any
driveway that provide access to more than one lot.
52. The proposed plan conforms to neither the access requirements of the Uniform Fire
Code, nor the cul-de-sac policy of the City of Carlsbad. Therefore any structures
proposed for lots 6,10,11,12, and 13 must be protected by automatic fire sprinkler
PC RESO NO. 4549 -12- 38
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
systems designed and installed in accordance the National Fire Protection
Association Standard 13-D.
; . Water CondltloaS . .
53. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego
County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for
any meter installation.
54. All District pipelines, pump stations, pressure reducing stations and appurtenances
required for this project by the District shall be within public right-of-way or within
easements granted to the District or the City of Carlsbad.
55. Sequentially, the Developer’s Engineer shall do the following:
A.
B.
Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements.
Prepare and submit a colored recycled water use area map and submit this map to
the Planning Department for processing and approval by the District Engineer.
C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and recycled water improvement plans,
the Developer shall submit preliminary system layouts to the District Engineer for
review, comment and approval.
56. The following note shall be placed on the final map. “This project is approved upon the
expressed condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the
subject property unless the District serving the development has adequate water and
sewer capacity available at the time development is to occur, and that such water and
sewer and capacity will continue to be available until time of occupancy.”
57. All potable water and recycled water meters shall be placed within public right of way.
General
58. 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 Tract Map.
PC RESO NO. 4549 -13- 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
Reminders Code
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following:
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final
map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
The Developer shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name
policy subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval.
All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape
Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning
Department.
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 final 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,
PC RESO NO. 4549 -14- /$0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
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 19th day of May 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners L’Heureux, Segall, Trigas,
and Welshons
NOES: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSENT: Commissioner Compas
ABSTAIN:
COURTNEY E. HEINBMAN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H%ZM!k!LER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4549 -15-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 4550
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 98-22 TO
CONSTRUCT TWO SECOND DWELLING UNITS ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF MAGNOLIA
AVENUE AND WEST OF VALLEY STREET IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME: MAGNOLIA GARDENS
CASE NO.: SDP 98-22
WHEREAS, Pacific Scene Financial, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Gloria Aguilera Goitia,
“Owner”, described as
That portion of Tract 245 of Thum Lands, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Map thereof No. 1681, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, December 9,1915
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Plan as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “H” dated May 19,1999, on file in the Planning Department,
MAGNOLIA GARDENS - SDP 98-22 as provided by Chapter 21.06Section 21.53.120 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of May, 1999, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission
considered all factors relating to the Site Development Plan
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.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of MAGNOLIA GARDENS -
SDP 98-22 based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental
settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will
not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which
the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or
traffic circulation, in that: a) the proposed lots can easily accommodate the proposed
structures while providing all required front, side, and rear yard setbacks; b) the
project complies with all City standards for lot configuration, street widths, grading
and drainage for the development; c) the project is consistent and compatible with
the surrounding development in scale and design; and d) the project design
preserves the single family character of the surrounding neighborhood.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the proposed lots all exceed the minimum lot size requirements for the zone and
can easily accommodate the proposed structures while providing all required front,
side and rear yard setbacks, and the project design complies with all City standards
for lot configuration, street width, grading and drainage.
That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust
the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that the project design complies with all applicable
second dwelling unit requirements in addition to regulations for setbacks, parking
and other features of the R-l Zone.
That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the project design includes dedication and street
improvement requirements necessary to serve the’development.
. . Condrttons . .
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Site Development Plan 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 SDP 98-22 is granted subject to the approval of CT 98-12 and the
Magnolia Gardens Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program. SDP 98-22 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning
PC RESO NO. 4450 -2- 43
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
Commission Resolutions No. 4550 and 4548 for CT 98-12 and the Magnolia Gardens
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
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 the 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
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
PC RESO NO. 4450 -3- 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of May 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners L’Heureux, Segall, Trigas,
and Welshons
NOES: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSENT: Commissioner Compas
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4450 -4- 45
- EXHIBIT 4
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 0 1
Application complete date: December 29, 1998
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 19,1999 Project Planner: Don Neu
Project Engineer: Frank Jimeno
SUBJECT: CT 9%12/SDP 98-22 - MAGNOLIA GARDENS - Request for approval of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
Tentative Tract Map, and Site Development Plan to create and develop a 15 lot
residential subdivision with two second dwelling units on a 4.93 acre site located
north of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street in Local Facilities
Management Zone 1.
I. COMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4548, 4549, and
4550 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map (CT 9%12), and Site Development
Plan (SDP 98-22), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The proposed project is for the creation of a 15 lot single-family residential subdivision on an
intill site located north of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street. The project will consist
of 15 single-family residences on lots all with areas greater than 7,500 square feet. The proposed
density of the subdivision is 3.45 dwelling units per acre. Lot number 1 and 12 will include a
second dwelling unit with the single-family residence to satisfy the majority of the affordable
housing requirement for the project. The fractional affordable housing requirement of .55 of a
unit will be satisfied by the payment of a fee as permitted by Section 21.85.040(c)(2) of the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Because of the unusual configuration of the site seven
panhandle lots are proposed. The design complies with all panhandle standards and the required
findings can be made. City Council approval is required for panhandle lots in major
subdivisions, therefore the Planning Commission is being requested to make a recommendation
on the required applications rather than taking the final action. All City standards have been
complied with and all necessary findings can be made.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project site is a 4.93 acres consisting of three assessor parcels located north of Magnolia
Avenue and west of Valley Street. The property is located in Local Facilities Management Zone
1 in the northwest quadrant of the city. Topographically the site is relatively flat and is occupied
CT 98-12/SDP 98-22 - MAGNOLIA GARDENS
May 19,1999
by old deteriorating agricultural greenhouses. Surrounding land uses are primarily single family
residences with some remaining agricultural uses.
The proposed project is for the creation of 15 residential lots which will be developed with
single-family detached residences, two of which will incorporate a second dwelling unit. The
existing zoning for the property is single-family residential (R-l) which requires a minimum lot
size of 7,500 square feet. The proposed lots range in size from 8,173 square feet to 19,5 16
square feet. The site development plan is required to ‘demonstrate the design of the second
dwelling unit. A building floor plan and elevations are proposed for the unit which includes the
second dwelling unit. The second dwelling unit is 606 square feet in area and is located on the
second floor above the garage with a separate entrance to the outside. Plans for the remaining
units are not required by the existing land use designations. Proposed units will be checked for
compliance with the standards of the R-l zone.
The subdivision design contains 7 panhandle lots. The panhandle lots are necessary because of
the existing lot configuration. Alternative designs to provide public access to the property in lieu
of panhandle lots have been explored but none were possible without violating city requirements
such as minimum lot depth. Proposed Street “A” will provide access to the adjacent property to
the north which contains agricultural greenhouses so as to not preclude the possible future
development of that property consistent with the R-l zoning designation.
IV. ANALYSIS
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards and policies:
A. Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) General Plan Land Use Designation;
B. Single-Family Residential (R-1-7,500) Zone Regulations;
C. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
D. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 2 1.85); and
E. Growth Management Regulations (Local Facilities Management Zone 1).
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of
the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
A. General Plan
The General Plan designation for the project site is Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM).
The RLM designation allows a range of O-4 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The RLM range has
a growth control point of 3.2 du/ac. The density of the proposed single-family residential
subdivision is 3.45 du/ac. The project complies with all elements of the General Plan as
illustrated in Table A below:
CT 98-12/SDP 98-22 - MA~~NOLIA GARDENS
. May 19,1999
Page 3
ELEMENT
Land Use
Housing
Public Safety
Circulation
Table A - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
USE, PROPOSED USES COMPLY?
CLASSIFICATION, &
GOAL, IMPROVEMENTS
OBJECTIVE OR
PROGRAM
Site is designated for Single-family lots at Yes
RLM at 3.2 du/ac 3.45 du/ac
Provision of Construction of 2 Yes
affordable housing second dwelling units
and payment of a fee
for .55 of a unit
Review new Required facilities Yes
development have been conditioned
proposals to consider in addition to
emergency access, tire automatic tire
hydrant locations, and sprinkler systems for
fire flow requirements structures on specified
lots
New development A public street will be Yes
shall dedicate and dedicated and
improve all public constructed on the
right-of-way for project site to serve
circulation facilities the development and
needed to serve adjacent properties
development
B. R-1-7,500 Zoning Regulations
The project site is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1-7,500). The proposed project meets or
exceeds all applicable requirements of the underlying zone as demonstrated in Table B below.
All lot sizes and widths meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the zone. All required
setbacks, lot coverage, and building height for the zone will be reviewed by the Planning
Department during building plancheck to confirm that the required standards are complied with.
Table B: R-l ZONE COMPLIANCE
STANDARD REQUIRED PROPOSED
Minimum Lot Size - Std. Lot 7,500 sq. ft. 8,173 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Size - 8,000 sq. ft. buildable area 8,200 sq. ft. - 16,116 sq. ft.
Panhandle Lot
Minimum Lot Width - Std.
Lot
Minimum Lot Width -
Panhandle Lot
60 feet
60 feet
69 feet and greater
70 feet and greater
CT 98-1YSDP 98-22 - MAGNOLIA GARDENS
May 19,1999
Maximum Panhandle Length 150 ft. for a single lot; 200 ft. 150 ft. max. for a single lot;
for two adjoining lots 200 ft. max for two adjoining
lots
C. Subdivision Ordinance
The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and has concluded that the
subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s
Subdivision Ordinance. All major subdivision design criteria have been complied with including
the minimum lot depth of 90 feet, provision of public access, required street frontage, and
minimum lot area.
The project is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan and Title 21. It is
also compatible with surrounding residential and agricultural land uses. The entire site will be
graded. The total amount of cut grading for the site is 10,150 cubic yards, fill totals 8,850 cubic
yards, and 1,300 cubic yards of dirt will be exported from the site.
The developer will be required to offer various dedications (e.g., drainage easements, street right-
of-way) and install street and utility improvements, including but not limited to, curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, sewer facilities, drainage facilities, fire hydrants, and street lights.
D. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 2 1.85) requires that a minimum of 15% of
all approved units in any qualified residential subdivision be made affordable to lower income
households. The inclusionary housing requirement for this project would be 2.55 dwelling units.
The applicant is proposing to satisfy this requirement by constructing two second dwelling units
and purchasing a 55 credit for the remaining partial unit. Therefore, the proposed project
complies with all applicable inclusionary housing requirements as demonstrated in table “C”
below. The second dwelling unit design includes 606 square feet of area located on the second
story over a three car garage. Parking for the second dwelling unit can be provided either as a
separate walled off one car garage or as tandem parking in front of the garage.
STANDARD
Inclusionary
Requirements
(Units/Fees)
Table C: Inclusionary Housing
REQUIRED PROVIDED COMPLIANCE
2.55 dwelling units 2 attached second Yes
dwelling units and a
.55 credit
E. Growth Management
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest
quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance
with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table D below.
49
CT 98-12/SDP 98-22 - MAtiNOLIA GARDENS
May 19,1999
STANDARDS
City Administration
Table D: Growth Management Compliance
IMPACTS COMPLIANCE
59.10 sq. ft. Yes
1 Library 1 31.52 sq. ft. I Yes
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
17 EDU
.ll acre
Yes
Yes
Drainage
Circulation
Basin B
170 ADT
Yes
Yes
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water
Station No. 1
N/A
CUSD
17 EDU
3,740 GPD
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The proposed project is at the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The initial study prepared in conjunction with the project determined that potentially
significant impacts could be created as a result of agricultural chemical residue that may exist in
the soil on site which could affect the health of future residents. The project site has been
occupied by greenhouses which have been used to grow flowers. The required mitigation
measure of Master Environmental Impact Report 93-01 prepared for the General Plan Update
requires a mitigation measure which has been applied to the project mandating soils testing and
analysis to evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic use, handling, or storage
of agricultural chemicals. If hazardous chemicals are detected at concentrations in the soil which
would have a significantly adverse effect on human health mitigation measures included in the
required report will be implemented.
The project is within the scope of the City’s Master Environmental Impact Report which was
utilized to address the project’s cumulative air quality and circulation impacts. Please see the
Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II for a detailed description of the mitigation
measure and the expanded justification for the recommendation to approve the Mitigated
Negative Declaration. In consideration of the foregoing, on January 29, 1999 the Planning
Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project.
The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Report
has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airport
Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This
potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental
documentation. Pursuant to 0 15 162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare a
“Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded
intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law has
interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequent
- -
CT 98-1YSDP 98-22 - MAGNOLIA GARDENS
May 19,1999
EIR” if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level of
insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn
lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been
conditioned to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements” thereby,
guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4548 (Mit. Neg. Dee)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4549 (CT)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4550 (SDP)
4. Location Map
5. Background Data Sheet
6. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
7. Disclosure Statement
8. Full Size Exhibits “A” - “G”, dated May 19, 1999
DN:eh:mh
C -
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 98-12/SDP 98-22
CASE NAME: Magnolia Gardens
APPLICANT: Pacific Scene Financial. LLC
REQUEST AND LOCATION: 15 lot residential subdivision with two second dwelling units
on a 4.93 acre site located north of Magnolia Avenue and west of Vallev Street.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of Tract 245 of Thum Lands. in the City of
Carlsbad. Countv of San Diego. State of California. according: to Man thereof No. 1681. tiled in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Dieno County. December 9. 19 15
APN: 205-220-42.43 & 45 Acres: 4.93 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 15
‘_ GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RLM
Density Allowed: O-4 Density Proposed: 3.1
Existing Zone: R-l Proposed Zone: N/A
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Site R-l
North R-l
Zoning General Plan
RLM
RLM
South R-l RLM
East R-l RLM
West R-l RLM
Current Land Use
Agriculture
Single Family
Residential and
Agriculture
Single Family
Residential
Single Family
Residential
Single Family
Residential
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: CUSD Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 17
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: Julv 29. 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
0 Negative Declaration, issued
cl Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
El Other, Mitigated Negative Declaration dated Januarv 29. 1999 54
-
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: Magnolia Gardens - CT 98-12/SDP 98-22
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1 GENERAL PLAN: RLM
ZONING: R-l
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Pacific Scene Financial. LLC
ADDRESS: 2505 Consress Street. Suite 2205. San Diego. CA 92110
PHONE NO.: 6 19-299-5 112 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 205-220-42.43 & 45
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 4.93 ac.. 15 du + 2 sdu
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 59.10
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 3 1.52
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 17
Park: Demand in Acreage = .ll
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =
Open Space: Acreage Provided =
Schools:
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDU
Identify Sub Basin =
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD =
N/A
170
N/A
CUSD
N/A
3.740
The project is proposing a total number of units equal to the Growth Management
Dwelling unit allowance.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association. social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and count)!. city,
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.”
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
I. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having a financial
interest in the application. If tile applicant includes a comoration or uartnershio. include the
names. title. addresses of all individuals owning more than 16% of the shares. IF NO
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES. PLEASE INDICATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corooration, include tile
names, titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Person 5t R /+i-mSifF?&L’j’ ‘k I’ Carp/Part
Title Title
Address Address
’ 7 u. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also. provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e.
partnership. tenants in common. non-profit, corporation. etc.). If the ownership includes a
corporation or oartnershiu. include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO JNDJVJDUALS Ow MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE JNDJCATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) JN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned corporation. include the names. titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person Gloria Aguilera Goitia Carp/Part
Title Owner Title
Address 500 S. Santa Fe, Vista Address CA, 92084
2075 Las Patmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-1161 l FAX (760) 438-0894 @
5. NO<%PROFIT C .GANIZATION OR TRUST . If any person identified pursuant to il) or (2) above is a nonprofit oreaniration or a trusl. list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profir
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit/Trust N/A Non Profit/Trust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of Cit.?. staff.
Boards. Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve ( 12) months?
cl Yes II3 No if yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of owner/date Signature of applicant/da& li’
7/c+/? Y /
Gloria Aguilera Goitia Dennis M. Ferdig
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant’s agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5198 Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT “A” TO DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant Name: Pacific Scene Financial, LLC
Members of Pacific Scene Financial, LLC
25%
25%
25%
25%
Member, Manager, and Vice President
Brian N. Khoury, Trustee of the Brian N. Khoury Revocable Trust U/A/D January
27,1987, as amended
2505 Congress Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92 110
Member, Manager, and Vice President
Jason B. Khoury, Trustee of the Jason B. Khoury Revocable Trust U/A/D January
27,1987, as amended
2505 Congress Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Member, Manager, Vice President, and Secretary
Noelle F. Khoury, Trustee of the Noelle F. Khoury Revocable Trust U/AID
January 27,1987, as amended
2505 Congress Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Member and Manager
Tawfiq N. Khoury and Richel G. Khoury, Trustees of the TNKRGK Family Trust
U/A/D December 23, 1976, as amended
2505 Congress Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Additional Officers:
Dennis M. Ferdig, Vice President
Russ Richard, Manager and President
Tammy Miller, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
- EXHIBIT 5 :
1. CT 9%1ZlSDP 98-22 - MAGNOLIA GARDENS - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and Site
Development Plan to create and develop a 15 lot residential subdivision with two second dwelling
units on a 4.93 acre site located north of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street in Local
Facilities Management Zone 1.
Chairperson Heineman advised the applicant that there were only six Commissioners present and asked if
he wished to continue this hearing without a full Commission. The applicant chose to proceed with less
than a full Commission.
Assistant Planning Director Gary Wayne introduced the item and stated that the Commission’s action on
this item is not final and will be forwarded to the City Council for ‘its consideration.
Mr. Wayne introduced Senior Planner, Don Neu, who presented the staff report, incorporating a slide
presentation, as follows: This site is rather unique in shape and it is a consolidation of three existing
parcels. The general project boundaries are Magnolia and Basswood Avenues and Highland Drive. The
total acreage is 4.93 acres and the project includes 15 single-family residential lots. Seven of these lots
are panhandle (or flag shaped) lots which means they have a private driveway that will provide access to
the properties instead of frontage on a public street. The lot areas proposed range from slightly over
8,000 square feet to slightly over 19,000 square feet. In addition, two second dwelling units are proposed
for lots within the project. The project includes a,public street that will be partially constructed. There is a
cul-de-sac portion of it that goes off site that will be constructed at a later date. There are some adjacent
improvements on one side that will also be constructed at a later date, when that property develops. The
site was formerly used for a greenhouse operation that appears to be no longer in use and are
deteriorating and this project will remove them prior to constructing the single-family project. The General
Plan on this property is low to medium density residential which has a range of 0 to 4 units per acre and
the growth management control point is 3.2 units per acre. The actual project density, however, is 3.45
units to the acre. Staff has reviewed the project in regard to the General Plan and found that it is in
compliance with all general plan elements. The zoning on the property is R-1-7,500 and within the R-l
Zone there are a number of standards with regard to the design of panhandle lots, such as minimum
usable lot area, access requirements for the panhandle/flag portion, and othersthat relate to panhandle ’
PLANNING COMMISSION May 19,1999 Page 3
lots, all of which havebeen complied with. In addition, the minimum lot widths and other standards that
apply to public street frontage lots have been achieved and incorporated into the design. The subdivision
ordinance requirements have also been met, such as minimum lot depth of 90 feet and the public
improvement requirements which are either shown on the plans or are made conditions of approval for the
project. The site is subject to the Growth Management Requirements of Facilities Zone 1, with regard to
the 11 public facilities performance standards and is in compliance with them. This particular zone does
have surplus dwelling units. With regard to the environmental review for the project, staff is proposing a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the sole mitigation measure relating to the site specifically has to do
with the previous agricultural use. What that mitigation measure does is require a soils test to determine
whether or not there are any agricultural chemicals that have caused soil contamination. If the levels of
contamination are above an acceptable level, mitigation will be required to reduce those levels to a .point s
that is acceptable by both the City of Carlsbad and San Diego County. In addition, a condition has been
put on the project regarding the Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real intersection. Staff recommends
that the Commission recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, the Tentative Map, and the Site Development Plan.
Mr. Neu reviewed the Errata Sheet for the Commission.
Regarding item #2 of the Errata Sheet, Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Neu to further explain the
City’s policy on exceeding the growth control point.
Mr. Neu replied that the low to medium density residential plan category allows O-4 units to the acre and
the growth management program for dwelling maximums has established the density to be 3.2 units per
acre. This project will be slightly above that 3.2 units per acre maximum, with a density of 3.45 units per
acre. However, in this portion of the City, based on the way the maximum buildout calculations were
done, there are surplus units based on the infill properties developing at a density essentially allowed by
the zoning which is slightly higher at approximately 5 units per acre. There is a cushion in there to allow
these infill projects to go above the 3.2 and not exceed the quadrant limits of the Growth Management
Plan.
Commissioner Welshons asked how many units are in the excess bank.
Mr. Neu replied that he has been unable to get an actual total number of surplus units but he was told that,
given the way the calculations were done, there is a very large margin for error.
Commissioner Segall asked what the impact of this project will be on the schools.
Mr. Neu replied that there will be approximately 8 students, total, with 2 in high school, 1 in junior high
school, and 5 in elementary school. These figures are taken from the School Generation Factors from the
Carlsbad Unified School District.
Dennis Ferdig, Pacific Scene, 2505 Congress Street, San Diego, stated they are in agreement with all of
the conditions proposed by staff and concur with the staff report. Mr. Ferdig requested to amend
Condition 20, Resolution No. 4549, to be allowed the flexibility of locating one of the second dwelling units
on lots 1, 2, 3, or 4, and one of the units on lot 12, 13, or 14, whichever works best for the developer and
the future homeowner.
Commissioner Trigas asked Mr. Ferdig what he plans for the parking with regard to the lots with the
second dwelling units.
Referring to the exhibit, and using lot 12 as an example, Mr. Ferdig replied that lot 12 is one of the largest
lots within the subdivision with a panhandle design. If a second dwelling unit is placed on any one of the
above mentioned lots 12, 13, and 14, the structures would have long driveways and side loaded garages
with hammer-head turnarounds, both of which would provide additional parking.
Commissioner Trigas asked if the other lots that are not as large as lot 12 can handle a second dwelling
PLANNING COMMISSION May 19,1999 Page 4
unit as well.
-
Mr. Ferdig replied that the reason he brought up the point is to try to gain Rexibility in placing both of the
second dwelling units. He added that the main reason for is request is to be able to move the second
dwelling unit off of lot 1.
Commissioner Welshons asked if the hammer-head turn-around will be eliminated when the future cul-de-
sac bulb is constructed.
Mr. Ferdig replied that since that area is required by the Fire Department, his understanding is that the
turn-around will always remain.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Ferdig to explain why the road ends in a dead-end, what the project is
adjacent to, and what is proposed for the adjacent property in the future.
Mr. Ferdig replied that the existing property to the north is currently being occupied by flower
greenhouses. He went on to state that the applicant’s original design incorporated a cul-de-sac where the
dead-end is. However, at the request of the City Engineer and the Planning Department, it was necessary
to facilitate access for the property to the north. That property owner will then have the opportunity to
propose this same type of street layout. Even in a combined project of both pieces of property, the full
width of the public street would not yield the minimum depth needed for a row of houses and a connecting
street out to Valley Street.
Commissioner Welshons asked if she is correct in that the applicant had to deduct from their usable
property in order to provide access to the adjacent property as well as to their own property. Additionally,
she asked if the completion of the cul-de-sac bulb will be the responsibility of the adjacent property when it
is developed.
Mr. Ferdig replied that Commissioner Welshons is correct in both cases
Commissioner Welshons asked if her assumption is correct in that the adjacent property owner would
possibly do the same type of five or six panhandle configured lots.
Mr. Ferdig replied affirmatively and pointed out that with the proposal of a cul-de-sac within the applicant’s
property and the City ordinance requirement for a maximum panhandle distance of 200 feet, the adjacent
property owner would be limited to 2 lots in the front and 1 huge lot in the rear of the property.
Commissioner Welshons asked how much public parking there will be along Street A and will there be
spaces on both sides of the street.
Mr. Ferdig replied that there will be public parking, on both sides of Street A but is unsure of exactly how
much. He added that they are conditioned to develop to the center line of the street plus an additional 12
feet of lane. Because they have discussed rights-of-way with the property owners to the east and to the
south, they are proposing to complete the curb and gutter.
Commissioner Welshons asked if there will be sidewalks on both sides.
Mr. Ferdig replied that sidewalks will only be on one side until the easterly property is designed and
developed.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Ferdig if he has seen the Errata Sheet and if he agrees with its
contents.
Mr. Ferdig replied that he is in agreement with the Errata Sheet. He further pointed out that they were
below the maximum 3.2 dwelling units per acre until the affordable housing requirements forced them to
recalculate with the result of .25 over the growth control point.
PLANNING COMMISSION May 19,1999 Page 5
Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Ferdig to use the exhibit and point out the lots that are currently
designated to have second dwelling units and where he would propose to move those units if his request
for flexibility is granted.
Mr. Ferdig indicated lots 1 and 12 and stated that his proposal would be to have the option to locate a unit
on lots 1 through 4 and on lots 12 through 14.
Chairperson Heineman opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak.
Brian Powell, 3809 Valley Street, Carlsbad, (adjacent to lot 14) asked what type of fence structures are
proposed for the perimeter of the subject property and what the soil contamination and grading impacts
will be. He also asked what types of architecture are proposed for the project. He further stated that it is
his understanding that all or part of the project will be low income housing and asked to have that
explained as well.
Larry Storm, 1534 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, representing his mother Mrs. Hazel Storm, who owns the
property directly adjacent to Street A, stated that they would also like information regarding fencing,
second dwelling units, and the indication that this project will be taking a small portion of Ms. Storm’s
property in order to properly align the street. He pointed out that Ms. Storm has not given any formal
agreement to the taking of a piece of her property and would like to know if this is eminent domain or is
this something requiring negotiation with the developer. Mr. Storm also stated that they are concerned
about the architecture of the project, erosion, drainage, and fencing (particularly on the north side of Ms,
Storm’s home).
Ken Shearen, 1530 Magnolia Avenue, Cansbad, expressed his concerns regarding erosion, architecture,
fences or walls, and most importantly, what is going to happen to the 8 foot easement (at the north end of
his property) that has been on the record since 1976. He asked if that property will be returned to him or
will it ultimately be taken by the City.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Shearen if he had discussed the easement with the developer and if
so, what was the result.
Mr. Shearen replied that he had discussed it with the developer but that nothing conclusive has resulted.
He added that he understands that because state code provides that a rejected offer could come up
again, he wants the offer removed and the property returned to him.
Commissioner Welshons asked what the easement was for.
Mr. Shearen pointed out the area on the exhibit, showed a small map of the easement, and stated that he
is not altogether sure why the City required that easement.
Mr. Ferdig responded to the questions from the above speakers, as follows:
1. When the subdivision, to the southwest, was developed and not knowing what the future
use would be, the City kept an 8 foot offer of dedication for a public street. Mr. Shearen
actually owns an additional 8 feet to this project’s right-of-way line. At the time this project
dedicates the complete street, Mr. Shearen’s offer of dedication could be vacated and the
property returned to him for his use.
Commissioner Welshons commented that the easement is really not an issue.
Mr. Ferdig agreed that it is not an issue as far as their project but it will be a title issue on Mr. Shearen’s
title report because the dedication does exist. Mr. Ferdig added that he believes that the offer of
dedication was never accepted by the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION May 19,1999 Page 6
Chairperson HeinemanGked if this is an issue between Mr. Shearen and the City of Carlsbad.
Mr. Ferdig responded affirmatively.
2. Regarding the fencing, the applicant is proposing a solid wood fence, finished on both
sides, approximately 5.0 to 5.5 feet in height and would be placed around the perimeter of
the project as well as between each lot.
3. Regarding the comer that is being removed from Mrs. Storm’s property, there has been
discussion with Mrs. Storm about this project preparing (constructing) the street so that if
she ever decides to develop her property, that side of the street would already be
completed as well as the curb and gutter, and she would not have to build half of a street.
4. Regarding the second dwelling units, the applicant has supplied some architectural
designs that would make it impossible to distinguish the second dwelling unit from any
other home in the project. The second dwelling unit floor plan is the same as the other 2-
story structure floor plans except that where the second dwelling unit is not required, the
extra space upstairs becomes an optional room or two. .
5. The sold wood fencing remains the same as previously described.
6. There are no proposed grade elevation changes. The elevation difference between Mr.
Powell’s lot and the projects lot 14 is negligible and there are no slopes (up or down)
proposed.
7. Regarding dust control during grading and clearing Engineering Department standards
will have to be met.
Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Ferdig what he meant by an optional room on the second story.
Mr. Ferdig explained that when the second floor space (designed for a second dwelling unit) is not used
as a second dwelling unit, that space will be accessible from the inside of the home and just make the
home larger.
Commissioner Segall asked if there will be fencing on the north side of the project and asked Mr. Ferdig to
point out all of the areas that will be fenced and indicate the corner of Mrs. Storm’s property that will be
taken for the street alignment.
Mr. Ferdig identified the areas to be fenced and stated that the entire perimeter of the project will be
fenced as well as between each lot and on both sides of the private driveway leading to lot 15. There will
be a standard Caltrans barricade at the end of the Street A until such time as a cul-de-sac bulb is
constructed. Mr. Ferdig also indicated, on the map, where the subject comer of Mrs. Storm’s property is
located and why they needed it for the street.
Commissioner Welshons asked what will happen if Mrs. Storm chooses not to release the subject corner
of her property.
Mr. Ferdig replied that until this meeting, he was not aware that that would be a problem. He stated that
he has discussed the matter with Mrs. Storm and had the understanding that she would not oppose the
plan. He added that the project is conditioned to construct a half-street plus a 12 foot wide lane and the
corner is needed for the added lane.
If Mrs. Storm develops her property and builds houses, Commissioner Welshons asked, will those houses
take access from Street A.
Mr. Ferdig replied that Street A would be the primary access for the Storm property, particularly if homes
- -
PLANNING COMMISSION May 19,1999 Page 7
are built.
In response to a question from Commissioner Welshons, Mr. Ferdig explained that in order to meet the
sight distance requirements and various engineering standards, a small piece of Mrs. Storm’s comer had
to be shaved off.
Mr. Wayne interjected to clarify the following:
1. Staff would recommend that the flexibility requested may be considered for Lots 1, 2, 3,
and the two large interior lots. Lot 4 should not be considered for a second dwelling unit
as it is much too small.
2. When a second dwelling unit is created, it is an inclusionary housing requirement and
therefore that property is going to be deed restricted and the homeowner is required to
charge affordable household rents. In addition to that, it is a likelihood that the City
Council will require, as part of the affordable housing agreement for any second dwelling
units, that the tenants also must meet the affordable housing income limits for their
household size.
Mr. Neu addressed the concern for potential soil contamination by stating that the project is conditioned to
deal with possible contamination on the project site, only. However, if there is existing soil contamination
on any of the adjacent properties this project is not conditioned for off-site mitigation, Regarding the type
of architecture, Mr. Ferdig mentioned that there is a prototype plan that includes the second dwelling unit
but the other plans are not a part of the package before this Commission at this time. The present
standards would allow the applicant to develop something that meets the R-l standards which deal
primarily with height, setbacks, and lot coverage.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Wojcik if parking will be allowed on both sides of Street A and what
the width of Street A will be.
Mr. Wojcik replied that there will be parking on both sides of the street and the street width is 36 feet.
Regarding the architectural plans, Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Neu if the architectural plans are
available in the blue prints for interested parties to see.
Mr. Neu replied that the plans are available and that Mr. Ferdig’s intent is to keep the architecture
compatible throughout the fifteen units.
Commissioner Welshons asked if there is a condition requiring the developer to control the dust during the
grading process.
Mr. Wojcik replied that there is not a specific condition regarding dust control because it is a City
ordinance that requires that control. The inspector will instruct the contractor that there must be a water
truck on-site, and if any dust is being emitted, the area must be watered down.
Regarding the issue of taking a piece of the comer of Mrs. Storm’s property, Commissioner Welshons
asked what steps will be taken to acquire that piece of land since it appears that Mrs. Storm is not willing
to agree to any proposal, to date.
Chairperson Heineman noted that Mr. Storm wished to give further testimony and re-opened Public
Testimony.
Larry Storm, 1534 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that he, nor his mother, Mrs. Storm, have not said
that she is not willing to agree to a reasonable proposal. What he did say was that no final agreement
has been made with regard to that property. Mr. Storm asked if his understanding is correct in that two of
the fifteen units are going to be low income housing units or the whole project is going to be a low income
PLANNING COMMISSION May 19,1999 Page 8
project.
At the direction of Chairperson Heineman, Mr. Neu explained what a second dwelling unit is and where
they (2) will be located in this project. He added, for clarification, that this is not a low income project and
that the two affordable housing second dwelling unit are a requirement of the inclusionary housing
ordinance.
Chairperson Heineman closed Public Testimony.
Aher stating that they (the Commission) often have concerns where the negotiations aren’t completed and
requiring a condition(s) stating that if the project does not get the land in question, then X and Y’will’ a .
happen, or the project must be returned to the Commission to be redesigned, Commissioner Welshons
asked Mr. Wojcik if her statement was correct.
Mr. Wojcik replied that the standard procedure is that the developer confer with the property owner to
negotiate and agree upon a price for the subject property. If they are unable to agree on a price, the
developer is required to provide the City with some type of written proof that they have not been able to
reach an agreement and post a $5,000 deposit for condemnation proceedings. The City then uses those
monies to proceed with condemnation proceedings for the subject land. During those proceedings an
evaluation of the price of the land according to the fair market value, is done. Typically, the judge awards
the fair market value for the subject property.
Commissioner Welshons asked Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi if it is necessary to add a condition
regarding the taking of Mrs. Storm’s property if no agreement can be reached.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that there is no need for the addition of such a condition as the Municipal Code clearly
and appropriately allows condemnation procedures when the City requires a street and the developer is
unable to acquire the necessary land for the street, through negotiation.
Commissioner Welshons asked what instrument could or would require a re-design, rather than going
directly to condemnation.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that the best design has already been considered by the Engineering Department and
the developer when the plan is presented and approved. Therefore, there should be an understanding
that if the developer cannot obtain the property, on his own, that the City will assist him through
condemnation proceedings.
Mr. Wojcik indicated that Page 13, Condition No. 65, Resolution No 4549, covers the item in question.
Chairperson Heineman stated that two members of the audience were wishing to.testify and asked the
Commission for their approval to re-open Public Testimony.
With the unanimous agreement of the Commission, Chairperson Heineman re-opened Public Testimony.
Marjorie Young, 3580 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, owner of property immediately adjacent to the project,
stated that lot 6 should not be considered for a second dwelling unit because there is not enough area for
additional parking. She pointed out that her property abuts the 25 foot wide alley and there is just not
enough room for two to six cars to park there.
Lynn McEwan, 3580 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, daughter of Marjorie Young, stated that they have been
told, by the City, that the alley is too narrow and will never become a street and that is it too long to be
made a private driveway. Therefore, lots 6 and 15 should not be permitted to have second dwelling units.
Chairperson Heineman closed Public Testimony.
Mr. Neu, for clarification, stated that the 25 foot wide alley is proposed to be a driveway to lot 15 only. Lot
PLANNING COMMISSION May 19,1999 Page 9
6 is presently designedto take its access on Street A (proposed public street) and at this time, second
dwelling units are not proposed for lots 6 or 15.
Commissioner Trigas asked lf the homeowners are required to rent out the second dwelling units for low
income housing or can those units be used by the household.
Mr. Wayne replied that all housing projects in the City have an inclusionary requirement and this project is
proposing to satisfy its inclusionary requirement by deed restricting two lots and to have a second dwelling
unit on each of two lots. There is nothing to prevent a homeowner from applying for a permit and creating
a second dwelling unit on his/her property in an R-l zone, anywhere in this City, providing the lot is large
enough to do so. State law mandates that homeowners be allowed to so. While this project is not
proposing a second dwelling unit on lots 6 or 15, that does not mean that at some future time, the owners
of those lots cannot come in and apply for and receive a permit for a second dwelling unit. In this case,
two lots will be specified in the Affordable Housing Agreement. There will be deed restrictions placed on
them and when they are rented they will have to be rented at an affordable rate according to the
household size and, in all likelihood, the tenants will also have to be income-qualified. The matter of
requiring property owners to rent out the units rather than use them for their own use, is a policy matter
dealing with second dwelling units, now before the City Council. Right now, a property owner can use the
second dwelling unit in any way he sees fit. However, in all likelihood, they will be treated exactly the
same way as all other inclusionary housing types. Therefore they will have to be rented, deed restricted,
and the tenants will have to be income qualified.
Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Wojcik if the current design is the best that can be achieved and can
anything else be done if the developer cannot acquire that small portion of Mrs. Storm’s property, other
than through condemnation proceedings.
Mr. Wojcik replied that this is the design that would be needed in order to keep the number of units that
are proposed. When the applicant came in and the cul-de-sac was on their property, it had enough
excess land and to create all of the lots they wanted. Once the City told the developer that the street had
to go all the way through, that took away some land and left his a little short of getting another lot. The
design he has proposed is acceptable and meets City standards. The small piece of Mrs. Storm’s
property is approximately 350 square feet.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the City’s affordable housing issue on second dwelling units is in conflict
with the state and the state, therefore, does not recognize the second dwelling units as affordable
housing.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that they are not in conflict.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that it is his understanding that the state does not recognize second
dwelling units as counting toward affordable housing.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that the state currently has a proposed plan for self-certification of affordable housing
programs that are implemented by cities and in that self-certification program, second dwelling units as an
affordable housing alternative will be allowed to count toward the affordable housing requirement.
Mr. Wayne stated that currently, the question of whether or not second dwelling units count toward the
affordable housing requirement is still in discussion. It is unsure whether those units are counted or not.
The City has been in contact with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
in an effort to gain some answers. There are two sections of state law; one identifies second housing and
qualifies it as affordable housing and the second deals with housing element law and that one is the part
that is less clear and HCD has told staff that to count toward the City’s regional share, the units must be
“income qualified”.
If the properties will be deed restricted and rental of a unit is not optional, Commissioner Nielsen asked
what the enforcement mechanism will be.
PLANNING COMMISSION May 19,1999 Page 10
Mr. Wayne stated that enforcement is through the affordable housing agreement.
Commissioner Nielsen asked what will happen if an individual buys the house and doesn’t rent out the
second dwelling unit.
Mr. Wayne replied that they would be in violation of the affordable housing agreement and would be
appropriately prosecuted.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that these are some of the difficulties with the second dwelling unit issue that have
been under consideration for quite some time. Currently, the City is deed restricting these properties and
requiring them to be rented at affordable rates, if in fact they are rented. At the moment there is no
requirement for them to be rented at all. Also, in the past when such units have been rented, tenants have
not been required to be “income qualified” merely because the City has not had an effective method of
enforcement.
Mr. Wayne stated that the affordable housing agreement goes beyond the deed restriction and he has
been informed by the Director of Housing that they are advising all applicants that are proposing second
dwelling units, that in all likelihood, those second dwelling units will have to also be “income qualified”.
Therefore, the owner should plan on compliance and not plan to rent the unit to someone other than a low
income qualifier.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4548,4549. and 4550, recommending approval of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
Tentative Tract Map (CT 98-12) and Site Development Plan (SDP 98-22). based
upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including the
Errata Sheet dated 5-19-99, as present by staff.
AMENDMENT:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to allow the developer
the flexibility to locate the two (2) affordable second dwelling units any two (2) of
the following lots: Lots 1, 2 or 3, and 11 or 12.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that he does not have a problem with the project, as a whole, but that he
does have a major concern with the affordable housing element, in that he does not feel that the City is
adequately handling the affordable housing question. He stated that he is of the opinion that if Carlsbad is
going to have affordable housing, then that is what should be done. Commissioner Nielsen further stated
that he cannot support the project for the reasons stated above.
Commissioner Welshons stated that the owners of this property have a right to develop it and the
developer is genuinely attempting to work with the neighborhood in resolving the associated issues. She
stated her support for the project.
Commissioner Trigas stated her support for the project but also voiced her concern regarding whether the
second dwelling units are required to be rented or not. She also stated that she is concerned that under
the circumstances, the developer may get credit for the inclusionary housing and yet it may or may not be
rented as low income housing.
Commissioner Segall stated his support for the project.
Commission L’Heureux also stated her support for the project.
PLANNING COMMISSION - May 19,1999
VOTE ON AMENDMENT:
VOTE: 6-O
AYES: Heineman, L’Heureux, Segall, Trigas, Welshons, Nielsen
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
VOTE ON MAIN MOTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
5-l
Heineman, L’Heureux, Segall, Trigas, Welshons
Nielsen
None
Page 11
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notlde
CT g8-12/SDP 98-22 - Magnolia Gardens
for a public hearing before the City Council,
Please notice the item for the council meeting of ASAP
.
Thank you.
Assistant City Man
June 14, 1999
Date
iERNICE M MILLER MARTIN & BRINK SORENSEN
3491 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2525
HERNDON FAMILY
1350 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2516 PO BOX 1245
CARLSBAD CA 92018-1245
EDWIN A & LILA RUDINGER 3457 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2525
OLIVER E WILLMANN
3450 SPANISH WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2557
JEFFREY S & KIM SELL
3460 SPANISH WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2557
CHARLES E HUEY 3454 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2524
MARK C & ROSE PORTER DONALD A RUSHWORTH 3460 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2524 3486 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2524
GERASIM DAOUSSIS 3490 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2524
THOMAS R MULLIGAN COMMIE W BELLAH 1490 CHESTNUT AVE" CARLSBAD CA 92008-2609 1604 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2613
HARRISON D EALY :
300 -CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR
CARLSBAD CA 9'2008-2990
TYLER & TRACY BUCKLEY
1590 CHESTNUT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2611
RICHARD J-& ILA SCHMIDT 1650 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2613
ALAN R & KATHRYN LEWIS 1634 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2613
STEVEN & THERESE DOLKAS 1674 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2613
NORTH COUNTY COMMUNITY
1694 CHESTNUT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2613
KENNETH J CRISMAN
3485 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2636
STEVEN D & KARYN GINER
1541 SANDALWOOD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2617
ROBERT E WESTFALL
3460 JAMES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2615
FLOYD S GIORDANI
1561 SANDALWOOD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2617
STEVEN P & MAUREEN
3450 JAMES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CADE
2615
-
RICHARD SARKISIAN 1536 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2611
PATRICK .E THERRIEN 1536 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2611
KILLEN 1521 SANDALWOOD LN _ CARLSBAD CA 92008-2617
THERRIEN TR 1536 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2611
SUTRO 1500 ADAMS AVE 311 COSTA MESA CA 92626-3819
MCLEAN GWEN R JONES MONELL CAROLENE H EST 0
1375 CHESTNUT AVE 3515 HIGHLAND DR 3525 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2517 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2527 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2527
WINIFRED N MCMAHON DOUGLAS L BURGESS SARAH RAMIREZ 3551 HIGHLAND DR 3615 HIGHLAND DR 1332 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2527 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2529 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2545
.-
LINDA A SNYDER GREER BARBARA J BARRY D & ROBERT HAASE
3655 HIGHLAND DR 1352 MAGNOLIA AVE 1342 MAGNOLIA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2529 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2545 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2545
HONDA DONALD & MONICA WYMAN STEVE' & ViCKIE COLE 1328 MAGNOLIA AVE 1330 HILLVIEW.CT 1340 HILLVIEW.CT CARLSBAD CA 92008-2545 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2537 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2537.
MARK S & LINDA SHELDONE MILLICENT-D JOHNSON EDITH R PORTER 1350 HILLVIEW CT 1360 HILLVIEW CT 1310 HILLVIEW CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2537 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2537 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2537
,
DONNA ENGLEMAN THOMAS W & JEAN CARROLL KAREN STERN-SALKIN
1320 HILLVIEW CT PO BOX 1282 13624 VOSE ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2537 LA JOLLA CA 92038-1282 VAN NUYS CA 91405-3420
-
-
MICHAEL F CORBIN PATRICIA i&OWN THOMAS W & JEAN CARROLL
3516 WOODLAND WAY 45 GARDEN ST PO BOX 1282 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2560 BOSTON MA 02114-3720 LA JOLLA CA 92038-1282
KELLY A LYNDON 3532 WOODLAND WAY - KERWIN J BERTRAM LAURA A LATRONICA 3536 WOODLAND WAY 3341 GRAYBAR CT CARLSBAD CA 92008-2560 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2560 OCEANSIDE CA 92056-3267
THOMAS W & JEAN CARROLL RICHARD I SALKIN CHESTNUT VILLAS OWNERS PO BOX 1282 13624 VOSE ST PO BOX 1282 LA JOLLA CA 92038-1282 VAN NUYS CA 91405-3420 LA JOLLA CA 92038-1282
TIMOTHY M-WRISLEY LINDA A SNYDER ALBERT J FREIBURGER
3635 HIGHLAND DR 3655 HIGHLAND DR 1337 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2529 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2529 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2546
RUTH N HAWKINS 1274 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2542
*** 64 Printed ***
CHARLES A KRAUSE TOM & S MOYER TIMOTHY M WRISLEY
3650 WOODLAND WAY 3660 WOODLAND WAY 3635 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2572 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2572 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2529
MARIA SANCHEZ LOUIS G CANTABRANA PAULA M LARGENT 1519 CHESTNUT AVE 1537 CHESTNUT AVE 1547 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2612 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2612 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2612
--. ___. ..- .-- ---~-~
HONDA JOSEPH DUNN VALDEZ 1565 CHESTNUT AVE 1585 CHESTNUT AVE 1605 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2612 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2612 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2614
~.. _-...
JEFFREY J ZACHRY RINK0 T OZAKI SAM CAITO 1635 CHESTNUT AVE 1645 CHESTNUT.AVE 2754 AUBURN AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2614 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2614 CARLSBAD GA 92008-2170
205-220-16 _
A T STORM PO BOX 636
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0636
MICHAEL S LERNER MARJORIE M YOUNG TRUST-DE JONG
3636 HIGHLAND DR 3580 HIGHLAND DR 355 W GRAND AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2528 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2526 ESCONDIDO CA 92025
BELL MANNON A & CLEO NIX JAMES D HANSEN 3686 HIGHLAND DR 1415 CHESTNUT AVE 3514 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2528 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2610 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2526
- _
MALCOLM CARR LYNNE LEWALLEN CHERYL & JUNE WIGHTMAN 3600 HIGHLAND DR PO BOX 2101 3270 WESTWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2528 CARLSBAD CA 92018-2101 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1144
TRACI L DEVASHER
3700 HIGHLAND DR 13 .
BOBBIE L-SCHiNDLER CANDACE L LYLE
2421 LA COSTA AVE C 501 MELTON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2532 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7312 RUSTON LA 71270-3443
JOHN J & GRACE MAMAUX K D & RUBY MINNICH MICHAEL & GANGE WETZEL 1393 BASSWOOD AVE 3113 BUENA HILLS DR 3700 HIGHLAND DR 20 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1904 OCEANSIDE CA 92056-3945 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2532
C
MARK E BALLERINI 3700 HIGHLAND DR 5 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2531
.--.--__~__ .--.. -.-
TEMPLE DIANNE L 3700 HIGHLAND DR 15 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2532
. ..~... - __...
HUMPHREY MINOSHIA G SWJ 3700 HIGHLAND DR 17 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2532
JERRY D MEAKIN
2061 ALLISON WAY SYRACUSE UT 84075-9171
__. __ -- _-. _- .-.
FRANK J & CAROLYN WALLS 4050 SUNNYHILL DR ,C!ARLSBAD CA 92008-2750
MARCELLA J MENEES
298 AHMU TER
VISTA CA 92084-2565
JOSEPH L STENGER 1510 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2624
WILLIAM J PALENSCAR 3788 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2533
THOMAS D ELLIOTT _
PO BOX 4115 CARLSBAD CA 92018-4115
. _ - ....._~~ --
POWELL 3609 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2640
RALPH F & LANA BURNETTE
390 GRAND AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2925
MICHAEL T RONCONE NDC NAPLES PSC 810 BOX 2 09619
BARBARA J CLARK
3700 HIGHLAND DR 18
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2532
DELMON L THOMASSON 3700 HIGHLAND DR 12 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2532.
STEVEN D & CATHY LAWLER 3515 VALLEY.ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2638
__-~-- ~- ~-.--~ ---
GEORGE (iGRIFFITH
1435 CHESTNUT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2610
DAVID BATT
340 OLD RANCH RD BRADBURY CA 91010-1031
THOMAS PALENSCAR 3794 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2533
THOMAS D ELLIOTT 2455 GARFIELD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2214
KAREN REEL 3700 HIFHLAND DR 16 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2532
RICHARD C BARDWELL 3700 HIGHLAND DR 8
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2531
FRANCISCO PARTIDA
3700 HIGHLAND DR 9
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2531
JANICE E MCCORMACK
3700 HIGHLAND DR 11
CARLSBAD GA 92008-2532
..- --. .~___~. .-. .-~ - -
PAUL E & CLAUDIA RIHA 3546 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBADCA 92008-2526
EDWARD J & LUND STRAUB
3690 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2528
.- .
SHEAREN 1530 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2624
KIMBAL M MILLER 1455 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2610
REX V-ALLEN-BAINES 1475 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2610
C
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST CITY OF ENCINITAS
301 PINE AVE 505 S VULCAN AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
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
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST CARLSBAD CA 92008
PACIFIC SCENE FINANCIAL
2805 CONGRESS ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92110
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER DON NEU
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B 5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 200 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO ,NO
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
RON GRUNO
STE 200
5650 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME STE 50
330 GOLDENSHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101
I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMiN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505.
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
DEPT
City
- FILE COPY
of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF PUB! IC 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, May 19, 1999, to consider a request for approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and
Site Development Plan to create and develop a 15 lot residential subdivision with two
second dwelling units on a 4.93 acre site on property generally located north of
Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and
more particularly described as:
That portion of Tract 245 of Thum Lands, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 1681, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, December 9, 1915.
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 May 13, 1999. If
you have any questions, please call Don Neu in the Planning Department at (760) 438-
1 161, extension 4446.
The t.ime within which you may judicially challenge this Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and Site
Development Plan, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is
very short. If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and Site Development Plan in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 98-12/SDP 98-22
CASE NAME: MAGNOLIA GARDENS
PUBLISH: MAY 6,1999
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2075 La Palmas Dr. l Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-l 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 @
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CT 9%12/SDP 98-22 MAGNOLIA GARDENS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday July 6, 1999, to consider
a request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, Tentative Tract Map, and Site Development Plan to create and develop a 15 lot
residential subdivision with two second dwelling units on a 4.93 acre site on property generally
located north of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street in Local Facilities Management
Zone 1 and more particularly described as:
That portion of Tract 245 of Thum Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 168 1, filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego County, December 9,1915.
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 or after June 25, 1999. If you have any
questions regarding this matter, please contact Don Neu in the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4446.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map, if approved, is
established by state law and/or city ordinance is very short. If you challenge this Tentative Tract
Map, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and/or Site
Development Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the
City of Carlsbad Office of the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: PACIFIC SCENE FINANCIAL, LLC.
PUBLISH: JUNE 25,1999
i
MAGNOLIA GARDENS
CT 9842ISDP 98-22
- ALL RECEIVED -
July 14, 1999
Honorable Mayor Lewis and
Members of the City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Council Hearings of July 6,1999 and July 20,1999
Magnolia Gardens: CT 98-12, SDP 98-22
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Pacific Scene Financial, LLC (PSF) is applicant for the above referenced project. As we
understand it, the Council has directed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution denying
our application. Accordingly, we ask that Council remove the substitute resolution from
the consent calendar for discussion, and instead take the following actions outlined in this
letter.
The unusual configuration of the property necessitated some unusual design features.
However, all requirements for the proposed design have been met or exceeded. PSF
contacted neighboring property owners to see whether it could purchase adjacent land to
simplify the design, but has been unsuccessful to date. PSF is once again in contact with
the adjacent property owners and is negotiating in good faith. We hope to have some
resolution within the next two or three weeks. The Carlsbad Unified School District has
offered to meet with us to discuss various possibilities.
We understand that a resolution rejecting the project will be brought to the Council on
July 20, 1999. PSF respectfully requests that Council: I*.
1. Remove the substitute Resolution from the “Consent Calendar” for discussion.
2. “Rescind, repeal, cancel or otherwise nullify” its July 6,1999 decision.
3. Provide clear direction for PSF and staff to redesign the layout.
4. Continue the project for 30 days to allow the applicant to negotiate with
landowners and review other possible layouts.
5. Order the matter set for another noticed; public hearing after the redesign has
been completed.
We have enclosed some possible layouts for your review that would reduce the number
of “pan-handle lots” to between three and five instead of seven. Panhandle lots are
common in this area of the City; in fact there are four within the same block as this
project. However, we would prefer a more standard lot layout. PSF has worked diligently
with staff to provide access to adjacent property owners for future development. We have
consistently tried to design the project without the need for variances or waivers to design
criteria. If a variance for minimum lot depth was allowed, Public Street “A” could be
/) ,j j
Pacific Scene Financial, LLC
2505 Congress Street, Suite 220
San Diego, California 92110
Tel: 619.299.5112 I Fax: 619.299.1876
h
‘. II q m
h
extended easterly to Valley Street. Unless directed otherwise, PSF will continue to apply
the required standards in its redesign efforts.
I would be happy to make myself available to the Council members or staff to discuss
any comments or concerns they may have.
I thank you in advance for your cooperation and understanding.
Sincerely,
Pacific Scene Financial, LLC
Dennis M. Ferdig
Vice President
cc: City Attorney
City Manager
Michael Holzmiller
Don Neu
Enclosures (3)
P ?
ALEL’
I I
SkT
I I II __-,_--_-,----_-----__--:’ .----- - .
Q C
a
h -
w v
- a
# YM
I#--
. . . .
7”‘ -
_ _.__. _-we_..- .-_.-. .- ,
!
7: 11 ,
1, I.
’ I i I ’ , : ,I
-----a 1 .:I I
I j j
I 11 1 III I, j 1; : !? ’ / I’ ’ I’ : I’ : ,I j): 4, I( : ’ ,I !t :! : 1
L j [ i' ,E, : I :Et __-----------------_--_-- i 1
I I I 1,
: I 1 I I i ii ’ i 1 . - _. _ . - - 4 . . - - _. ..- - ._ ._ _ ._ .-.. _ ----m---m-- . -_-_ ‘E 4 __
. II I I \ /1
- - - - - - . . -.-.
HkHLAtiD.-DRI\I
I I
!-------~ E
i I d : I E I * i