HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-07; City Council; 15518; SeaviewCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENlm BILL
AB# 15,518 -. TITLE.
MTG. 12/07/99 SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION
DEPT. PLN CT 98-21/HDP 98-23
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 99-511 APPROVING a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CT 98-21, and HDP 98-23 as
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On October 20, 1999, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended
approval of the Seaview g-Lot Subdivision project (6-O; 6 ayes, Commissioner Welshons absent).
The project site is located at the dead end of Seaview Way, north of Chestnut Avenue in the R-l-
10,000 Zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
The proposed project is for the creation of a 9 lot single-family residential subdivision on a 3.96 acre
infill site. The project will consist of 9 single-family residences on lots all greater than 10,000 square
feet. Lots 7 and 8 will also contain second dwelling units to satisfy the affordable housing
requirement for the project. A Site Development Plan is required to demonstrate the design of the
second dwelling units. The Planning Commission’s approval of SDP 98-24 is final, contingent on
Council’s approval of CT 98-21 and HDP 98-23.
The project also includes one panhandle lot on lot 6. The design complies with all panhandle
standards and the required findings can be made. Because City Council approval is required for
panhandle lots in major subdivisions, the Planning Commissions actions are recommendations for
approval. Therefore, City Council action is required for the Tentative Map and associated Hillside
Development Permit.
The project design has gone through several revisions in response to staff and neighborhood
comments. The current proposal responds to the issues identified by the neighborhood regarding
the amount of imported soil proposed, the heights of the pads, drainage and sewer flows, and
compatibility with the neighborhood.
During the public hearing, several neighbors requested that the grading plans be revised to lower
the pad elevation for Lot 6 by two feet. The developer was in agreement with this request. It was
noted by staff that this would result in approximately 1,000 yards of soil export, unless the excess
soil could be placed throughout the site. If spread evenly throughout the site, this would result in an
increase in the proposed grades of less than two inches. The Commission deferred a decision
regarding the proposed pad height modification to the discretion of the City Engineer as a substantial conformance issue, with the understanding that a balanced grading operation should be
maintained.
More detailed information regarding the development proposal is included in the attached staff
report to the Planning Commission and Planning Commission minutes.
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 (EIA-Part II) prepared in conjunction with this project
determined that potentially significant impacts could be created as a result of agricultural chemical
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. & =a I 8
residues that were discovered during a Phase I site assessment. The site assessment also
identified that the removal of the existing residence may warrant concern for asbestos building
materials. Mitigation measures requiring soil remediation; requiring an asbestos survey and
remediation if applicable; and implementing measures for disposal of trash and debris have been
included to reduce impacts related to hazardous materials to levels less than significant.
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:
Local Facilities Management Plan 1
Growth Control Point 3.2 du/ac
Net Density* 2.9 du/ac
Special Facilities N/A
* The project is 1 unit below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 99-511 2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4613, 4614,4615, and 4616
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 20, 1999
5. Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission minutes, dated October 20, 1999.
2
1
2
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
RESOLUTION NO. 99-511
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO SUBDIVIDE 3.96
ACRES INTO 9 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
NORTH OF SEAVIEW WAY, NORTH OF CHESTNUT AVENUE
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION
CASE NO.: CT 98-21/HDP 98-23
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, on October 20, 1999, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held a
duly noticed public hearing to consider a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development
Permit and Site Development Plan to create and develop a 9 lot residential subdivision with two
second dwelling units, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 4615 approving the
Site Development Permit and Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4613, 4614, and 4616
recommending to the City Council that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and Hillside Development Permit be
approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on 7th day of
)mT?.R , 4999, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation and
heard all persons interested in or opposed to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and Hillside Development Permit; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative
Tract Map 98-21, and Hillside Development Permit 98-23 is approved and that the findings and
conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No.
4613, 4614, and 4616 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the
findings and conditions of the City Council. 3
3. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial
Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been
made applicable in the City of 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 7th day of DECEMBER 1999, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES. Council Members Lewis, Hall, Finnila, Nygaard, Kulchin
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
-2- 4
-
EXHIBIT 2
SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION
CT 98=2l/HDP 98-23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 461’3
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 3.96 ACRES INTO
9 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF SEAVIEW WAY IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME: SEAVIEW 9-LOT SUBDIVISION
CASE NO. : CT 98-21/SDP 98-24/HDP 98-23
WHEREAS, MSK Management, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Hisashi Honda and
Kiyome Honda, Trustees of the Honda Family Trust dated 7/22/97, “Owner”, described as
A portion of Lot “J” of the Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Partition Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,
1896
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the public notice and review and comment period
the project was redesigned based on written and verbal input; and
WHEREAS, the mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program was amended on September 14, 1999 based on the redesigned
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of October, 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 a11 testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A)
W
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated July 12, 1999, and “PII” dated July
6,1999, and as amended September 14, 1999, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, based on the following findings: ’
Findinvs:
1 The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration
Seaview g-Lot Subdivision CT 98-21/SDP 9%24/HDP 98-23, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said
comments thereon, and the Program, on file in the Planning Department,
prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 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; and
they reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad; and
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
Recirculation of the Negative Declaration is not required pursuant to
Section 15073.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
in that:
1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective
measures pursuant to Section 15074.1 of CEQA guidelines; and
2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal
comments on the project’s effects identified in the proposed
negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant
effects; and q PC RESO NO. 4613 -2- I
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) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after
circulation of the negative declaration which are not required b:
CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects
and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect;
and
4) New information is added to the negative declaration which
merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifitations to
the negative declaration.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Seaview 9-Lot
Subdivision Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of October 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compaq L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Welshons
ABSTAIN:
COURTNEY E. HEINEMAN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
8
PC RESO NO. 4613 -3-
.
-
City of
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: APN 167-070-04
A PORTION OF L0T.J OF THE RANCH0 AGUA HEDIONDA .
Project Description: A 9-lot single family residential subdivision
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 (EIA 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 Barbara Kennedy in the Planning
Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4325.
DATED: JULY 12,1999
CASE NO: CT 98-21/SDP 9%24HDP 98-23
CASE NAME: SEAVIEW 9-LOT SUBDIVISION
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 12,1999
.
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-l 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894
-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 9%21/SDP 9%24HDP 98-23
DATE: June 8, 1999
REVISED: September 14,1999 s
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION
2. APPLICANT: MSK Management. Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5 142 Avenida Encinas. Carlsbad CA
.760-438-4090
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 12/2/98 ,
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A g-lot subdivision map proposing single-family home lots greater
than 10,000 square feet in area with two second dwelling units to comply with the requirements
of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The 3.96 acre site is located at the north end of Seaview
Way, north of Chestnut Avenue. 3.48 acres of the site will be graded and the proposal will
require approval of a Hillside Development Permit. The site was historically used for
agricultural purposes and the existing single family residence will be demolished.
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.
-cl Land Use and Planning lxl Transportation/Circulation El Public Services
cl Population and Housing q Biological Resources El Utilities & Service Systems .
IXI Geological Problems III Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
cl Water lxl Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
Is] Air Quality q Noise 0 Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
I Rev. 03128196
-
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
q
El
0
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ,
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) Kas 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.
t! 4130 137
Pl&mer Signature ’ Date
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
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.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but #J 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).
a When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
l A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03128196
-
l If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
l An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96 /3
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I.
4
b)
c)
4
4
II.
a)
b)
c>
III.
4
b)
4
,d)
4
f)
g)
h)
0
Iv.
4
b)
cl
I
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
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) 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)
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
Cumulatively exceed offkial regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
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)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 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-l - 5.1-15)
Landslides& mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 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)
WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
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)
5
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
q
q q
q cl q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
q
q
q
El
q
q
q
cl
q q q
q
q q
q q q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0 q q
q
q lxl
q IXI q
q
q
q
No
Impact
El
lxl
lxl
lxl
lxl
Ix1
lxl
lxl
IXI
Ix1
IXI
Ix1
Ix] q
El q lzl
la
IXI
Is)
Rev. 03128196
.-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
4
0
8)
h)
0
V.
4
b)
d
4
VI.
4
b)
8)
VII.
4
b)
4
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 groundwater 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)
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
TR4NSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the 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)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
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)
6
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
lxl
q
q
q
IXI
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
-.
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q -
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
No Impact
Ix1
El
Ix]
tzl
lxl
El
q
IXI
El
lxl
q
Ix]
lzl
lxl
lxl
El
IXI
Ix1
lxl
IXI
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d)
4
VIII.
a)
b)
4
IX.
a)
b)
c>
d)
e)
X.
4
b)
XI.
4
b)
c>
4
e)
XII.
a)
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-l
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 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 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-l - 5.13-9)
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
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)
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
Increases in existing noise levels? (#l :Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
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:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(#l:Pgs5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
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-l - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
7
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q q El q
q
q
. . --.
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
IXI
q
q
0.
q q q q
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
cl
q
No Impact
Rev. 03/28/96
q
q
q ’
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q q
q
q
lxl
Ix]
lxl
Ix1
El
lxl
lxl
Ix1
q
El
Ix1
lxl
El lxl IXI lxl
Ix]
El
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incomorated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-l - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l -
5.12.3-7)
q q q q q lxl q Ix]
q q q q
q q q 0
q q q q
Ix] [xl Ix1 lxl
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0’
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
q
q
q
q
q IsI
lzl q
q q q q q EJ q tzl
cl q q lxl
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? (#1 :Pgs
5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7)
q
q
q
cl
q
q
lxl
lxl
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
q q q
8 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation ’ Incoroorated q 1
lxl q q
q q q IXI
Rev. 03128196
-.
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses of the proposed single-family residential project have been completed through
the General Plan Update (GPA 94-O1)and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR
93-01). The MEIR is cited as source #1 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 the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this project
have been incorporated into this project.
10 Rev. 03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The 3.96 acre site is located at the north dead end of Seaview Drive within Local Facilities
Management Zone 1 and is bordered by single-family residences to the north, south, east and
west. The east portion of the site is occupied by abandoned greenhouse structures and a single-
family dwelling. A small 2:l slope approximately 3 feet high descends from the east property
line to the existing grade. The remainder of the property slopes gently downhill to the west at
about a 16% slope. The total difference in elevation between the southeast property comer and
the northwest property comer is approximately 65 feet and varies between 327 feet (MSL) and
262 (MSL), respectively. The site vegetation on the westerly two-thirds of the property and
around the greenhouses consist of ruderal vegetation. The vacant dwelling is surrounded by
overgrown ornamental landscaping and dead turf.
The project proposal would consist of the demolition of the existing structures and subdivision of
the property into a g-lot single-family residential subdivision. The proposed street design
provides for the extension of Seaview Way to the north and east throughout the subdivision to
provide access to the residential lots. Seaview Way will end in a cul-de-sac configuration. The
project originally proposed 10,584 cubic yards of cut, 23,860 cubic yards of fill, and 13,312
cubic yards of import. However, the project has been redesigned to lower pad elevations on the
east end of the site through the use of crib walls up to 12 feet in vertical height. The revised site
design proposes 18,993 cubic yards of cut, 18,993 cubic yards of fill, and results in a balanced
grading operation. The project site is designated at RLM (Residential Low-Medium Density) on
the General Plan Land Use Map. The zoning for the site is R-A-10,000 (Single-family
Residential Agriculture Zone, minimum lot size 10,000 sq. ft. Plans for two second dwelling
units are included with the project to satisfy the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance.
11 Rev. 03128196
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
I. Land Use and Planning
The project site is located in an area designated by the General Plan as Residential Low-Medium
(RLM) with a zoning classification of R-A-10,000. The R-A-l 0,000 zone requires a minimum
lot size of 10,000 square feet and implements the General Plan Land Use Designation. The
surrounding neighborhood is developed with single-family residences. Under the current Growth
Management Ordinance, the project has the potential to yield 12 dwelling units. The project
proposes development of nine single family residences and two second dwelling units for a total
of 11 units. The proposal is one unit under the Growth Management Dwelling Unit Allowance.
III. Geologic Problems
A preliminary geotechnical investigation was conducted for the project site. The study
concluded that the project site is appropriate for the proposed development, subject to the
recommendations in the study. Soils identified near the west end of the project site in Test Pit 5
were identified as being “moderate” in expansion potential. As proposed, this area will receive
fill with depths from 4 to 14 feet above natural grade. As stated in the report, if these moderately
expansive soils remain 48 inches below finish grade, as proposed, special design considerations
with regard to foundations are not anticipated. Prior to constructing fill slopes, shear keys will
be constructed in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the report and in accordance
with the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance.
The pad elevations for the lots at the east end of the subdivision are between 1 and 15 feet below
natural grade. The report indicates that both cut and compacted till slopes constructed to a
maximum height of 25 feet with maximum slope ratios of 2:l will be stable provided they are
properly maintained and planted with erosion control plantings.
IV. Water
The project has been designed with the majority of the project drainage flowing to Seaview Way
and out to Chestnut Avenue. The remaining drainage, for Lots 1 through 4 and for the rear yard
of lot 5, will drain to the existing 10 foot private drainage easement near the northwest comer out
to Donna Drive. The drainage will be diverted by the use of drainage swales located on the
western and northern property lines. Subdrains located at low points on pads 1 through 5 will
divert drainage directly to the swale in order to reduce the amount of flow over the manufactured
slopes. The hydrology report indicates that the drainage volumes will not exceed the volume of
site runoff which is currently collected in the private drainage easement.
Ground water was not encountered during the time of the soils investigation within the five lo-
feet deep test pits. However, verbal communication was received that groundwater accumulates
on off-site residential properties adjacent to the west and northwest comers of the site. In the
event groundwater is encountered during grading operations, the developer proposes to install
subdrains in conjunction with the adjacent property owners according to updated geotechnical
investigations and recommendations of the soils engineer.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
V. Ouality Air
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the ’
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit’ services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master ElR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
VI. 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
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
‘onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
13 Rev. 03128196
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.
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 § 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
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.
IX. 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 use for agricultural purposes and a
Phase I site assessment for soils. has identified residual concentrations of organochlorine
pesticides in six near surface soil samples. The report recommends removal of surface soils to a
depth of one foot, with placement of these soils in deep fill areas and under roads in order to
reduce the exposure concern (inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact).
The Phase I site assessment also identifies that removal of the existing residence may warrant
concern for asbestos containing building materials such as roofing materials, insulation, acoustic
ceilings, floor tiles, and mastic materials. The report recommends reduction of airborne dust
during demolition of the house using copious amounts of water.
Therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts related to
hazardous materials to less than significant:
1. A detailed agricultural chemical residue survey with recommended remediation shall be
completed and comments received from the County of San Diego Environmental Health
Services prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
2. All trash and debris within the property shall be disposed of offsite, in accordance with
14 Rev. 03/28/96
current local, state, and federal disposal regulations. Any buried trash/debris encountered
during grading of the site shall be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant and
shall be treated per the consultant’s recommendation prior to removal of the material.
3. An asbestos survey of the onsite buildings shall be performed and any applicable remediation
completed prior to their demolition.
X. Noise
Construction noise will be generated in conjunction with the proposed development.
Construction noise is a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by
construction equipment and construction activities can reach high levels. The City’s Grading
Ordinance limits the hours of construction to normal weekday working hours and should
minimize any potential impacts.
XI. Utilities and Service Svstems
The project has been designed to sewer through Seaview Way and will require the installation of
a deeper sewer lateral along the length of Seaview Way to the manhole at Chestnut Avenue. The
elevations of Lots 1 through 4 have been set as low as possible while maintaining positive sewer
flow.
A project alternative to reduce the slope heights and grading volumes was discusstd with the
project applicant and the City Engineering Department. This alternative would have resulted in
lowering Seaview Way so that the pad elevations of Lots 1 through 4 could be lowered, resulting
in a lower slope facing towards the east. However, to accomplish this, a 20 foot wide public
drainage easement would need to be acquired to Donna Drive to accommodate run-off from
Seaview Way. Currently a 10 public drainage easement exists to Donna Drive, however, this
easement is only suitable for private run-off. In addition, a 20 foot public sewer easement would
be required to Donna Drive. Given the potential for disruption to the existing residences on
Donna Drive, and that the objectives of designing a balanced grading operation could be
provided through the current proposal, the best alternative is to provide sewer service and divert
drainage from the project out through Seaview Way, and only using the 10 foot private drainage
easement for the west portion of the project.
XII. Aesthetics
The surrounding residential properties, as well as the subject property, have ocean views which
were identified as being impacted in written and verbal communications to the City. Although
the City of Carlsbad does not have a view preservation ordinance, the project has been
redesigned to address the neighborhood concerns regarding preservation of views. In order to
achieve these objectives, building pads on the east end of the site have been lowered at least 22
feet below the grade of the existing residences to the east. In addition, the height of the
residences is proposed at 26 feet. Crib retaining walls up to 12 feet high will be constructed at
the east end of the site to enable the pads to be lowered as proposed.
Neighbors were also concerned about the height of the slope on the west end of the site. This
slope has been lowered as much as possible without diverting street drainage flows through to
Donna Drive. Diversion of street drainage flows would create the need to obtain a 20 foot wide
public storm drain easement to Donna Drive. The slopes have been stepped at the rear of the lot
to reduce the overall height to no more than 20 feet and the residences are set back from the ,
Rev. 03/28/96 a+
property line 77 feet or more. Hillside guidelines also require a .7:1 setback from the top of slope
for any structure. The visual impact to existing west end residences to the proposed residences
will be minimized due to the siting of the structures, the requirement for a slope setback, and the
provision of a landscaped slope buffer.
III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(760) 438-l 161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Imnact Renort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
16 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Developer shall pay his fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Camino
Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to or the issuance of a building 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 traffic 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.
A detailed agricultural chemical residue survey with recommended remediation shall be
completed and comments received from the County of San Diego Environmental Health
Services prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
All trash and debris within the property shall be disposed of offsite, in accordance with
current local, state, and federal disposal regulations. Any buried trash/debris encountered
during grading of the site shall be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant and
shall be treated per the consultant’s recommendation prior to removal of the material.
An asbestos survey of the onsite buildings shall be performed and any applicable remediation
completed prior to their demolition.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE’1
17 Rev. 03/28/96
-^ ?
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date
17 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL Ml-r _ ,ATION MONITORING CHECKLIS I‘ PAGE 1 OF 2
2i 5
u- 0
9 is
5 tj
E ai a, 5
e : .-
5 it
B 8
: ‘ij
c .a p .-
a E
z F
E .‘$j,
cgc 0-o t= m, mu 0
gz 2 Em’,
ENVIRONMENTAL Ml, T,ATlON MONITORING CHECKLIS . . PAGE 2 OF 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4614
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 98-21 TO
SUBDIVIDE 3.96 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH OF SEAVIEW WAY IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME: SEAVIEW 9-LOT SUBDIVISION
CASE NO.: CT 98-21
WHEREAS, MSK Management, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Hisashi Honda and
Kiyome Honda, Trustees of the Honda Family Trust dated 7/22/97, “Owner”, described as
A portion of Lot “J” of the Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Partition Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,
1896
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “CC” dated October 20, 1999 , on file in the Planning
Department SEAVIEW 9-LOT SUBDIVISION CT 98-21, as provided by Title 20 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 20th day of October 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:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearihg, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of SEAVIEW 9-LOT SUBDIVISION CT 98-
21, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
FindinPs:
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
configurations, the lots have been designed to comply with other applicable Cit\
regulations, and required public facilities and services will be in place concurrent
with development.
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for Residential Low (RL) to Medium Densit
(RLM) development on the General Plan, in that this is the same General Plan Land
USe designation as the project site and the project site will be developed with single-
family residences consistent with the surrounding properties.
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 proposal of 9 single family residential units and 2 second
dwelling units on 3.96 acres is within the growth management control point of 3.2
dwelling units per acre, that all of the lots are proposed with lot areas that meet or
exceed the minimum requirement of 10,000 square feet, and the project meets all of
the requirements of the R-l zone without the need for a variance from development
standards.
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 th.e’ 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 project design and
large lot size along with dominant western wind patterns/radiation patterns will
allow 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 f&al and environmental
resources.
PC RESO NO. 4614 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
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.
0. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for Seaview 9-
Lot Subdivision CT 98-21, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General
Plan, based on the following:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
.
F.
G.
Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the
proposed density of 2.9 du/acre is within the density range of O-4 du/acre
specified for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan,
and is at or below the growth control point of 3.2.
Circulation - The circulation system is designed to provide adequate access to
the proposed lots and complies with all applicable City design standards.
Noise - The project will not generate excessive noise nor will it be subject to
noise levels greater than allowed by the General Plan
Housing - The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan
and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the Developer has been conditioned to
enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to provide and deed restrict 2 second
dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households.
Open Space and Conservation - The project does not require encroachment
into any areas of General Plan designated Open Space.
Public Safety - The project is required to construct public streets to City
standards with sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants. In addition, the
site is safely within the service areas for the provision of public safety services
(fire, police).
Parks and Recreation - The project will pay a contribution toward the
provision of parks through a Park-in-Lieu fee
11. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
PC RESO NO. 4614 -3- 32
4
c
6
7
E
s
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
Specifically,
A. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad
Unified School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for
school facilities.
B. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44,
and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit.
C. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and
will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
That 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 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
That 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 panhandle lot configuration is desired so
that the property lines can be located at the tops of slopes rather than at the bottom
of slopes and usable front yard areas will be provided for the adjacent lots.
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 and
the lot sizes are such that no future subdivisions will occur.
That the buildable portion of the panhandle lot consists of an area of at least 10,000
square feet, which meets the requirements of Section 21.10.080(c) of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code;
That the front, side, and rear property lines of the panhandle lot, for purposes of
determining required yards, are as shown on Exhibit “B” of the Tentative Map.
That any panhandle lot hereby approved satisfies all the requirements of Section
21.10.080(d) of the Carlsbad Municipal ‘Code.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B).
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”,
PC RESO NO. 4614 -4- --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
thereby guaranteeing implementation of a mitigation measure that reduces the
potential impact to a level of insignificance.
21. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
Note:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of a
final map.
If any of the following 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.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map (CT 98-21) documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
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 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.
The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Seaview 9-Lot
Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
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, (b)
City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
PC RESO NO. 4614 -5- -r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c)
Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by. the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions.
The Developer shall submit to the Planning Director a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar
copy of the Tentative Map reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision
making body.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
.reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24” x 36” blueline drawing
format.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide
school facilities.
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.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, SDP 98-24, and HDP 98-23 and is
subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4613, 4615
and 4616 for those other approvals.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect
shall be placed on the Final Map.
HousinP
13. 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 7
and 8) as affordable to lower-income households for the useful life of the dwelling units,
in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted
to the Planning Director no later than 60 days prior to the request to final the map. The
recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and
successors in interest.
14. 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.
PC RESO NO. 4614 35 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
L: 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.-
LandscaDe
15. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
and the City’s Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
16. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
Notice
17. The Developer shall report, in writing, to the Planning Director within 30 days, any
address change from that which is shown on the permit application.
18. The Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of
the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all
interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a
Tentative Map, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit by
Resolutions No. 4613,4615 and 4616 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.
19. The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map, or an alternative,
suitable to the Planning Director, in the sales office at all times. 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.
20. The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the
Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official
CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning
Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions:
a. General Enforcement bv the Citv. The City shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in
favor of, or in which the City has an interest.
b. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to
the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have
the right to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be
transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record. 3d PC RESO NO. 4614 -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
-
C. Failure of Association to Maintain Easements. In the event that the Association
fails to maintain the “Association’s Easements” as provided in Article
, Section the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to
perform the necessary maintenance. If the City elects to perform such
maintenance, the City shall give written notice to the Association, with a copy
thereof to the Owners in the Project, setting forth with particularity the
maintenance which the City finds to be required and requesting the same be
carried out by the Association within a period of thirty (30) days from the giving
of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to carry out such
maintenance of the Association’s Easements within the period specified by the
City’s notice, the City shall be entitled to cause such work to be completed and
shall be entitled to reimbursement with respect thereto from the Owners as
provided herein.
d. Snecial Assessments Levied bv the Citv. In the event the City has performed the
necessary maintenance to the Association’s Easements, the City shall submit a
written invoice to the Association for all costs incurred by the City to perform
such maintenance of the Association’s Easements. The City shall provide a copy
of such invoice to each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the
Association fails to pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City
will pursue collection against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions
of this Section. Said invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within
twenty (20) days of receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay
such invoice in full within the period specified, payment shall be deemed
delinquent and shall be subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent
(6%) of the amount of the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection
from the Association by means of any remedies available at law or in equity.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and
remedies available to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the
Owners of each Lot in the Project for an equal prorata share of the invoice, plus
the late charge. Such special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and
shall be a continuing lien upon’ each Lot against .which the special assessment is
ievied. Each Owner in the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power
to levy such special assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to
bring all legal actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any
Owner and his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special
assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this
Declaration.
e. Landscane Maintenance Resnonsibilities. The HOA shall be responsible for
maintenance of the slope areas on the west end of the site below the fence line
and above the keystone wall on the east end of the site, as shown on the
Fencing Plan, Exhibit “H”.
21. Exhibit “H” shall be revised so that the fence located along the east property line is
relocated to the top of the crib wall, subject to approval of the Planning Director.
37 PC RESO NO. 4614 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-.
22. The Developer shall dedicate on the final map, an Open Space Easement over the slope
areas on the west end of the site below the fence line and slopes located above the
keystone wall on the east end of the site. An appropriately worded statement clearly
identifying the maintenance responsibility shall be placed in the CC&Rs and shall be
noted on the Final Map.
Engineeriw Conditions
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
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.
There shall be one final subdivision map recorded for this project.
The developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers,
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the City, the
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.
The developer shall provide an acceptable means for maintaining the private easements
within the subdivision 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.
All concrete terrace drains shall be maintained by the homeowner’s association. An
appropriately worded statement clearly identifying the responsibility shall be placed in
the CC&Rs and shall be noted on the Final Map.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City
Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and
requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
Rain gutters must be provided to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or
street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance
with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement on the Final Map
and in the CC&Rs.
“NO structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches
above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the
area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City
Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying
property owner shall maintain this condition.”
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall underground all existing -CT
PC RESO NO. 4614 -9- 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
overhead utilities within the subdivision boundary.
Fees/Aweements
32. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
33. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner shall give
written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the
subdivision plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping
District No. 1 on a form provided by the City.
Grading
34. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
tentative map, a grading permit for this project is 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.)
35. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision
unless a grading or slope easement or agreement is obtained from the owners of the
affected properties and recorded. If the developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope
easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case the developer must
either amend the tentative map or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the
project site in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved tentative map as
determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
Dedications/Imurovements
36. 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.
37. The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and
easements required by these conditions or as 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.
38. The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best
management practices as referenced in the, “California Storm Water Best Management
Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge
to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
PC RESO NO. 4614 -lO- 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
‘21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the final map as non-mapping data:
A. The rear lot drainage system including the offsite easement to Donna
Drive is considered to be privately owned and is to be privately
maintained by the homeowners association.
B. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches
above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the
area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City
Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying
property owner shall maintain this condition.
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other
such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into
storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of
pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such
chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City
requirements as prescribed in their respective containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface
pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface
improvements.
39. 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:
l The extension of Seaview Way as a public street, including but not limited to
Curbs, Gutter & Sidewalk, AC Paving & Base, Parkway Landscaping,
Irrigation and Utilities. (sewer, water, gas & electric, cable Tii,etc..)
l The offsite sewer system in Seaview Way as shown on the tentative map.
l Additional Improvements to Seaview Way as transition improvements and
also l/2 street AC overlay to accommodate the proposed sewer extension.
A list of the above improvements shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final
map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements
listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured improve-
ment agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
Final Maw Notes
40.
C. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject
property unless the applicable agency determines that water and sewer
facilities are available.
PC RESO NO. 46 14 -ll- #O
-.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
‘27
28
Water Conditions:
41. 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 capacity will continue to be available until time of occupancy.”
42. Water, Sewer and Irrigation laterals shall be located in accordance with City and District
Standards to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities.
43. All water and sewer improvements shall be designed and constructed substantially as
shown on the Site Development Plan in accordance with all City and District Standards to
the satisfaction of the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities.
44. 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 traffic 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.
CODE REMINDERS
Note: The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not
45.
46.
47.
48.
limited to the following code requirements:
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.
The tentative tract map approval shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of
the final decision for tentative tract map approval.
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.
Developer shall pay the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), and the Citywide Public
Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. .Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees and not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
PC RESO NO. 4614 -12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
e. 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
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.
Addresses, approved by the Building Official, 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, as required by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 18.04.320.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning
Director prior to installation of such signs.
The Developer shall 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.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of 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,
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. 4614 -13- 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of October 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Welshons
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL I. HOLMLLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4614 -14- $3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- C
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 461’5
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 98-24 TO CONSTRUCT TWO
SECOND DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT THE NORTH END OF SEAVIEW WAY IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME: SEAVIEW 9-LOT SUBDIVISION
CASE NO.: SDP 98-24
WHEREAS, MSK Management, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Hisashi Honda and
Kiyome Honda, Trustees of the Honda Family Trust dated 7/22/97, “Owner”, described as
A portion of Lot “J” of the Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Partition Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,
1896
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Plan as shown on Exhibit(s) “A, W, and X” dated October 20, 1999, on tile in the Planning
Department, SEAVIEW 9-LOT SUBDIVISION SDP 98-24 as provided by Chapter
2 l.O6/Section 2 1.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 1st day of September, 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:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission APPROVING SEAVIEW 9-LOT SUBDIVISION SDP 98-24
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
FindinPs:
1. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental
settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will
not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which
the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or
traffic circulation, in that a) the proposed lots can easily accommodate the proposed
second dwelling unit 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
design of the second dwelling units is architecturally compatible with the single
family residential structures and therefore, preserves the single family character of
the surrounding neighborhood.
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the proposed lots exceed the minimum lot size requirement for the zone and can
easily accommodate the proposed second dwelling unit structures and additional
parking space while providing all required front, side, and rear yard setbacks and
the project complies with all City standards for lot configuration, street widths,
grading, and drainage.
3. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust
the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that the project design complies with all applicable
second dwelling unit requirements in addition to regulations for setbacks, parking,
and other features of the R-1-10,000 zone.
4. 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.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a
building permit.
1. If any of the following 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 Site Development Plan.
PC RESO NO. 4615 -2- 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
-
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Site Development Plan (SDP 98-24) documents, as necessary
to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CT 98-21, and HDP 98-23 and is
subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No.4613, 4614
and 46 16 for those other approvals.
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.
NOTICE .
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of 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,
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. 4615 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ll
.2
.3
.4
15
.6
.7
.8
.9
!O
!l
!2
!3
!4
!5
!6
!7
‘8
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of October, 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Welshons
ABSTAIN:
COURTNEY E. HEINEMAN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4615 -4-
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4616
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT HDP 98-
23 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF
SEAVIEW WAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION
CASE NO: HDP 98-23
WHEREAS, MSK Management, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Hisashi Honda and Kiyome
Honda, Trustees of the Honda Family Trust dated 7/22/97, “Owner”, described as
A portion of Lot “J” of the Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Partition Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,
1896
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside
Development Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “CC” dated October 20, 1999, on file in the
Carlsbad Planning Department, SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION HDP 98-23, as provided by
Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of October 1999,
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Hillside Development Permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
,27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION HDP
98-23 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
II Findinps:
1. That undevelopable areas of the project, pursuant to Section 21.53.230(b) of this code,
have been properly identified.
2. . That the project complies with the purpose and intent provisions of Section,21.95.010 of
this chapter in that the proposed grading includes terraced pads which follow the
site’s natural terrain which in turn minimizes the amount of project, grading.
3. That the project complies with the provisions of Section 21.95.120 of this chapter in that
the proposed grading volume is within the acceptable range; no manufactured
slopes over 40 feet in height will be created; the slopes will be landscaped consistent
with the City’s landscape manual; and hillside drainage will be consistent with the
City’s hillside development guidelines.
4. The Hillside Developmentand Design Standard found in Carlsbad Municipal Code
Section 21.95.120Cl(a) can be modified to allow a height greater than 6 vertical feet
for a crib retaining wall into a manufactured slope as authorized by Section
21.95.140 of the Hillside Ordinance because the project will result in a more
aesthetically pleasing project with greater neighborhood compatibility than would
strict adherence to the requirements of Section 21.95.120(71(a), in that the project
will not result in the disturbance of any natural slopes and the proposed standards
modifications will result in the ability to lower the pad elevations to a l_evel
consistent with the development of the surrounding neighborhood and which will
result in a balanced grading operation.
5. That the project design substantially conforms to the hillside development guidelines
manual in that the project utilizes stepped pads, a terraced lot design, roof slopes
which are oriented in the same direction as the slopes,. and slope edge building
setbacks where applicable.
II Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a
grading permit.
1. If any of the following 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 Hillside Development Permit.
PC RESO NO. 4616 -2- +9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 *
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
b! 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
1
4.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Hillside Development Permit (HDP 98-23) documents, as
necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on
the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits.
Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to
this approval.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CT 98-21, and SDP 98-24, and is
subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4613, 4614
and 4615 for those other approvals.
HDP 98-23 shall expire two years from the date of final action unless a grading
permit has been issued by the City Engineer.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of 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,
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. 4616 -3- 3-0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
h
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeti’ng of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of October 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Welshons
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
-- MICHAEL J. HOLZMLER
Planning Director
3-l PC RESO NO. 4616 -4-
-
EXHIWT 4 Tne City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 0 4
Application complete date: April 9, 1999
P.C. AGENDA OF: October 20, 1999 Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUEUECT: CT 98-21/SDP 98-24/HDP 98-23 - SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION -
Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, and
Hillside Development Permit to create and develop a g-lot residential subdivision
with two second dwelling units on a 3.96 acre site located at the north end of
Seaview Way, north of Chestnut Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That. the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4613, 4614,
46 15, and 4616 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map (CT 98-21), and Hillside
Development Permit (HDP 98-23) and APPROVING Site Development Plan (SDP 98-24),
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The proposed project is for the creation of a g-lot single-family residential subdivision on an
infill site located at the north end of Seaview Way, north of Chestnut Avenue. The project will
consist of 9 single-family residences on lots, all with areas greater than 10,000 square feet. Lot
numbers 7 and 8 will also include second dwelling units to satisfy the 1.58 unit affordable
housing requirement for the project. The proposed density of the subdivision is 2.9 dwelling
units per acre. One of the lots at the end of the cul-de-sac is proposed as a panhandle lot. 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 CT and HDP applications.
Planning Commission action on the SDP application is final.
The project has been reviewed for environmental impacts and no unrnitigable significant impacts
were found. As designed and conditioned, the project is in compliance with the General Plan,
Subdivision Ordinance, Hillside Development Ordinance, and relevant zoning regulations of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. All City standards have been complied with and all necessary
findings can be made.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The 3.96 acre project site is located at the dead end of Seaview Way in Local Facilities
Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the city. The project site includes a 25 foot
.-
CT 98-21/SDP 98-24/HDP 98-23 - SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION
October 20, 1999
Page 2
wide access down the center of Seaview Way to Chestnut Avenue. A net acreage of 3.775 acres
(excluding the 25 foot access) has been used for the purposes of calculating density.
Topographically, the site slopes to the west at less than a 15% gradient. However, because there
are isolated areas with slopes between 15% and 40%, the site requires approval of a Hillside
Development Permit. The east portion of the site is occupied by abandoned and deteriorating
agricultural greenhouses and a vacant single-family dwelling. The property is surrounded by
single-family residences.
The proposed g-lot subdivision will be developed with single-family detached residences, two of
which will include second dwelling units. The existing zoning for the property is single-family
residential (R-l-10,000) which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The proposed
lots range in size from 11,887 square feet to 21,373 square feet. Plans for the residences are
included, and are required in conjunction with the Hillside Development Permit application. The
two-story residences will be designed using three floor plans: Plans A and C are 4,237 and 4,328
sq. ft., respectively, with an attached three car garage and Plan B is 4,355 sq. ft. with an attached
two car garage and detached two car garage with a second dwelling unit above. A site
development plan is required to demonstrate the -design of the second dwelling unit. The second
dwelling unit is 580 square feet in area with a separate entrance to the outside. The residences
and second dwelling units exhibit a stucco exterior and low-pitched tile roof with exposed rafter
tails. The residential design, which has been reviewed for consistency with the hillside
guidelines, utilizes a hip roof design with a variety of roof planes and also exhibits a split level
floor plan for units on the east and west ends of the site. The residential design is compatible
with other residences in the vicinity.
The subdivision design contains a cul-de-sac configuration with one panhandle lot. The
panhandle lot is necessary because of the proposed lot configuration at the end of the cul-de-sac.
An alternative design to provide public access to Lot 6 in lieu of the panhandle could be provided
by reducing the street frontage on the adjacent lots and increasing the frontage width of the
subject lot to a minimum of 33 feet. However, because lot width is measured at the 20 foot
setback line, this would result in a reduction of the setback requirements to only 5 feet for the
side setback and 10 feet for the rear setback. With a panhandle configuration, the lot width is
measured beyond the panhandle and would result in a 10 foot side and 20 foot rear setback
requirement. These setbacks are more consistent with the remaining lots in the proposed
subdivision and with the surrounding residential development. Furthermore, the proposed
panhandle configuration results in a superior site design in that the property lines will be located
at the top of the downhill slopes and larger front yard areas will be provided for the adjacent lots.
During the last several months, there has been a great deal of neighborhood concern regarding
the design of the proposed subdivision. The primary concerns of the residents were the amount
of import proposed, sewer and drainage concerns, and the height of the building pads. In
response to these concerns, the applicant has redesigned the project. The original plan required
over 13,000 cubic yards of import whereas the proposed plan results in a balanced grading
operation. The import was reduced by adding a crib wall and lowering the pads on the east end
by about 6 feet. Although there is no view preservation ordinance in the City, the developer
made a concerted effort to design the building pads and residences so that they would create as
little visual impact on the existing neighborhoods as possible. The new pads are approximately
22 feet below the pads of the existing residences (on the east) and the overall height of the
residences is approximately 26 feet. Neighbors were also concerned about the height of the slope 53
CT 98-21/SDP 98-24/HDP 98-23 - SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION
October 20, 1999
Page 3
on the west end of the site. This slope has been lowered as much as possible without diverting
the Seaview street drainage flows through to Donna Drive. Diversion of street drainage flows
would create the need to obtain a 20 foot wide public storm drain easement to Donna Drive. The
slopes have been stepped at the rear of the lot to reduce the overall height to no more than 20 feet
and the residences are set back from the property line 77 feet or more. The hillside guidelines
also require a 0.7:1 setback from the top of slope for any structure. As an example, a 26 foot
high structure would need to be set back 18.2 feet from the top of slope. The visual impact to
existing west end residences to the proposed residences will be minimized due to the siting of the
structures, the requirement for a slope setback, and the provision of .a landscaped slope buffer.
Further discussion of the issues and redesign of the project is included in the following analysis.
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 - 10,000) Zone Regulations;
C. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
D. Hillside Development Ordinance (Chapter 2 1.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code)
E. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 2 1.85); and
F. 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 2.9 du/ac. The project complies with all elements of the General Plan as
illustrated in Table 1 below:
ELEMENT
Land Use
Table 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
USE, PROPOSED USES & COMPLY?
CLASSIFICATION, IMPROVEMENTS
GOAL, OBJECTIVE
OR PROGRAM
Site is designated for Nine single-family Yes
RLM at 3.2 du/ac lots and two second
dwelling units, at 2.9
du/ac
h 4
CT 98-21/SDP 98-24HDP 98-23 - SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION
October 20, 1999
Page 4
Housing
Public Safety
Circulation
Provision of Construction of two Yes
affordable housing second dwelling units
satisfies the 1.58 du.
requirement
Review new Required facilities Yes
development have been conditioned
proposals to consider
emergency access, fire
hydrant locations, and
fire flow requirements
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. The
needed to serve length of the cul-de-
development. sac is 630 feet from
Maximum cul-de-sac Chestnut Avenue.
length of 600 feet or
up to 1,200 feet with
special permission
from the City
Engineer
B. R-l-l 0,000 Zoning Regulations
The project site is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-l-l 0,000). The proposed project meets or
exceeds all applicable requirements of the underlying zone as demonstrated in Table 2 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 have been reviewed by the Planning
Department and comply with the required standards. As conditioned, any changes to the plans
will require an amendment to the project approvals.
Table 2: R-l ZONE COMPLIANCE
I REOUIRED I PROPOSED STANDARD
Minimum Lot Size - Std. Lot 10,000 sq. ft. 11,887 sq. ft. - 21,373 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Size - 15,349 sq. ft. (gross)
Panhandle Lot 10,000 sq. ft. buildable area 14,557 sq. ft. buildable area
Minimum Lot Width - Std. 75 feet 75 feet and greater, as
Lot measured at the 20 foot front
vard setback
1 Minimum Lot Width - I 75 feet I 1lOfeet
Panhandle Width 20 feet 25 feet
Maximum Panhandle Length 150 ft. for a single lot 43 ft. for a single lot
Front Setback 20 feet 20 feet or greater
Side Setback 10% of lot width 9 feet and greater
) 10 foot maximum requirement 1
CT 98-21/SDP 98-24/HDP 98-23 - SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION
October 20, 1999
Rear setback
Lot Coverage
Building Height
20% of lot width 20 feet and greater
20 foot maximum requirement
40% maximum 16% to 27%
30 feet 26’ - 7” maximum
C. Subdivision Ordinance s
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. Cul-de-sacs over 600’ in length require review by the City Engineer. In this
instance, special permission has been given for the 630’ length due to the unique location of the
site and the configuration of the lots.
The project is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan and Title 2 1. It is
also compatible with surrounding residential land uses. Grading over the entire site includes
18,993 cubic yards of cut and 18,993 cubic yards of fill for a balanced grading operation. The
previous proposal required 13,312 cubic yards of import. The proposed grading volumes are
within the acceptable range and are discussed in more detail under the Hillside Development
Permit analysis.
The project has been designed with the majority of the project drainage flowing to Seaview Way
and out to Chestnut Avenue. The remaining drainage, for Lots 1 through 4 and for the rear yard
of lot 5, will drain to the existing private drainage easement near the northwest comer out to
Donna Drive. The drainage will be diverted by the use of drainage swales located on the western
and northern property lines. Subdrains located at low points on pads 1 through 5 will divert
drainage directly to the swale in order to reduce the amount of flow over the manufactured
slopes. The hydrology report indicates that the drainage volumes will not exceed the volume of
site runoff which is currently collected in the private drainage easement.
The project has been designed to sewer through Seaview Way and will require the installation of .
a deeper sewer lateral along the length of Seaview Way to the manhole at Chestnut Avenue. The
elevations of Lots 1 through 4 have been set as low as possible while maintaining positive sewer
flow.
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. Hillside Development Permit
Chapter 21.95 requires that a Hillside Development Permit accompany any development
,proposal which involves slopes of greater than 15 percent and an elevation differential greater
than 15 feet in height. Approximately 0.02 acres of the site contains slope areas with a gradient
over 15% and this sloped area comprises only .005% of the total site area. The elevation
differences occurring in these slope areas is less than 5 feet. Although no individual slopes exist
3-h
-
CT 98-21/SDP 98-24/HDP 98-23 - SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION
October 20, 1999
Page 6
on the site which are over 15% slope and over 15 feet in height, there is a 65 foot elevation
difference between the east and west ends of the site.
The intent and purpose of the Hillside Development regulations is to preserve or enhance the
natural qualities of natural hillsides or manufactied slopes and to assure that the alteration of
natural hillsides will be done in an environmentally sensitive manner. A Hillside Development
Permit may only be approved if the four hillside findings can be made. The project will also
require a modification to the development and design standards to allow construction of a crib
wall exceeding 6 vertical feet into the eastern slope. The proposed crib wall located along the
rear yards of lots 6, 7, and 8 will range in height from 7 to 13 feet and will enable these pads to
be lowered approximately 6 feet. The addition of the crib wall was a modification to the original
site design in an attempt to address neighborhood concerns regarding the height of the building
pads and preservation of views from the residences on the east end of the project. The walls are
located behind the proposed residences and will not be highly visible from the public street. The
crib walls will be planted with vines to soften the appearance of the wall. The use of the crib
walls also eliminated the need for additional import of soil and the design of the subdivision will
now result in a balanced grading operation.
The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of the Hillside Development
Regulations and findings for a modification to the development and design standards as
described in the table below.
STANDARD
Identify hillside and undevelopable areas
Submit hillside/constraints exhibit
Comply with purpose and intent of the Hillside
Ordinance
Implement goals and objectives of the Land Use and
Open Space/Conservation Elements of the General Plan.
Assure proper identification of hillside conditions.
Design projects which relate to the slope of ‘me land.
Minimize project grading.
Contour grade slopes which are in highly visible public
locations.
Alter natural hillsides in an environmentally sensitive
PROVIDED
Hillside /constraints exhibit submitted. No constrained
undevelopable lands exist on site.
Project is not within a General Plan designated open
space area.
No significant natural hillside resources.
Proposed grading includes terraced pads which follow
the slope of the land. Building heights have been
lowered to maximum of 26’ -7” rather than 30 feet as
permitted by the Zoning Ordinance.
Proposed grading volume of 5,466 cubic yards/acre is
within the acceptable range of O-7,999 cubic yards/acre.
The project has been designed to balance cut and fill.
Height of slopes has been minimized. No slopes are in
highly visible public locations.
Erosion control required for all newly graded slopes.
5-7
CT 98-21/SDP 98-24/HDP 98-23 - SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION
October 20, 1999
Page 7
Comply with Hillside Development Design Standards
Grading volume within O-7,999 cubic yards/acre.
Maximum 40’ height manufactured slopes. Slopes must
be landscaped.
Hillside drainage
Conform to Hillside Development Guidelines Manual
Utilize terraced lots, stepped pads, orient roof slopes in
the same direction as the slopes, observe slope edge
building setbacks, maximum 6’ height for retaining
walls.
Modification to Development and Design Standards
The proposed modification will result in the
development of slopes which are more aesthetically
appealing and natural appearing than would the strict
adherence to the requirements.
STANDARD
Inclusionary
Requirements
(Units/Fees)
Table 3: Inclusionary Housing
REQUIRED PROVIDED
1.5 8 dwelling units 2 attached second
dwelling units
COMPLIANCE
Yes
Proposed grading volume of 5,466 cubic yards/acre is
within the acceptable range.
Maximum slope height is less than 25 feet. Slopes on
the west end of the site do not exceed 20 feet. All slopes
will be landscaped in conformance with the Landscape
Guidelines Manual.
The majority of the site drains to the street. The rear
yards of lots l-5 will utilize a private drainage easement
located off-site near the northwest comer of the site
which drains to Donna Drive. A 5’ wide private
drainage easement along the south property line drains
toward the street. Drainage easements will be privately
maintained by the homeowners.
Project complies with all Hillside Design Guidelines,
except for a requested modification to increase the
permitted retaining wall height.
The modification to allow retaining walls higher than 6
feet will allow the pad elevations of lots 6, 7, and 8 to be
reduced which will result in a terraced lot design that
will be more compatible with the aesthetics of the
existing neighborhood. The retaining wall will be
constructed as a landscaped crib wall and public views
of the wall will be screened by the proposed residences.
E. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.85) 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 1.58 dwelling units.
The applicant is proposing to satisfy this requirement by constructing a second dwelling unit
(SDU) on lots 7 and 8. Therefore, the proposed project complies with all applicable inclusionary
housing requirements as demonstrated in table “3” below. The second dwelling unit design
includes 580 square feet of area located above a detached two-car garage. Parking for the second
dwelling unit can be provided in the two-car garage, as a separate walled off one car garage, or as
tandem parking in front of the garage.
5-8
-
CT 98-21/SDP 98-24/HDP 98-23 - SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION
October 20, 1999
Because the SDUs have been included in the notice and review of the proposed subdivision,
additional noticing for the administrative approval is not required. Prior to issuance of a building
permit, the developer will be required to submit SDU applications and record a Notice of
Restriction for lots 7 and 8.
F. Growth Managemeqt
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 4 below.
STANDARDS
Table 4: Growth Management Compliance
IMPACTS . 1 COMPLIANCE I City Administration
Library
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water
1 38.24 sq. ft. 1 Yes
20.40 sq. ft.
11 EDU
Yes
Yes
.08 acre Yes
Basin B Yes
1lOADT Yes
Station No. 1 Yes
N/A Yes
CUSD Yes
11 EDU Yes
2.420 GPD Yes
The proposed project is 1 unit under the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The initial study (EIA-Part II) prepared in conjunction with this project determined that
potentially significant impacts could be created as a result of agricultural chemical residues that
were discovered during a Phase I site assessment. The site assessment also identified that the
removal of the existing residence may warrant concern for asbestos building materials.
Mitigation measures requiring soil remediation; requiring an asbestos survey and remediation if
applicable; and implementing measures for disposal of trash and debris have been included to
reduce impacts related to hazardous materials to levels less than significant.
The project falls within the scope of the City’s MEIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan
Update (EIR 93-01) certified in September, 1994, in which a Statement of Overriding
Considerations was adopted for cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic. An Average Daily
Trip (ADT) of 110 would be generated by the proposed project. This ADT is consistent with the
generation rate analyzed for the site in the MEIR. The project site has been disturbed by
authorized grading and the surrounding properties are developed with residential land uses and
all the support utilities and service infrastructure has been constructed.
49
CT 9%21/SDP 9%24/HDP 98-23 - SEAVIEW 9-LOT SUBDIVISIUN
October 20, 1999
Page 9
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.
In consideration of the foregoing, on July 12, 1999, the Planning Director issued a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the proposed project. The environmental document was noticed in Jhe
newspaper and no public comments’were received during the 20 day public review and comment
period. Subsequent to the notice and review period, the project was redesigned in response to
neighborhood input. The Negative Declaration has been revised to include the new project
description and expanded environmental analysis discussions. Recirculation of the Negative
Declaration is not required pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the California Environmental Quality
Act because the revisions do not qualify as “substantial revisions”.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8:
9.
10.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4613 (Mit. Neg. Dee)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46 14 (CT)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46 15 (SDP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46 16 (HDP)
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Statement
Reduced Exhibits
Full Size Exhibits “A” - “CC”, dated October 20, 1999
BK:eh:mh
-.
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 9%21/SDP 98-24/ HDP 98-23
CASE NAME: SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION
APPLICANT: MSK Management, Inc.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: g-lot residential subdivision with two second dwellinc units on
a 3.96 acre site located on the north end of Seaview Wav. north of Chestnut Avenue.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A nortion of Lot “J” of the Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the Citv of
Carlsbad. Countv of San Dieeo. State of California. accordine: to Partition Map thereof No. 823,
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. November 16, 1896.
APN: 167-070-04 Acres: 3.96 acres. Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 9 Lots / 9 SFR and 2 SDUs
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RLM - Residential Low-Medium Density
Density Allowed: O-4 d.u./acre Density Proposed: 2.9 d.u./acre
Existing Zone: R-A- 10.000 Proposed Zone: N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
Zonina Land Use
Site R-A- 10,000 Vacant
North R-A- 10,000 Single-family residential
South R-A-10,000 Single-family residential
East R-A- 10,000 Single-family residential
West R-1-7,500 Single-family residential
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 11 EDU
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: December 23. 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
w Negative Declaration, issued July 12, 1999
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Cl
h 4
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: Seaview g-Lot Subdivision - CT 98-21/SDP 98-24HDP 98-23
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: L GENERAL PLAN: RLM
ZONING: R-1-10.000
DEVELOPER’S NAME: MSK Management. Inc.
ADDRESS: 5 142 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA 92008
PHONE NO.: (760) 93 l-2785 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 167-070-04
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 3.96 acres, 9 single-family
lots w/ 2 second dwelling; units
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 38.24 s.f.
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 20.40 s.f.
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 11 EDU
Park: Demand in Acreage = .08 acres
Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A
Identify Drainage Basin = Basin B
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 1lOADT
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = Station # 1
Open Space:
Schools:
Acreage Provided =
E= 2.87, JH = .79, HS = 1.49
Sewer: Demands in EDU
Identify Sub Basin =
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD =
N/A
CUSD
11 EDU
N/A
2,420 GPD
The project is 1 unit below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
DISCLOSUFkE 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 thii and any other county, city and county, 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 m’ust be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of && persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a cotDoration or Dartnershiu. include the
names. title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% 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 pubiiclv-owned corDoration, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Person Joseph A. Gallagher COT/Part MSK Management, Inc.
Title President Title
Addre5sl12 Avenida EncinaqCarlsbad, CA 92008 Address 5142 Avenida Encinas,Carlsbad, CA 92008
3 -I 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
corooration or Dartnershig, include the names. title, addresses of all individuals owriing more
than 10% 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 publiciv-
owned comoration, include the names, titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person Hisashi and Kiyome Honda Carp/Part
Title Trustees Title
Address 5142 Avenida Encinas,Carlsbad, CA 92008 Address
43
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-1161 l FAX (760) 438-0894
I : 3. NON-PROFIT 0 rA NIZATION OR TRUST
i If any person identitled pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonrxoh arnanization or a trust. list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit/Trust 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 n 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.
Signat&e of owner/date
Hisashi and Kiyome Honda, Trustees
Print or type name of owner
MSkAan%gemknt, Inc.
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:AD~INWXJNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 6198 bd Page 2 of 2
$1 ._ $!I !
-- Pi ; #I i
a a 1 -1 1 1 1 i
i
1 ; $ ,P 5
. .
i
,_ ---- --
= =$G?i _-i _:. _ .,,,‘ ;- :: ,-.>.;-.:z +y*--2 .___ ,7 F-T.--.-‘.__L___ ;.-I ., .. LS :-z-z : -;*
I
,,-,“-T.. --+~- 3.L~7~~~z~~~ & .-L;.-T-r;;
‘, \ ’ ,:, -’ , ^ :< 7:” ‘:\ : 3 . . , ;
. .
\,_ ~- .y,.,;.\y;.\ ..: .?z.~~~-~.-=ik::=.-- .d ...7~~---_..-~~.~ __--.- -‘--c-z-y~~~--- _.- ‘.~~.. .---- ._4. ~ 7: ;i
?
j
f I ! !
;
5 : !
j
i I
\ 1
I b
/ 1
I
/
i
/
I
b?
z! E r;ctrrq
E x-o*g $ L
r
~ ~~~~:i,, \ -y-c:-- I\,,
I i 2 \
i \ \ \ \ d R -\ IIIIUUYIU \ \ I \ \ \
1 , \ \ \ J \ \ \ I \
I 1 I \ I \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ I \ \ \ I
I 1 \ I \ \ ,
I '\I
I \ I
3
*‘)aIyLmx) ’ \ \ \ 1 - J
4.4
f
/ b-’ \ \ \ ‘1 \ ‘\
--------.- ’ \, ‘“*-i7+ \
r
i
--- \ c__--- \
I \ rn,aNx*lrm;- e
4
t -e @a
1
ir p --
: 3 -.
9
I : I i=:
] 3 -2
I
4
I
K
I
, 1
I
$5JjgJJ*~ - zigig a .,...I, * .I., z ,111 sr,.d.*l,l*,
I f
71
! I %
1
u
.
,M31hP3S.
lNO-3Cl YSU ,.,., -,m,-1.1 , , ‘NOll3tWlUN03 MO4 ION - AYVNlNll3Lld v U- ’ ’ ’ J
L
$ -
m.
m I m
7
I
0
i=
W
N0ll3nMlUN03 MO4 1ON - AWNlNl13Yd
0 I
-p! 0
7 0
b
5
I
I
$1 ti Xl
!i i
51
I
13
n I n
u! 0 W
v,
iii%iii’- h3dd3d iii’iiiiii-?
NOll31W.LtN03 YOj ION - AYVNlNll3Lld
w I w
7 0 c
4 -ii?-
.
‘NO113llY101109 NOd 1ON - AblVNlNlllYd 1 u ’ ’ ’ ’ I
.-- -._. ^- ..-_- -“-- --1 ._ ^--.- -.I_. _.---
^----. _.-. _ _- . .._ - -.. ,.. -... I-.
--~-.- -.... -_
77
i
-.. ..- _,--- -- --._ ----- ._---. ---
s c!
0 :3
ii
s;
01
z
0
l-
*
>
u
-I
u
d-r 91” ,I 111 I
i
l-
.I
0
L
’ 3
d
z F 4 E E I
; h
. 1
z
0
I-
a
-I >
q u
4
I- #.I
L
4
l- a
I
0
K
2
0
o-4
k
a
J
>
4
U
I4
J
l-
U
K
6
P I-
L
U
J
/
I
I I I I
/ /
/ I
/
I
1 I
L
l -
.- ..-..-_-
a / aur--y
0
~~~
I
l ’
0 @ i
n HI
i *obc\
4i5F!B ‘- l - ” ~ o ..- --
.._ --. ^
py$&
_. .__ ..-.__
--A .
[---~jjjj=%~ -%i-iiiiiiiih~ -
N0113lW1QN03 YOd ION - AblVNlNll3RYd ,
.._. ..-.
is
.
4
I
I
0
l-
4
>
u
J
U
+
z
0
a!
L
4 s -, St: . . 5
>
U
J
.
, l‘S-,L3~. * .C,I ,
8 5
I i i
‘NOl13lMUQNO3 LlOd 1011 - AYVNINIl3Yd m ” ’ ’ ’ ’ ‘ ‘/
.-.* a.- fli t NW &,3’L: M B
z
0
ai
I- ;:
-1.X 6i
gi
(> J
-u
f-J ;e
I
KU
a
ts-, 7c , I -a ,
[--l~],,.-~7GzGGEl IgpJ
N0119lIUQN0~ YOd 1ON - AYVNlNlllYd \
I g!
E
J
E h
t! -
cn
I
f q 4 k 4
* I/-, E&f 8, II-,cz?
, .‘-A ,
z
z 0 Ii
0 il
l- u
I-” I l-
L a
IF I u
U P
04 a
>
-I 5
m> U 5
wu J
\
-1 U
u
E B
a l-
6
a
U
>
a
U
U
U
\
L
.-- [--m[G=-- ===-==~ [f/fjiJ
NOl13WlUN03 YOd 1ON - AYVNlNll3Yd \
-
;T;r
-
4
--- -I .’ l+ n%
‘IJ i
I
-a f ; ! -., -d +FJ
; ~.L’ 9 3
.I’ 81 2:
[(i
NOIl3nYl3NO3 YOal 1ON - AYVNlNlllYd
-
/*” -- I ._.--_--_--_--- I&$ 0
u L -, 9r / i-m
1 1 I 6
m m
z
0
P
l-
4
>
\
t:
1 -aI
\.
UC -,e,r . 6 -, ,
I I I I 1 ’ 1 A! 1 I m
m m I. ’ I
I m I ’ I I I
,
m
1
jsl
%[ -/
$’
! 1 /
U/
,?
3
L
0
l-
4:
>
U
J
u
I-
l.
u
A
, 1 1 El
I
I \ ,
,Fl I
1
I
\ i B
I
I
I
/
I
/
I
/
/
1 I
1
/
I
/
!
I
I
I
NOIl3llY1ONO3 Mod ION - AllVNlNllWd
al
\ f I
‘i
0
m
El /
El
D
8 /
\ I I, L-, 9r -.m 1 c
E
z
0
I-
6
>
J
u
4 J
u
I-
a
u I-
n =
a
L
a
z
0
-1
l-
u
a
4:
P I-
IL
u
A
&pi I
4
E;
I-
je
1
EXHIBIT 5
DRAFT
4. CT 9&21/SDP 98-24/HDP 98-23 SEAVIEW g-LOT SUB-DIVISION - Request for approval of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract
Map, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit, to create and develop a g-lot
residential subdivision with two second dwelling units on a 3.96 acre site located at the north end
of Seaview Way, north of Chestnut Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
Chairperson. Heineman asked the applicant if they wish to proceed with the Public Hearing with six
Commissioners present or would they prefer to ask for a continuance in order to have this matter heard by
a full Commission. (The applicant asked to proceed).
Assistant Planning Director,.Gary Wayne introduced Item ##4. He stated that the Commission’s action on
this item is a recommendation for approval for the Tentative Map and HDP. The SDP is a final action and
introduced Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner who presented the staff report as follows: The project
will consist of g-single family residences on lots, all with area greater than 10,000 square feet. Lots
number 7 and 8 will also include second dwelling units to satisfy the 1.58 unit affordable housing
requirement for the project. The proposed density of the subdivision is 2.9 dwelling units per acre. One of
the lots at the end of the cul-de-sac is proposed as a panhandle lot.
Ms. Kennedy stated that the 3.96acre project site was located at the dead end of Seaview Way in Local
Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the city. The project site includes a 25foot
wide access down the center of Seaview Way to Chestnut Avenue. Topographically, the site slopes to the
west at less than a 15% gradient. Because there are isolated areas with slopes between 15% and 40%,
the site requires approval of a Hillside Development Permit. The east portion of the site is occupied by
abandoned and deteriorating agricultural greenhouses and a vacant single-family dwelling.
In addition. explained Ms. Kennedy, the residential design, which has been reviewed for consistency with
the hillside guidelines, utilizes a hip roof design with a variety of roof planes and also exhibits a split level
floor plan for units on the east and west ends of the site. The residential design is compatible with other
resrdences in the vicinity.
In conclusion Ms. Kennedy stated that the project site is zoned Single-Family Residential and has been
reviewed for environmental impacts and no unmitigable significant impacts were found. As designed and
conditioned, the project is in compliance with the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, Hillside
Development Ordinance, and relevant zoning regulations of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and Staff
recommends approval of agenda Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION October 20, 1999 Page 7
Commrssioner Compas requested clarification regarding elevation on Lots 1, 9,4 and 5.
Ms. Kennedy referred to map drawing and explained that adjacent to Lot 1 on the south side, the elevation
of the existing residence was 282 near the street and the lower portion of the house was at the 275
elevation, which is approximately 7 feet below the finished floor of the new residence on lot 1. She
explained that residence to the north of lot 4 is at the 276 elevation. The rear pad elevation of Lot 4 is
288 and the finished floor of the proposed residence is at 292.7, which is about a 12 foot grade difference .
on the lower pad and 16 foot grade difference on the upper pad. Ms. Kennedy reminded the Commtsston
that the slope started at zero and tapers out to the west.
Ms. Kennedy indicated that Lot 5 pad elevation was at 295.5 and the existing residence to the north is at
294. Lot 9 elevation is at 298. The residence directly to the south of Lot 9 is at 298 also.
Commission Segall requested clarification onswhether or not dirt would be brought in to the site. He
wanted to clear up any misunderstandings as related to raising the pad elevation.
Mr. Wojcik responded that there were no plans to import soil. This would depend on the compressibility of
the soil at the project. He explained that the pad elevation does not change from the initial approval. The
Public Works Inspector, insuring that all pad elevations are the same, verifies all grading plans, tentative
maps and building plans. Mr. Wojcik stated that if the building height of a structure was 26.7 feet, that it
was the height as measured above the proposed pad elevation.
Commission Segall remarked that it appeared that the developer had been working closely with the
community to keep the pad elevation to a minimum to mitigate the impact to the community. .
Ms. Kennedy affirmed that the developer went through significant redesigning of the project to balance the
grading and negate the impact to the community. She stated further that the developer held at least two
neighborhood meetings in order to work with the community in a positive way. Ms. Kennedy sensed that
the community as a whole was okay with the project going forward.
Mr. Rudolf interjected that he didn’t want anyone connected to this project to have a misunderstanding that
grading or elevation was a precise science. Explaining that once a dwelling was built the height of the
dwelling could possibly be higher by a few inches or a few feet due to variants. The public should be
aware that there is flexibility and room for less than absolute compliance.
Commissioner Segall remarked that he could deal with a few inches difference in the grading, but not a
.few feet.
Mr. Wojcik replied that the Substantial Conformance Policy made sure that the ,approved plans are
conformed with. The Policy gives the Deputy City Engineer authority to allow a difference in grading plus .
or minus one foot. Discretion is also given to the City Engineer in respect to grading elevations plus or
minus three feet. Typically the grade elevation would only vary plus or minus one foot.
Commissioner Nielsen wanted to know how the affordable housing units were conditioned to be
affordable.
Ms. Kennedy explained the units would be rented at an affordable rate that is based on the San Diego
median ‘income, and is 80% of the median income, and the rent can not exceed 30% of that 80% median
income level.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if there was monitoring of this system.
Ms. Kennedy replied that there was no monitoring of this system in place at this time. The monitoring at
thrs trme would be on a complaint type basrs.
Commissioner Trigas wanted to know if a system would be put into place in the future to guarantee
inclusionary housing.
PLANNING COMMISSION October 20, 1999 Page 8
Ms. Kennedy responded that the City Council was looking at revising the policy, to require that inclusionary
units be rented to tenants with qualified income levels.
Joe Gallagher, 1165 Hoover Street, Cartsbad stated that the planning of the project was started two years
ago. He noted that although the minimum property lot size is zoned 10,000 square feet, the project is
designed with a minimum property lot size of 11,000 square feet going up to approximately 20,000 square
feet. The project units were dropped from 13 to 9 units, thereby creating larger lots and the houses were
rotated in order to preserve view corridors. We feel that we have created a subdivision that has character ’
and is in keeping with the existing neighbor. Elaborate tests have been conducted to attempt to assure
that there will be balance grading and the soil is compatible and uniform to depth. Import or export of soil
is not anticipated. The grading has been dropped 7 feet to address the concerns of the present residents
in the area.
Mr. Gallagher made reference to the sub-drain that would be installed at the bottom of the slope adjacent
to the houses on Donna Drive, and the sub-drain will be extended through and adjacent to a current
resident’s yards. Mr. Gallagher believes this will alleviate the existing condition of water seepage that is
occurring in the lots adjacent to Donna Drive. Mr. Gallagher noted that the proposed grading is now in
balance. If adjustments were made to the grading it would cause importing or exporting soil. In addition,
stated Mr. Gallagher, the homes would be fenced.
Concluding, Mr. Gallagher thanked Staff for the diligent work related to this project. Mr. Gallagher has
lived in the area of Carlsbad for 30 years. He stated that the proposed project was complimentary in
nature to the existing neighbor and stood on its own merit.
Commissioner Compas asked what the homes would sell for.
Mr. Gallagher states the homes were semi custom in nature and would be in the $700,000 range.
Mr. Gallagher informed the Commission that he was in agreement with the conditions and of Item #4 on
the errata sheet.
As there were no further questions for Mr. Gallagher, Chairman Heineman began the public testimony.
Randy Benge, 3580 Donna Drive, Carlsbad, expressed that his main concern was that a 20 foot slope
would be created behind his house. With the existing drainage problem at the base of the slope, Mr.
Benge wanted assurances that the ditch would be dealt with to alleviate the seepage. His fear is that
irrigation of the development was going to cause major problems for the existing houses. In addition, he
feels that the slope is out of character for the neighborhood. .
Bruno Gardiner 3560 Donna Drive, Carlsbad, stated that he has lived approximatel) 40 years in Carlsbad
on Donna Drive. He spoke with Mr. Gallagher regarding the water seepage. He further stated that Mr.
Gallagher has addressed the water seepage issue with a commitment to take care of the problem.
Ken Hardesty, 2225 Sara Way, Carlsbad. informed the Commission that he has lived in Carlsbad since
1972. After taktng a closer look at the project, 52 homeowners signed a petition regarding the project,
objecting to the dirt being imported and other items as related to the development. He noted that an
independent engineering company (Urban Logic) looked at the project and the report has been sent to
staff, Planning Commission and City Council. The developer has addressed most of the issues. He stated
that the existrng homeowners wanted to make sure French drains were installed on adjacent properties
and that deed restrictions regarding land height are included via the conditions on the tentative map. Mr.
Hardesty acknowledged that Mr. Gallagher has worked hard addressing the concerns of the exiting
homeowners. The existing homeowners were quite pleased with the suggestion by staff that a retaining
wall be put in that will allow the pad height to be lowered. In conclkrsion, he explained that the present
homeowners did not want to stop the project’s development, but wanted the project to be in harmony with
the neighborhood.
Commlssroner Segall asked Mr. Hardesty if he was basically ok with the way the developer is dealing with
the issues. Al
PLANNING COMMISSION October 20, 1999 Page 9
Mr. Hardesty replied that he was and that he felt the project was a great addition to the neighborhood,
wishing Mr. Gallagher the best of luck on the project.
Gerry Matter, 3530 Avondale Circle, Carlsbad, expressed concern about the water. She has resrded in
the neighborhood for 22 years and there has always been water seepage problem. During heavy rains
the water levels rise 2-3 inches above the ground level, staying there for a long period of time, even
months. She is worried about the project impacting her land with further water seepage problems. Ms.
Matter explained that french-drains had been installed on her property to help alleviate the water seepage
problem. Ms. Matter is happy that french drains are being proposed. She wants assurance that if-the
proposed items fail to relieve the problem that it will not be the new homeowners responsibility to fix it,
thereby avoiding the necessity for the previous homeowners to sue the new homeowners. In addition, she
stated that she does approve of the project.
Commission Segall asked Mr. Wojcik what a french drain was.
Mr. Wojcik replied that it was a ditch with a fabric lining, and the ditch would then be filled with graded
large diameter rock. As the ground water migrates, the special material and rocks catch it. The water is
then directed to an outlet storm drain or if the french drain is deep enough it can be turned into a cyst drain
and the water percolates into the ground. . .
Stephen Masula, 2235 Sara Way, Carlsbad, has worked very closely with Staff and Mr. Gallagher on the
redevelopment of the plans of the proposed project. He stated that he was very pleased with the changes
instituted by the developer as a result of the input from the existing homeowners. The homeowners have
paid a premium for the view corridor. He wants assurances that the view corridor will not be totally
destroyed for the existing homeowners. He is concerned with privacy issues for the homeowners. .
John Mosby 3661 Maria Lane, Carlsbad, stated he resides east of Lot 6. He thanked Mr. Gallagher, his
staff and the Planning Department staff for the work being done. He further stated that he was very
pleased with the project and the accommodations that have been made by the developer to satisfy the
homeowners in the surrounding neighborhood. He did however, request that Lot 6 pad be lowered 2 to 3
feet. These request were made for the following reasons: to accommodate the standard deviation, to
diminish the lost of privacy and because the proposed house is extremely large and it will be directly in
front of his house. Mr. Mosby was in agreement with the retaining wall that had been discussed.
Ruben Conobrono, 3570 Donna Drive, Carlsbad, resides below the proposed project, he wants to know
wnat will happen if the drain does not work.
Paul Linden, 3940 Monroe, Carlsbad, questioned the area where the homes would drain because the
Carlsbad requirement is that homes had to drain thrwgh to the street that they front. He also wanted to
know about the height requirement, because the homes should not exceed 30 feet in height.
Mr. Wojcik stated that the maximum height for a residential dwelling is 30 feet and it is measured from the
existing or proposed grade whichever would created the larger height.
Public testimony was closed and Chairman Herneman asked Mr. Gallagher if he wished to reply to any of
that matters brought before the Commission.
Mr. Gallagher explained that a sub drain would be installed along Donna Drive and a bench drain would
be on the surface, which should handle the sub-drainage. The source of the water seepage is not known.
Tne dralnage system berng put in, as a result of this project, should help to alleviate the problem. The
grading IS frxed on lots 1, 2, and 3 adjacent to Donna Drive. The adjustment of the grade on this lot is not
feasible. He reiterated that the seepage problem was there before the start of his project. The grade is
304 on pad 6.
Commission Compas referred to Resolution 4614/37-A -The rear lot drainage system including the offsite
easement to Donna Dnve is considered to be privately owned and is to be privately maintained by the
homeowners or tine homeowners associatron. He want the aforementioned item to read “homeowners
assoctatlon.” 97
-
PLANNING COMMISSION October 20, 1999 Page 10
Ms. Kennedy remarked that the change had been made in the errata sheet.
Commissioner Segall asked how Mr. Gallagher would address the problem if the installation of the sub-
drains or french drains did not work.
Mr. Gallagher explained that a homeowners association would be formed to address that and other issues
pertaining to the project. -
Commission Trigas wanted to know the difference between a sub-drain and a french drain.
Mr. Gallagher explained how the various drains (sub-drain, french drain and v-ditch drain) functioned. He
did not believe this project would cause problems regarding drainage, quite the opposite, he felt the
project would relieve existing drainage problems.
Mr. Wayne stated that if the Commission desired to add conditions regarding the 302 elevation on lot 6, it
would be an export of approximately 1000 cubic yards, which would be about 100 truck trips, in addition to
conditions being placed on the unbalanced project. If the Commission desires to do this, the conditions
.would be added before the City Council meeting, because it has a panhandle lot. The Commissions’
action is not final.
Chairman Heineman asked Mr. Gallagher if conditions regarding the changing of the elevation were
attached, would that be satisfactory.
Mr. Gallagher replied that if the conditions were attached the project would be out of balance and material
would have to be exported, which would affect the neighbors. He ‘stated that the property was now in
balance and he would only be amenable to adjusting padding further if forced to by the Commission.
Commissioner Segall wanted clarification on the number of feet regarding the adjustment.
Mr. Gallagher said he agreed to between 1 and 2 feet for an adjustment.
Mr. Rudolf said that the project was not analyzed for an unbalanced grading and if it was now changed to
unbalance grading the entire project would have to be resubmitted and analyzed, which might require re-
circulation.
Mr. Wojcik explained that some of the lots did not drain to the street, because the drainage is allowed to
go to an acceptable drainage course. The developer agreed to create and easement and a homeowners
association to maintain the easement. He proposed that a condition be crafted that no lot be raised by
more than a half or one foot, so that the project would remain balanced. .
-Mr. Gallagher indicated that Mr. Wojcik’s suggestion regarding only raising the lots by a half a foot or foot
was acceptable to him.
Chairman Heineman reopened public testimony.
John Hicks, 3601 Seaview Way, Carlsbad, wants the project to go forward as it is now. The project is
balanced. He didn’t want trucks importing or exporting materials because it would impact the
neighborhood.
Steven Masual, 2235 Sara Way, Carlsbad, didn’t want any more delays. The developer has waited two
years and should be allowed to move forward.
John Mosby, 3661 Maria Lane, Carlsbad, said he could live with spreading the dirt around using it for
landscaping and not exporting in. He didn’t want his neighbors on Seaview impacted.
-
PLANNING COMMISSION October 20, 1999 Page 11
Ken Hardesty 2225 Sara Way, Carlsbad, said we did not live in an idea world,. there IS’ no absolute
balance and the project should go forward as is. He does not want the developer to have to go before
another public hearing.
Jerry Tarman, 3535 Bedford Circle, Carlsbad, which is adjacent to lot 5. He wants the project to go
forward as it is.
Marge (no last name given) lives next to Lot 6,7 and 8. She volunteered to take few hundred cubic feet of ’
the dirt for landscaping.
Chairman Heineman closed public testimony and called for a motion.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas, and duly seconded, that
Planning Commission Resolution 4635 be adopted approving a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative
Tract Map, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit CT 96
21/SDP 98-24/HDP 98-23 - Seaview 9 lot Subdivision and the errata sheet,
based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
VOTE: 6-O
AYES: - Heineman Compaq L’Heureux, Segall, Trigas, Nielsen
NOES: None
ABSENT: Welshons
99
AGENDAllERl# 13 i
December 2,1999
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
Barbara Kennedy
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92009
4% Mayor
City Council
City Manaer
City Attorney
City Clerk
Re: Seaview -9 lot subdivision
We, and many of residents near and around the 9 lot Seaview subdivision became aware of the
project about 6 months ago. At that time we saw several things,( please refer to letters on file)
that we felt were not in the best interest of the surrounding neighborhoods. We had several
meetings and talked with you and Joe Gallagher, along with an independent engineering
consultant.
It is now our understanding that the important issues have been addressed, such as the grading
(no till and the site is balanced), drainage (french drains and excavation at the bottom of the
Seaview Subdivision and up the north side if necessary), the developer agreed to create CC&R’s
to maintain the slopes and restrict the tree height no higher than the eves of the Seaview homes,
the developer also agreed to lowering the height of the overall house to better fit into the
surrounding neighborhood.
This was the first experience working with the City and a developer on something so near and
personal as this project being built “next door” for most of us. We are pleased to see our
opinions were not ignored, in fact most were well received by staff and Joe Gallagher, and the
result is we all have a better project.
I would like to thank you for all your help and hard work. We are looking forward to seeing this
finished project as an addition to our neighborhood. Now it is up to MSK Development/Joe
Gallagher to build the quality homes we all talked about and agreed to.
8&$&n Hardesty
cc: Joe Gallagher
City Counsel
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CT 98-21/HDP 98-23 - SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION
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 Council Chambers,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December
7, 1999, to consider a request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and Hillside
Development Permit to create and develop a g-lot residential subdivision with two
second dwelling units on a 3.96 acre site located at the north end of Seaview Way, north
of Chestnut Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as:
A portion of Lot “J” of the Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
Partition Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896.
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 December 3, 1999.
If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Department at
(760) 438-l 161, extension 4325.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and/or Hillside
Development Permit, 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/or Hillside Development Permit 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.
APPLICANT: MSK MANAGEMENT, Inc.
PUBLISH: NOVEMBER 26,1999
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
~uJ/L--f-.L ( \
f \/ \ 1, Y I \ \
SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION
CT 98-2UHDP 98-23
I Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 516@
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CALIF DEPT OF'FISH & GAME
STE 50
330 GOLDENSHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH &. WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MSK MANAGEMENT INC
5142 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
.
CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER
BARBARA KENNEDY
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988 . VISTA CA 92085
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
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 200
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NO
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARC& CA 92069-2949
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
JACK HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES
STE D
5375 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
-, r . -.. - a .,6
.
Pfafflin
4020 Park Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2619
William V & Rosa Daly PO Box 260 Carlsbad CA 92018-0260
Hollywood Walter P Tr
5516 Halifax Rd
Arcadia CA 91007-8413
John T Matter
3530 Avondale Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2004
D V Overmyer 3500 Avondale Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2004
William Vielhauer 3525 Bedford Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2005
Dee L & Lise Goodin
3530 Bedford Cir . Carlsbad CA 92008-2005
Victor M Dalforno
3500 Bedford Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2005
Stephen F Schafer 2140 Janis Way
Carlsbad CA 92008-2022
Lynne Stanton 2102 Janis Way
Carlsbad CA 92008-2022
Clifton Tr
3590 Ridgecrest Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2033
Roberta R Whitlock 3560 Ridgecrest Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2033
Thelma M Jacobson
3525 Avondale Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2004
Ellie M Bayley
3520 Avondale Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2004
Virginia S Obrien 3501 Bedford Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2005
Gerald C & Mary Tarman 3535 Bedford Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2005
Janis D Enslow 3520 Bedford Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2005
John D & Toni Rush 2160 Janis Way Carlsbad CA 92008-2022
R T & Barbara Wood 2130 Janis Way Carlsbad CA 92008-2022
Doreen A Skiles
3600 Azure Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2782
h
William T Beckett
3580 Ridgecrest Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2033
Milton B & Eva Cooper 3501 Avondale Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2004
Burke
3535 Avondale Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2004
Alma T Mcree
3510 Avondale Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2004 .
Thee1 Charles R 3515 Bedford Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2005
Robert G & Mary Murrell 3540 Bedford Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2005
James M Chambers 3510 Bedford Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2005
Diana M Silva 2150 Janis Way Carlsbad CA 92008-2022
Eric E Friedrichsen 2120 Janis Way Carlsbad CA 92008-2022
Joseph F Stewart 3604 Azure Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2782
h
Betty J Rogers Maureen A Lough Ronald C Rossi
12658 Oxford Dr 3612 Azure Cir 3616 Azure Cir
La Mirada CA 90638-2507 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782
Cornelia D Strickland Steven J Goodger Lentz Jean E
3620 Azure Cir 3628 Azure Cir 3624 Azure Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782
Frank T Kershisnik Patric M Dowdy Edward C Dowling
3632 Azure Cir 3636 Azure Cir 3644 Azure Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782
Lorraine M Martini Rosemary S Sturdevant G R & Vandy Bradford
3640 Azure Cir . 3648 Azure Cir 3652 Azure Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782' Carlsbad CA 92008-2782
Shope Tr PO Box 2321 La Mesa CA 91943-2321
Melvin F & Carol Baker
3668 Azure Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2782
Geoffrey J Crask
3680 Azure Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2782
Victor Romero 3692 Azure Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2782
Virgil & Jean Tooman
3689 Azure Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2783
Monier
3645 Azure Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2783
Lieux Kenneth C Curtis 3660 Azure Cir 4117 Park Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-3636
Maria H Melbourne Brenda Macbaisey
PO Box 9 3676 Azure Cir
San Luis Rey 92068-0009 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782
b
Michael J & Cheri White David C & Pamela Fisk
3684 Azure Cir 3688 Azure Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782
Mario Artiglio Bruce & Carol Zahn 3696 Azure Cir 3700 Azure Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-2700
Shepherd M & Naomi Rod Susan A Hellweg 3685 Azure Cir 3649 Azure Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2783 Carlsbad CA 92008-2783
Pamela J Weisberg Kennedy 3551 Celinda Dr 3561 Celinda Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2771 Carlsbad CA 92008-2771
h
Jan & Chi-Hua Shihming Curtis G & Angela Odom Todd H Nalley
3571 Celinda Dr 3581 Celinda Dr 2260 Sara Way
Carlsbad CA 92008-2771 Carlsbad CA 92008-2771 Carlsbad CA 92008-2779
Copeland Lance Artwohl William Doolittle 2250 Sara Way 2256 Sara Way 2240 Sara Way Carlsbad CA 92008-2779 Carlsbad CA 92008-2779 Carlsbad CA 92008-2779
Kenneth M & Angela Mar Gerald & Jill Sokol 'Kenneth B Mackenzie 4083 W Ivanhoe St 2220 Sara Way 2210 Sara Way Chandler AZ 85226-2176 Carlsbad CA 92008-2779 Carlsbad CA 92008-2779
Kenneth A Hardesty Stephen E Masula Reilly Tr
2225 Sara Way 2235 Sara Way 3651 Maria Ln
Carlsbad CA 92008-2780 Carlsbad CA 92008-2780 Carlsbad CA 92008-2778 .
John W & Karen Mosby Peter H & Tsao Yeung John E Senvisky
3661 Maria Ln 3665 Maria Ln 3690 Maria Ln
Carlsbad CA 92008-2778 Carlsbad CA 92008-2778 Carlsbad CA 92008-2777
Ronald & Therese Warhol Steven J Pulver Dennis G Schroeder 3684 Maria Ln 3680 Maria Ln 3674 Maria Ln Carlsbad CA 92008-2777 Carlsbad CA 92008-2777 Carlsbad CA 92008-2777
James F Brusso Gregory R Nelson Donald P Connelly
3670 Maria Ln
92008-'2777
3664 Maria Ln 3660 Maria Ln
Carlsbad CA Carlsbad CA 92008-2777 Carlsbad CA 92008-2777
Birks Edward A Perry Keith C & Linda Thamer 3654 Maria Ln 3650 Maria Ln 3671 Celinda Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2777 Carlsbad CA 92008-2777 Carlsbad CA 92008-2774
Kevin F Swartz James & Marla Daigh Marion & Frances Mccord
3204 Caves Rd 12923 W 129th St 2226 Janis Way
Owings Mills 21117-4002 Shawnee Missi 66213-3919 Carlsbad CA 92008-2775
Dale M & Debra Kubacki Morris G Redding James H Nakamura 2236 Janis Way 2246 Janis Way 2235 Janis Way Carlsbad CA 92008-2775 Carlsbad CA 92008-2775 Carlsbad CA 92008-2776
M E & Susan Wrinkle Dennis C Williams Borden
2225 Janis Way 2215 Janis Way 3460 Donna Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008-2776 Carlsbad CA 92008-2776 Carlsbad CA 92008-2013
John J Monahan James & Jill Mckenna Hunt
3470 Donna Dr 2727 Chestnut Ave 3471 Donna Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2013 Carlsbad CA 92008-2126 Carlsbad CA 92008-2014
David B Ripley Alfonso & Linda Ledesma Ross J Cirrincione
2060 Janis Way 2050 Janis Way 2071 Janis Way
Carlsbad CA 92008-2020 Carlsbad CA 92008-2020 Carlsbad CA 92008-2021
David &,Viola Panman David P & Catherine Oas Nancy J Galli
1152 Calle Maria 2051 Janis Way 2041 Janis Way
San Marcos CA 92069-2103 Carlsbad CA 92008-2021 Carlsbad CA 92008-2021
Leo F & Viola Price Michael E Markovitz Stephen J Giuckman 2031 Janis Way 3482 Donna Dr 159 S Anita Ave Carlsbad CA 92008-2021 Carlsbad CA 92008-2015 Los Angeles C 90049-3834
*** 135 Printed ***
Chestnut Associates L L Robert K Jennings Kitching PO Box 2584 3725 Westhaven Dr 2097 Chestnut Ave Carlsbad CA 92018-2584 Carlsbad CA 92008-2753 Carlsbad CA 92008-2716
G H Thomas Harry D Mollgaard Ernest L Mercado 3701 Westhaven Dr PO Box D 5082 Corte Alacante. Carlsbad CA 92008-2753 Kernville CA 93238-1296 Oceanside CA 92057-3429
. Rosie M Quiroz Enger Tr Garth F Packard 2025 Chestnut Ave 2055 Chestnut Ave 2057 Chestnut Ave Carlsbad CA 92008-2716 Carlsbad CA 92008-2716 Carlsbad CA 92008-2716
'Leo J & Dianna Pacheco Galen A Clavier Marlys A Vosburgh 2100 Chestnut Ave PO Box 548 3620 Donna Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2718 Carlsbad CA 92018-0548 Carlsbad CA 92008-2724
David E Trotta Frizzell Mary M Slager 3610 Donna Dr 3600 Donna Dr 3870 Armstrong St Carlsbad CA 92008-2724 Carlsbad CA 92008-2724 San Diego CA 92111-3513
Randall L & Anne Benge Ruben C Cantabrana Bruno & Nora Gardiner
PO Box 188 3570 Donna Dr PO Box 687
Carlsbad CA 92018-0188 Carlsbad CA 92008-2761 Carlsbad CA 92018-0687
Frederick J Kiko Thomas B Folsom George L .& Mary Massery
3561 Donna Dr 3571 Donna Dr 3591 Donna Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2723 Carlsbad CA' 92008-2723 Carlsbad CA 92008-2723
Robert A & Susan Warner Earl P Mollohan Michael C & Susan Shea 190 Douglas Dr 2030 Charleen Cir 2010 Charleen Cir Oceanside CA 92054-7830 Carlsbad CA 92008-2707 Carlsbad CA 92008-2707
Dwight A Vallely Ruth E Brown Baker 2027 Charleen Cir 2031 Charleen Cir 2035 Charleen Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2707 Carlsbad CA 92008-2707 Carlsbad CA 92008-2707
Fraley Carolyn C Wood Arno & Barbara Zielke 2041 Charleen Cir 2045 Charleen Cir 2044 Chestnut Ave Carlsbad CA 92008-2707 Carlsbad CA 92008-2707 Carlsbad CA 92008-2715
, I
Bas Tr Helen E Wolenchuk Merrill J & Tessa Silva 2040 Chestnut Ave 2034 Chestnut Ave 3376 Garfield St
Carlsbad CA 92008-2715 Carlsbad CA 92008-2715 Carlsbad CA 92008-3127
Pilgrim United Church 0 Roger L-& Andrea Ryon S D & Mary Seibert
2020 Chestnut Ave 3502 Donna Dr 3512 Donna Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008-2715 Carlsbad CA 92008-2722 Carlsbad CA 92008-2722
Steven D & Kathy Borso
3522 Donna Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2722
Richard E Pfahler 3552 Donna Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2722
Jeffrey S & Lois Summy 2061 Lee Ct Carlsbad CA 92008-2763
David D Hellmers 2031 Lee Ct
Carlsbad CA 92008-2763
b.
Rory & Marcia Oneal
2022 Lee Ct Carlsbad CA 92008-2762
Bill .L & Peggy Hattig
2052 Lee Ct
Carlsbad CA 92008-2762
Pfankuch Mack T Marshall
1230 Magnolia Ave 3542 Donna Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008-2542 Carlsbad CA 92008-2722
Charles A Gough Michael E Mcnabb 2081 Lee Ct 2071 Lee Ct Carlsbad CA 92008-2765 Carlsbad CA 92008-2765
Joseph J Condren Sidney Shankland 2051 Lee Ct 2041 Lee Ct Carlsbad CA 92008-2763 Carlsbad CA 92008-2763
Edward C Moser Darrell A Pines 2021 Lee Ct 2011 Lee Ct Carlsbad CA 92008-2763 Carlsbad CA 92008-2763
Mindy T Chrisman Jeffrey & Lisa Skelly
2032 Lee Ct 2042 Lee Ct
Carlsbad CA 92008-2762 Carlsbad CA 92008-2762
Lee Margaret Forrest
2062 Lee Ct 2072 Lee Ct
Carlsbad CA 92008-2762 Carlsbad CA 92008-2764
Bruce W Hueners Curtis D Wigley Nutting Dorothy I
2082 Lee Ct 3768 Skyline Rd 3770 Skyline Rd Carlsbad CA 92008-2764 Carlsbad CA 92008-2741 Carlsbad CA 92008-2741
Paul G & Juanita Cosby 3700 Westhaven Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2752
Jeremy Mencher
PO Box 5413 Fullerton CA 92838-0413
Brown
3611 Seaview Way
Carlsbad CA 92008-2767
William S Pierce 3630 Seaview Way Carlsbad CA 92008-2767
Simonis
2190 Chestnut Ave
Carlsbad CA 92008-2718
Eastwood
3677 Maria Ln
Carlsbad CA 92008-2781
Angelina T Elliott
3631 Seaview Way
Carlsbad CA 92008-2767
John R & Susan Hicks
PO Box 4656 Carlsbad CA 92018-4656
Gerald & Ethel Hafner 3600 Seaview Way Carlsbad CA 92008-2767.
Matthew L Posard
2200 Chestnut Ave
Carlsbad CA 92008-2720'
Melvin J & Kay Henry
8229 E 950 N
Delphi IN 46923-9508
Warren Wilkinson
8801 Reseda Blvd B Northridge CA 91324-5368
Margaret G Co&in 3626 Seaview Way Carlsbad CA 92008-2767
*
Curtis E & Debra Gibson
3606 Seaview Way Carlsbad CA 92008-2767
J A & Debra Evans
3671 Maria Ln
Carlsbad CA 92008-2781
Joseph M Pashley
2203 Cameo Rd
Carlsbad CA 92008-2759
Raymond E & Jane Knapp Birgit E Sarko Dennis & Brenda Hudgins 2286 Cameo Rd 2276 Cameo Rd 2266 Cameo Rd Carlsbad CA 92008-2758. Carlsbad CA 92008-2758 Carlsbad CA 92008-2758
Michael Cianciola Stephen M & Carole Nave Trostrud 2246 Cameo Rd 2236 Cameo Rd 2226 Cameo.Rd Carlsbad CA 92008-2758 Carlsbad CA 92008-2758 Carlsbad CA 92008-2'758
Haiying W Yu J C & Kathleen Fornal Delwin L Seeba
13751 Beach St 12886 Caminito De Las 0 PO Box 111662
Cerritos CA 90703-1429 De1 Mar CA 92014-3739 Anchorage AK 99511-1662
Francisco Cota Craig Lindholm
PO Box 430996 2155 Chestnut Ave
San Ysidro CA 92143-0996 Carlsbad CA 92008-2719 to996
Russell & Joy Rice Margaret R Veigel G & J Wrench 2205 Cameo Rd 3521 Charter Oak Dr 3531 Charter Oak Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2759 Carlsbad CA 92008-2010 Carlsbad CA 92008-2010
, Smooth Feed SheetsTM
.
KIM0 D CUMMINGS
2215 SARA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GERALD & ETHEL HAFNER
3600 SEAVIEW WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LORI SCHMIDT
2215 SARA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DEE GODWIN 3530 BEDFORD CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KAREN MOSBY
3661 MARIA LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ALTON & NORMA BROWN 3611 SEAVIEW WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BOB FLEMING
2220 SARA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WARREN WILKINSON
3621 SEAVIEW WAY- CARLSBAD CA 92008
SUE & STEVE DEWULF
2230 SARA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
-4 Use template for 51W
DEBBIE GIBSON
3606 SEAVIEW WAY
CARLSBAD 'CA 92008
GERRY MATTER
3530 AVONDALE CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
.DR ROGER BURKE
3535 AVONDALE CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARY TORNBORG BRUNO & NORA GARDINER 3544 CELINDA DR 3560 DONNA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
STEPHEN & CANDICE DANIELS JOHN & SUSAN HICKS
3590 DONNA DR 3601 SEAVIEW WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
FREDERICK KIKE MARY JILL & JERRY TARMAN
3561 DONNA DR 3535 BEDFORD CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARSHALL MACK ROBERT & MAYBELLE MURRELL JAE & DEBRA EVANS
3542 DONNA DR 3540 BEDFORD CIR 3671 MARIA LN'
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
PATRICK CONLIN RANDALL BENGE 3626 SEAVIEW WAY 3580 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
(Form A)
TO: C1T.Y CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notide
CT 9&21/HDP 98-23 - Seaview g-Lot Subdivision
for a public hearing before the Clty Council.
Please notice the Item for the council meeting of First Available Hearing
Thank you.
Assistant City Han
November 2, 1999
Date
City of Carlsbad
- FILE COPY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your.interest may be affected, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 20, 1999, to
consider a request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development
Permit to create and develop a 9-lot residential subdivision with two second dwelling units on a
3.96 acre site located at the north end of Seaview Way, north of Chestnut Avenue in Local
Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as:
,
A portion of Lot “J” of the Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego; State of California, according to
Partition Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after October 14, 1999. If you have
any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Department at (760) 438-l 161,
extension 4325.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Mitigated Negative De&ration,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan,
and Hillside Development Permit, 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, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development
Permit 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 9&21/SDP 9%42/HDP 98-23
CASE NAME: SEAVIEW 9-LOT SUBDIVISION
PUBLISH: OCTOBER 7,1999
CITY OF’ CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-l 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894
SEAVIEW g-LOT SUBDIVISION
CT 98-ZIISDP 98=24/HDP 98-23
Jeremy Mencher Angelina T Elliott Warren Wilkinson
PC Box 5413 3631 Seaview Way 8801 Res'eda Blvd E
Fullerton CA 92838-0413 Carlsbad CA 92008-2767 Northridge CA 91324-5365
Brown John R & Susan.Hicks Margaret G Conlin
3611 Seaview Way PO Box 4656 3626 Seaview Way
Carlsbad CA 92008-2767 Carlsbad CA 92018-4656 Carlsbad CA 92008-2767
William S Pierce Gerald & Ethel Hafner Curtis E & Debra Gibson
3630 Seaview Way 3600 Seaview Way 3606 Seaview Way
Carlsbad CA 92008-2767 Carlsbad CA 92008-2767 Carlsbad CA 92008-2767
Simonis Matthew L Posard J A & Debra Evans 2190 Chestnut Ave 2200 Chestnut Ave 3671 Maria Ln Carlsbad CA 92008-i718 Carlsbad CA 92008-2720. Carlsbad CA 92008-2781
Eastwood Melvin J & Kay Henry Joseph M Pashley 3677 Maria Ln 8229 E 950 N 2203 Cameo Rd Carisbad CA 92008-2781 Delphi IN 46923-9508 Carlsbad CA 92008-2759
Raymond E & Jane Knapp Birgit E Sarko Dennis & Brenda Hudgins 2286 Cameo Rd 2276 Cameo Rd 2266 Cameo Rd Carlsbad CA 92008-2758. Carlsbad CA 92008-2758 Carlsbad CA 92008-2758
Michael Cianciola Stephen M & Carole Nave Trostrud 2246 Cameo Rd 2236 Cameo Rd 2226 Cameo Rd Carlsbad CA 92008-2758 Carlsbad CA 92008-2758 Carlsbad CA 92008-2758
Haiying W Yu J C & Kathleen Fornal Delwin L Seeba 13751 Beach St 12886 Caminito De Las 0 PO Box 111662 Cerritos CA 90703-1429 De1 Mar CA 92014-3739 Anchorage AK 99511-1662
Francisco Cota Craig Lindholm Francisco Cota P3 Box 430996 2155 Chestnut Ave PO Box 430996 San Ysidro CA 92143-0996 Carlsbad CA 92008-2719 San Ysidro CA 92143-0996
Russell & Joy Rice Margaret R Veigel G & J Wrench 2205 Cameo Rd 3521 Charter Oak Dr 3531 Charter Oak Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2759 Carlsbad CA 92008-2010 Carlsbad CA 92008-2010
Pfafflin
4020 Park Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2619
William V & Rosa Daly PO Box 260 Carlsbad CA 92018-0260
Hollywood Walter P Tr 5516 Halifax Rd Arcadia CA 91007-8413
John T Matter 3530 Avondale Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-20'04
D V Overmyer
3500 Avondale Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2004
William Vielhauer
3525 Bedford Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2005
Dee L & Lise Goodin
3530 Bedford Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2005
Victor M Dalforno
3500 Bedford Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2005
Clifton Tr
3590 Ridgecrest Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008-2033
Roberta R Whitlock 3560 Ridgecrest Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2033
Thelma M Jacobson
3525 Avondale Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2004
Ellie M Bayley 3520 Avondale Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2004
Virginia S Obrien
3501 Bedford Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2005
Gerald C & Mary Tarman
3535 Bedford Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2005
William T Beckett 3580 Ridgecresc Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008-2033
Milton B & Eva Cooper 3501 Avondale Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2004
Burke
3535 Avondale Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2004
Alma T Mcree
3510 Avondale Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2004
Thee1 Charles R.
3515 Bedford Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2005
Robert G & Mary Murrell
3540 Bedford Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2005
Janis D Enslow James M Chambers
3520 Bedford Cir 3510 Bedford Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2005 Carlsbad CA 92008-2005
John D & Toni Rush Diana M Silva 2160 Janis Way 2150 Janis Way Carlsbad CA 92008-2022 Carlsbad CA 92008-2022
Stephen F Schafer R T & Barbara Wood Eric E Friedrichsen 2i40 Janis Way 2130 Janis Way 2120 Janis Way Carlsbad CA 92008-2022 Carlsbad CA 92008-2022 Carlsbad CA 92008-2022
Lynne Stanton Doreen A Skiles Joseph F Stewart 2102 Janis Way 3600 Azure Cir 3604 Azure Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2022 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782
.
Betty J Rogers Maureen A Lough Ronald C Rossi
12658 Oxford Dr 3612 Azure Cir 3616 Azure Cir
La Mirada CA 90638-2507 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782
Cornelia D Strickland Steven J Goodger Lentz Jean E
3620 Azure Cir 3628 Azure Cir 3624 Azure Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782
Frank T Kershisnik Patric M Dowdy Edward C Dowling
3632 Azure Cir 3636 Azure Cir 3644 Azure Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782
Lorraine M Martini Rosemary S Sturdevant G R & Vandy Bradford
3640 Azure Cir 3648 Azure Cir 3652 Azure Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 - Carlsbad CA 92008-2782
Shope Tr Lieux Kenneth C Curtis PO Box 2321 3660 Azure Cir 4117 Park Dr La Mesa CA 91943-2321 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-3636
Melvin F & Carol Baker Maria H Melbourne Brenda Macbaisey
3668 Azure Cir PO Box 9 3676 Azure Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 San Luis Rey 92068-0009 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782
Geoffrey J Crask Michael J & Cheri White David C & Pamela Fisk 3680 Azure Cir 3684 Azure Cir 3688 Azure Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-2'782
Victor Romero
3692 Azure Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2782
Virgil & Jean Tooman 3689 Azure Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2783
Monier 3645 Azure Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2783
Mario Artiglio Bruce & Carol Zahn
3696 Azure Cir 3700 Azure Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2782 Carlsbad CA 92008-2700
Shepherd M & Naomi Rod Susan A Hellweg 3685 Azure Cir 3649 Azure Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2783 Carlsbad CA 92008-2783
Pamela J Weisberg Kennedy 3551 Celinda Dr 3561 Celinda Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2771 Carlsbad CA 92008-2771
.
Jan & Chi-Hua Shihming
3571 Celinda Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2771
Copeland 2250 Sara Way Carlsbad CA 92008-2779
Kenneth M & Angela Mar
4083 W Ivanhoe St
Chandler AZ 85226-2176
Kenneth A Hardesty
2225 Sara Way
Carlsbad CA 92008-2780
John W & Karen Mosby 3661 Maria Ln Carlsbad CA 92008-2778
Ronald & Therese Warhol 3684 Maria Ln Steven J Pulver 3680 Maria Ln Carlsbad CA 92008-2777 Carlsbad CA 92008-2777
Curtis G & Angela Odom
3581 Celinda Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008-2771
Lance Artwohl 2256 Sara Way Carlsbad CA 92008-2779
Gerald & Jill Sokol
2220 Sara Way
Carlsbad CA 92008-2779
Stephen E Masula 2235 Sara Way Carlsbad CA 92008-2780
/Peter H & Tsao Yeung 3665 Maria Ln
Carlsbad CA 92008-2778
Todd H Nalley
2260 Sara Way
Carlsbad CA 92008-2779
William Doolittle 2240 Sara Way Carlsbad CA 92008-2779
Kenneth B Mackenzie 2210 Sara Way Carlsbad CA 92008-2779
Reilly Tr 3651 Maria Ln Carlsbad CA 92008-2778
John E Senvisky. 3690 Maria Ln
Carlsbad CA 92008-2777
Dennis G Schroeder 3674 Maria Ln Carlsbad CA 92008-2777
James F Brusso Gregory R.Nelson Donald P Connelly 3670 Maria Ln 3664 Maria Ln 3660 Maria Ln Carlsbad CA 92008-2777 Carlsbad CA 92008-2777 Carlsbad CA 92008-2777
Birks Edward A Perry Keith C & Linda Thamer 3654 Maria Ln 3650 Maria Ln 3671 Celinda Dr Carisbad CA 92008-2777 Carlsbad CA 92008-2777 Carlsbad CA 92008-2774
Kevin F Swartz James & Marla Daigh Marion & Frances Mccord 3204 Caves Rd 12923 W 129th St 2226 Janis Way Owings Mills 21117-4002 Shawnee Missi 66213-3919 Carlsbad CA 92008-2775
Dale M & Debra Kubacki Morris G Redding James H Nakamura 2236 Janis Way 2246 Janis Way 2235 Janis Way Carlsbad CA 92008-2775 Carlsbad CA 92008-2775 Carlsbad CA 92008-2776
Robert K Jennings 3725 Westhaven Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2753
.
Chestnut Associates L L PO Box 2584 Carlsbad CA 92018-2584
Kitching 2097 Chestnut Ave Carlsbad CA 92008-2716
G H Thomas 3701 Westhaven Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2753
Harry D Mollgaard
PO Box D
Kernville CA 93238-1296
Ernest L Mercado
5082 Corte Alacante Oceanside CA 92057-3429
Rosie M Quiroz 2025 Chestnut Ave Carlsbad CA 92008-2716
Enger Tr 2055 Chestnut Ave Carlsba'd CA 92008-2716
Garth F Packard 2057 Chestnut Ave Carlsbad CA 92008-2716
Leo J & Dianna Pacheco
2100 Chestnut Ave
Carlsbad CA 92008-2718
Galen A Clavier PO Box 548 Carlsbad CA 92018-0548
Marlys A Vosburgh
3620 Donna Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2724
David E Trotta
3610 Donna Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008-2724
Frizzell
3600 Donna Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008-2724
Mary M Slag& 3870 Armstrong St San Diego CA 92111-3513
Randall L & Anne Benge PO Box 188 Carlsbad CA 92018-0188
Ruben C Cantabrana 3570 Donna Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008-2761
Bruno & Nora Gardiner PO Box 687 Carlsbad CA 92018-0687
Thomas B' Folsom
3571 Donna Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2723
Frederick J Kiko
3561 Donna Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008-2723
George L & Mary Massery 3591 Donna Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2723
Robert A & Susan Warner 190 Douglas Dr
Oceanside CA 92054-7830
Earl P Mollohan 2030 Charleen Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2707
Michael C & Susan Shea
2010 Charleen Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008-2707
Dwight A Vallely 2027 Charleen Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2707
Baker 2035 Charleen Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2707
Ruth E Brown 2031 Charleen Cir Car-lsbad CA 92008-2707
Fraley 2041 Charleen Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2707
Carolyn C Wood 2045 Charleen Cir Carlsbad CA 92008-2707
Arno & Barbara Zielke
2044 Chestnut Ave
Carlsbad CA 92008-2715
.
Bas Tr
2040 Chestnut AV~ Carlsbad CA 92008-2715
Pilgrim United Church 0 2020 Chestnut Ave Carlsbad CA 92008-2715
Steven D & Kathy Borso 3522 Donna Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2722
Richard E Pfahler
3552 Donna Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008-2722
Jeffrey S & Lois Summy
206i Lee Ct
Carlsbad CA 92008-2763
David D Hellmers
2031 Lee Ct Carlsbad CA 92008-2763
b Rory & Marcia Oneal
2022 Lee Ct Carlsbad *CA 92008-2762
Bill L & Peggy Hattig
2052 Lee Ct Carlsbad CA 92008-2762
Bruce W Hueners
2082 Lee Ct Carlsbad CA 92008-2764
Paul G & Juanita Cosby 3700 Westhaven Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008-2752
Helen E Wolenchuk Merrill J & Tessa Silva 2034 Chestnut Ave 3376 Garfield St
Carlsbad CA 92008-2715 Carlsbad CA 92008-3127
Roger L & Andrea Ryon 3502 Donna Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2722
Pfankuch 1230 Magnolia Ave Carlsbad CA 92008-2542
Charles A Gough
2081 Lee Ct
Carlsbad CA 92008-2765
Joseph J Condren
2051 Lee Ct Carlsbad CA 92008-2763
Edward C Moser 2021 Lee Ct Carlsbad CA 92008-2763
Mindy T'Chrisman
2032 Lee Ct
Carlsbad CA 92008-2762
Lee
2062 Lee Ct
Carlsbad CA 92008-2762
Curtis D Wigley 3768 Skyline Rd Carlsbad CA 92008-2741
.
S D & Mary Seibert 3512 Donna Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-2722
Mack T Marshall
3542 Donna Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008-2722
Michael E Mcnabb 2071 Lee Ct Carlsbad CA 92008-2765
Sidney Shankland 2041 Lee Ct Carlsbad CA 92008-2763
Darrell A Pines 2011 Lee Ct
Carlsbad CA 92008-2763
Jeffrey & Lisa Skelly
2042 Lee Ct Carlsbad CA 92008-2762
Margaret Forrest
2072 Lee Ct Carlsbad CA 92008-2764
Nutting Dorothy I 3770 Skyline Rd
Carlsbad CA 92cog-2741
’ A notice has &en mailed t0
all p~2ut?y owners/occupants
llstecl ti~rt9r-L
Date io- +-p/P
Signature &p$& &
/
Kimo D. Cummings 2215 Sara Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008
.
-4
i3OB FLEMING DEBBIE GIBSON GERALD & ETHEL HAFNER
2220 SARA WAY 3606 SEAVIEW WAY 3600 SEAVIEW WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
WARREN WILKINSON GERRY MATTER LORI SCHMIDT
3621 SEAVIEW WAY 3530 AVONDALE CIR 2215 SARA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
SUE & STEVE DEWULF
2230 SARA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARY TORNBORG
3544 CELINDA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KAREN MOSBY
3661 MARIA LANE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOHN & SUSAN HICKS
3601 SEAVIEW WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ALTON & NORMA BROWN
3611 SEAVIEW WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DR ROGER BURKE DEE GOODIN
3535 AVONDALE CIR 3530 BEDFORD CIRCLE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
BRUNO & NORA GARDINER
3560 DONNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
----- /---~- ---
STEPHEN & CANDICE DANIELS
3590 DONNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FREDERICK KIKE
3561 DONNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARY JILL &JERRY TARMAN MARSHALL MACK
3535 BEDFORD CIR 3542 DONNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROBERT & MAYBELLE MURRELL JAE & DEBRA EVANS
3540 BEDFORD CIR 3671 MARIA LANE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
PATRICK CONLIN RANDALL BENGE
3626 SEAVIEW WAY 3580 DONNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008