Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-14; City Council; 15538; Magnolia GardensCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL AB# /<fig TITLE: MAGNOLIA GARDENS MTG. 12/14/99 CT 98-121SDP 98-22 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL AND EXEMPTION FROM MORATORIUM IN “OLDE CARLSBAD” DEPT. PLN DEPT. Hd. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council ADOPT Resolution Nos. *-my, 9?“fl30, 9y”*iand 74-q APPROVING a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CT 98-12, SDP 98-22 and DENYING the request to exempt the Magnolia Gardens Project from the Urgency Ordinance prohibiting the issuance of building and/or grading permits for projects processed under Title 20 or 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and located within the area known as “Olde Carlsbad”. ITEM EXPLANATION: On July 6, 1999, the City Council conducted a public hearing and directed the City Attorney to prepare documents to deny without prejudice the Magnolia Gardens project (3-O-2 Mayor Lewis and Council Member Nygaard did not participate). The project site is located north of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. At the July 27, 1999, Council meeting the applicant requested reconsideration of the City Council’s action. The City Council remanded the application to staff for further processing in light of the comments received at its meeting of July 27, 1999, and to be returned to the City Council at a future public hearing for consideration. The proposed design contained a cul-de-sac street with 15 lots 7 of which were panhandle lots. City Council approval is required for panhandle lots in major subdivisions. The City Council determined that the property could be served adequately with a public street without the intensity and density of panhandle lots which were presented in the application. In addition, it was determined that the subdivision with panhandle lots would adversely affect the ability to provide full public street access to other properties within the same block and would require that the adjacent property also be served by panhandle lots. The applicant has redesigned the project to address the items which the City Council found objectionable. Staff has reviewed the revised plan and found it to comply with all city standards as described in the attached memorandum to the City Council. Attached to this agenda bill are resolutions containing findings and conditions to grant approval of the permits needed for the redesigned project. The proposal has been revised to include a total of 12 lots. The revised project design contains a thru street connecting to Magnolia Avenue and Valley Street. An additional street has been included in the project design which is labeled as Street “C”. Street “C” will provide a northern access point to property owned by the Carlsbad Unified School District. An additional benefit of including Street “C” is that it allows proposed lots 8 through 11 to be designed as corner lots changing their orientation so as to meet lot dimension criteria. The applicant has also included 14 additional feet of the Street “B” right-of-way on the project site so that the remaining lot depth will meet the city minimum of 90 feet and not require the creation of panhandle lots should that property be subdivided in the future. A single panhandle lot is proposed. The existing project site includes a panhandle lot. The design would retain the existing panhandle access to Highland Drive for one lot.. The proposed lot areas are all greater than the required 7,500 square foot minimum. A second dwelling unit is proposed within the single-family residence on lots 3 and 8 to satisfy the majority of the affordable housing requirement for the project. The site development plan is required to demonstrate the design of the second dwelling unit. A building floor plan and elevations are proposed for the unit which includes the second dwelling unit. The second dwelling unit is 606 square feet in area and is located on the second floor above the PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 433g garage with a separate entrance to the outside. Plans for the remaining units are not required by the existing land use designations. Proposed units will be checked for compliance with the standards of the R-l zone at the time building plans are submitted for permitting. More detailed information is included in the attached memorandum to the City Council. On November 2, 1999, the City Council took action to adopt an urgency ordinance (NS-516) establishing a moratorium on the issuance of grading and/or building permits for all projects processed under Title 20 or 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and located within the area known as “Olde Carlsbad”. The action included a process whereby a project applicant may be granted an exemption from the moratorium if the proposed street improvements associated with the project are compatible with surrounding properties and the area, and the applicant agrees to install the improvements. Staff is recommending that the proposed project be DENIED an exemption from the subject moratorium as the project includes more street improvements than just a small intervening area between properties with existing improvements. Exemption of the project from the moratorium could ultimately cause street improvements to be constructed which are in conflict with the recommendation of the citizens committee and a future action of the City Council regarding street improvement requirements. Approval of the attached City Council Resolution will DENY the exemption from the subject urgency ordinance and PROHIBIT building/grading permits from being issued for the project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed for the project. The project is within the scope of the City’s Master Environmental Impact Report which is utilized to address the project’s cumulative air quality and circulation impacts. The initial study prepared in conjunction with the project determined that potentially significant impacts could be created as a result of agricultural chemical residue that may exist in the soil on site which could affect the health of future residents. The required mitigation measure of Master Environmental Impact Report 93-01 prepared for the General Plan Update requires a mitigation measure which has been applied to the project. The mitigation measure requires soils testing and analysis to evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic use, handling, or storage of agricultural chemicals. If hazardous chemicals are detected at concentrations in the soil which would have a significantly adverse affect on human health mitigation measures included in the required report will be implemented. The project has also been conditioned to pay its fair share of the Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real intersection “short-term improvements” thereby, guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance. FISCAL IMPACT: All required improvements needed to serve this project will be funded by the developer. GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS: Facilities Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan 1 Growth Control Point 3.2 du/ac Net Density 2.84 dulac Special Facility Fee N/A PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. /<x38 EXHIBITS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. City Council Resolution No. 99-&-l 9 City Council Resolution No. YY’-XJa City Council Resolution No. ??Y-s3/ City Council Resolution No. PP-e’ Location Map Memorandum to the City Council dated December 14,1999 City Council Agenda Bill Number 15,326 with attachments Letter from Robert C. Ladwig to the City Manager dated 1 l-l l-l 999 Requesting Clearance from NS -516 to obtain Grading and Building Permits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -. RESOLUTION NO. 99-529 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE 4.93 ACRES INTO 12 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND WEST OF VALLEY STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 CASE NAME: MAGNOLIA GARDENS CASE NO.: CT 98-l 2/SDP 98-22 WHEREAS, Pacific Scene Financial, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Gloria Aguilera Goitia, “Owner”, described as That portion of Tract 245 of Thum Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1681, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, December 9, 1915 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 14th day of December 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the City Council considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council hereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated September 13, 1999, and “PII” dated September 3, 1999, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinqs: 1. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 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 a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to recommending approval of the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has 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 C. it reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions: 1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Magnolia Gardens Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. “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.” . . . . . . . . . . . . -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 14th day of December 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members HaIti;:FinSla, Kulchin NOES: None ABSENT: Council Members Nygaard ATTEST: . ALMA L. &&mKRA@ City Clerk KAREN R. KUNDTZ, Assistint City Clerk (SEAL) -3- --. ._ City of Carkbad . MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: North of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street Project Description: A Tentative Tract Map to create 12 lots greater than 7,500 squar? . feet in area for single family detached residences and a Site Development Plan for two second dwelling units td satisfy requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance on a 4.93 acre site. The entire site would be graded and 1,500 cubic yards of soil exported from the property. A public street is proposed that would provide a connection between Magnolia Avenue and Valley Street. 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 Don Neu in the Planning Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4446. DATED: September 13,1999 CASE NO: CT 98-12/SDP 98-22 CASE NAME: Magnolia Gardens PUBLISH DATE: September 13, 1999 hmHfi12~ J. &~ZMIWER Planning Director Paimas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA B20d9-1576 - (760) 438-l ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 98-l%/SDP 98-22 DATE: Sentember 3.1999 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Mamolia Gardens 2. APPLICANT: Pacific Scene Financial. LLC - Attn: Dennis M. Ferdie: 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2505 Conrzress Street. Suite 200. San Dierro. CA92110: (619) 299-5112 4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 25.1998 .5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 12 lot tentative subdivision map proposing single family home lots greater than 7,500 square feet in area with two second dwelling units to comply with the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance proposed for a 4.93 acre site located north of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street. The entire site is proposed to be graded and 1,500 cubic yards of soil exported from the property. A public street is proposed that would provide a connection between Magnolia Avenue and Valley Street. The site is currently covered with agricultural greenhouses used for growing flowers. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving’at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. q Land Use and Planning (XI Transportation/Circulation cl Public Services cl Population and Housing q Biological Resources El Utilities & Service Systems ’ cl Geblogical Problems Cl Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water lxl Hazards cl Cultural Resources q Air Quality cl Noise cl Recreation cl Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03128196 J? DETERMINATION. . (To be completed by the Lead Agency) q Ix) cl q q /La Planner Signature 9-7-v Date I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 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. Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. ’ l A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each . question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. l “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. l Based on an ‘EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed 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). 0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. 0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 03128196 lo -. 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be deterrnined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source ##(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-118) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of established community (including a low-income minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: an or a) W cl Cumulatively exceed official 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) III GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or a) b) 4 4 9 f-l g) h) 0 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. l-l - 5.1-15) Landslides ormudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 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-l - 5.1-15) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2- 11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) c) 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-I 1) Potentially Significant Impact q q q q q q q q q q ‘U q Tl q q q q q q q Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 cl Cl cl q q El 0 0 0 cl q q 0 Less Than Significant Impact cl q ‘0 0 El 0 0 q cl q q q q q cl cl 0 cl q q No impact txl IXI lxl IXI txl IXI lxl lxl txl lxl IXI lxl (XI IXI IXI 5 Rev. 03128196 Issues (and Supporting Infomtion Sources). g) h) 0 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) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: -4 b) 4 4 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) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the 4 W 4 4 e) 0 g) proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 57.22) 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- 1 - 5.7.22) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l :Pgs 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#I :Pgs 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24) Potentially Significant Impact q q q q q q lxl q q q IXI q El q q q q q q q Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q cl q q q q q q cl q q q q q q q cl 0 q q Less Than Significant Impact cl q q q ’ q q q cl. q q u q cl q q q 0 cl q q No Impact IXI (XI Ix) . lxl IXI IXI cl El lxl lxl q Ix1 Ix1 lxl IXI Ix1 Ix1 Ix] lxl IXI. 6 Rev. 03/28/96 C Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 4 e) VIII. a) b) cl Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (# 1 :Pgs 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24) ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I -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 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential healthhazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9- 15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 1 - 5.9-15) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect 4 b) c> 4 4 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? (#I, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the *proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-I - 5.13-9) Potentially Significanl Impact q q q q II q q q q q q q q q q q q q Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q q q q q q q q Ix1 q q q q 0 q q q q 7 Less Than Significant Impact q cl No Impact q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q 0 Ix1 El IXI lxl q IXI Rev. 03/28/96 IXI El Ezl IXI lxl Ix] El Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b> d d) e) fl g) XIII. 4 b) cl XIV. 4 b) c> 4 4 Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.8-7) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) Storm water drainage? (#l :Pg 5.2-8) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.11-5) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) Createlightorglare?(#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8- 10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8- 10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: 4 W XVI. 4 Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l :Pgs 5.12.8- 1 - 5.12.8-7) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l :Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact q q 0 q q 0. cl q III q q q q cl q q q Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q q 0. q q q q q 0 cl q q q q q q 0 Less Than impact q q q q q q q q q q q q q q cl q No Impact 1x1 lxl lxl El lxl Ix1 Ix] lxl El la IXI lxl lxl El Ix1 lxl q lxl 8 Rev. 03128196 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). ‘4 9 Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (‘Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated El q q tzl Less Than No Significant Impact Impact q q q q Rev. 03/28/96 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis of this proposed single family residential project has been completed through the General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) . The MElR is cited as source #l in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a project that was described in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. There will be no additional significant impacts due to this development that were not analyzed in the MEIR and no new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required. This project is, therefore, within the scope of the prior MEIR and no new environmental document nor Public Resources Code 21081 findings are required. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into this project. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL, SETTING The Magnolia Gardens project is a proposal to demolish the existing greenhouses on a 4.93 acre site and construct a 12 lot single family detached residential project with two second dwelling units. A public street is proposed that will make a connection between Magnolia Avenue and Valley Street. One of the existing parcels comprising the project site contains panhandle access to Highland Drive. The project includes retaining this existing panhandle access to provide access to one lot. The project site is located north of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Grading for the project includes 13,500 cubic yards of cut, 12,000 cubic yards of fill and the export of 1,500 cubic yards of dirt. The project site is designated as RLM (Residential Low-Medium Density) on the General Plan Land Use Map. The zoning for the site is R-l (Single Family Residential) which has a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet. The proposed street design provides for access to adjacent property to the north and south of the project site should it ever be further developed in the future with single family residences. Plans for a second dwelling unit are included with the project. A second dwelling unit is proposed for two lots to satisfy the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in additional to payment of an in-lieu fee to satisfy the requirement for the fractional unit resulting from the 15 percent calculation. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 .- 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion V. a) Air Quality The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulmr, 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 applidable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. VI. a) Transportation/Circulation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop 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 12 Rev. 03128196 adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic ti-om a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable .and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. 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 9 15162 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. 1. The Developer shall pay their fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Camino Real/ Palomar 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. IX. d) Hazards Master Environmental Impact Report 93-01 prepared for the General Plan Update requires the following mitigation measure for proposed residential development in areas that are presently or have previously been used for agricultural production. Chemical residue may exist in soil and affect the health of future residents. The project site has been occupied by greenhouses which have been used to grow flowers. Therefore, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented to reduce impacts related to hazardous materials to less than significant: 1. Prior to the approval of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, a detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils 13 Rev. 03128196 engineer, and submitted to the Carlsbad Planning Department and County Health Department for review and approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic use, handling, or storage of agricultural chemicals restricted by the San Diego County Department of Health Services. The report shall also identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate any significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at concentrations in the soil which would have a significantly adverse effect on human health. The Developer shall implement one or more of the mitigation measures identified in the report prior to the issuance of building permits should mitigation be necessary so as to reduce the impact below a level of significance. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 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 Pahnas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (760) 438-l 161, extension 4471. 1. Final Master Environmental Imuact Renort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 15 Rev. 03128196 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES 1. The Developer shall pay their fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Camino Real/ Palomar 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. 2. Prior to the approval of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, a detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer, and submitted to City and County Health Departments for review and approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic use, handling, or storage of agricultural chemicals restricted by the San Diego County Department of Health Services. The report shall also identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate any significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at concentrations in the soil which would have a significantly adverse effect on human health. The Developer shall implement one or more of the mitigation measures identified in the report prior to the issuance of building permits should mitigation be necessary so as to reduce the impact below a level of significance. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 16 Rev. 03/28/96 ( : :, . . . f .d APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEAW-RES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date c f Signature . / 17 Rev. 03128196 : : t c P .I 7 : i 1 5 i 3 0 : ! m J 0 E ENVIliONMENTAL Ml-i. AATION MONITORING CHECKLIS _ PAGE 1 OF 2 . ii 62 .zj 8 9 g Eo, ENVIRONMENTAL MI u .iATION MONITORING CHECKLIS.. PAGE 2 OF 2 d 22 bE 5 b E - 0 f! = E 2 .- I 5 E 2 g I ‘S AZ ki a ” 5 E - December 14,1999 TO: Mayor and City Council 3*-n t$. 16 FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Attorney MAGNOLIA GARDENS REQUEST FOR A TENTATIVE MAP AND RELATED APPROVALS AND RELIEF FROM MORATORIUM ORDINANCE IN “OLDE CARLSBAD” In order to make it perfectly clear that the City Council is considering revising its streets standards in the study area between El Camino Real and the Pacific Ocean between Buena Vista and Agua Hedionda Lagoons, I recommend that the following condition be added to the tentative map, if approved: “Developer is aware that the City Council is considering amending its street design standards and has appointed a committee to study the issue and make recommendations. Developer agrees to conform the streets in the subdivision to the amended standards if adopted. This condition will automatically expire upon expiration of the urgency ordinance and shall be of no force and effect unless, prior to that time, the City Council acts to adopt such new street standards, otherwise the unmodified standards shall control-” I appreciate your prompt consideration of this matter. rmh RONALD R. BALL City Attorney c: City Manager City Clerk Community Development Director Public Works Director Interior Specialists, Inc. December 14, 1999 AGENDA ITEM # / (4 G Mayor Cify Council “ui:ly Manager 2y Attorney City Clerk Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 RI?: Magnolia Gardens, CT 98-12 Council Meeting, December 14, 1999 Dear Council Members: Please accept this letter as my notice of support to approve the above mentioned Development by Pacific Scene. My property is contiguous Lo the proposed project. I have discussed the project with the Applicant and request that the Council approves the project as submitted. Additionally, I support the Applicant’s request to be exempt from the moratorium. First, there are no substantial trees within the right of way. There is one mature Palm Tree that can be relocrted.Second, to delay the improvements would require us to continue to look at the unsightly remains of old green houses for an extended period of time. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Brian A. Powell 3609 Valley Street Carlsbad. CA 92008 1630 Faraday Avenue Carlshad. CA 92008 760.929.6700 Fax: 760.929.6715 December 3,1999 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-q 989 Re: Magnolia Gardens, CT 98-12 Council Meeting, December 14,1999 Dear Council Members: -. Please accept this letter as my notice of support to approve the above mentioned Development by Pacific Scene. My property is contiguous to the proposed project. I have discussed the project with the Applicant and request that the Council approves the project as submitted. Additionally, I support the Applicant’s request to be exempt from the moratorium. First, there are no substantial trees within the right of way. There is one mature palm tree that can be relocated. Second, to delay the improvements would require us to continue to look at the unsightly remains of old green houses for an extended period of time. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Hazel Storm 1534 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 729-3141 December 7, 1999 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008- 1989 Re: Magnolia Gardens, CT 98-12 Council Meeting, December 14, 1999 Dear Council Members: Please accept this letter as my notice of support to approve the above mentioned Development by Pacific Scene. My property is located adjacent to and directly north of the proposed project. I am prepared to dedicate the additional “Right of Way” that the Fire Department is requesting if need be. I have discussed the project with the Applicant and request that the Council approves the project as submitted. Additionally, I support the Applicant’s request to be exempt from the moratorium. There are no substantial trees within the right of way. The property is in need of clean-up and to delay the improvements would require us to continue to look at the unsightly remains of old green houses for an extended period of time. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mr. Sam Caito Owner APN# 205-220-l 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 - RESOLUTION NO. 99-53Q A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 98-12 TO SUBDIVIDE 4.93 ACRES INTO 12 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND WEST OF VALLEY STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 CASE NAME: MAGNOLIA GARDENS CASE NO.: CT 98-l 2 WHEREAS, Pacific Scene Financial, LLC, “Developer”, has tiled a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Gloria Aguilera Goitia, “Owner”, described as That portion of Tract 245 of Thum Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1681, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, December 9,1915 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract Map as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “H” dated December 14, 1999, on file in the Planning Department MAGNOLIA GARDENS - CT 98-12, as provided by Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 14th day of December 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. WHEREAS, on the 19th day of May 1999, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a 15 lot design of CT 98-12, as described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4649; WHEREAS, the City Council did on July 6, 1999 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law at which it considered the project and directed the City Attorney to return with documents denying without prejudice the Magnolia Gardens Project; 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 WHEREAS the City Council on July 27, 1999 considered a request by the applicant and remanded the project to staff for further processing and to be returned to the City Council at a future public hearing for consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) W That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council APPROVES MAGNOLIA GARDENS - CT 98-12, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findinas: . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the lots being created satisfy all minimum requirements of Title 20 governing lot sizes and configuration and have been designed to comply with all other applicable City regulations. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for Residential Low to Medium Density (RLM) development on the General Plan, in that this is the same general plan land use designation as the project site and surrounding development is residential or agriculture. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed, in that the project site can accommodate the proposed residential development while providing all required setbacks and improvements required by applicable City regulations. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that the project is designed and conditioned to avoid conflicts with any established easements. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that the 9,045 square foot and larger lot sizes allow for a variety of building placement alternatives, including the adequate placement and separation of the future residential units to provide residents with good air circulation within and surrounding any future residential units to provide natural heating and cooling opportunities. -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 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. That the City Council has considered, in connection with the housing proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental resources. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in that there is no sensitive habitat on the site or offsite which the project will impact. 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. The City Council finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the memorandum to the City Council dated December 14, 1999 including, but not limited to the following: a. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed density of 2.84 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 du/acre. b. Circulation - The circulation system is designed to provide adequate access to the proposed lots, adjacent properties and complies with all applicable City design standards. C. Housing - That the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance as the Developer has been conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to construct two second dwelling units and purchase a .I 1 unit credit. d. Public Safety - Required facilities have been conditioned in addition to an automatic fire sprinkler systems for the structure to be built on the one panhandle lot. 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 project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. a. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Cartsbad 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. -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 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 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. 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. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1. That the property cannot be served adequately with a public street without panhandle lots due to unfavorable conditions resulting from unusual topography, surrounding land development, or lot configuration, in that the configuration of the property precludes the placement of a public street in the area where the one panhandle lot is proposed. The proposed panhandle currently exists as part of a larger lot than is being proposed. That subdivision with panhandle lots will not preclude or adversely affect the ability to provide full public street access to other properties within the same block of the subject property, in that the proposed public streets provide access to adjacent properties which may be subdivided in the future so that additional panhandle lots will not be necessary. That the buildable portion of the lots consists of an area of at least 8,000 square feet, which meets the requirements of Section 21.10.080(d)(l) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; That the front, sides, and rear property lines, for purposes of determining required yards, are as shown on Exhibit “B” of the Tentative Map, on file in the Planning Department. That this project could have a potentially significant negative cumulative traffic impact on the Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real intersection. However, this project has been conditioned to pay its fair share of the “short-term improvements” thereby, guaranteeing implementation of a mitigation measure that reduces the potential impact to a level of insignificance. The City Council 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: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of the final map or issuance of a grading permit whichever occurs first. 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 -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 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 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 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/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- 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 mylar shall be submitted and receive approved prior to grading plan, final map, or improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first. 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. 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. -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and SDP 98-22 and is subject to all conditions contained in the City Council Resolutions 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. 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 3 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. The Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the projects market rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the City and the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule for development. The Developer shall 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. 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. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit or approval of the final map, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the offtce 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 and Site Development Plan by Resolutions No. 99-53cand 99-531 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. 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. -6- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. The developer shall post a sign in the sales office in a prominent location that discloses which special districts and school district provide service to the project. Said sign shall remain posted until ALL of the units are sold. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any unit within the project, the Developer shall apply for and obtain from the Planning Director a Second Dwelling Unit Permit per Section 21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code for each second dwelling unit. The Developer shall pay its fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Camino ReaVPalomar 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. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Magnolia Gardens Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Developer shall submit a plan showing the fence design and proposed location for Planning Director approval prior to grading plan approval. A uniform fence design shall be utilized for all residential lots within the project. The fencing shown on the plan for individual residential lots shall be installed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for each respective unit. Enaineerina Conditions: NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions upon the approval of this proposed major subdivision must be met prior to approval of a final map. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 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 provide an acceptable means for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all the private: streets, sidewalks, street lights, storm drain facilities and sewer facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. Adequate provision for such maintenance shall be included with the CC&Rs subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 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. 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. -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 - 28. The developer shall provide for sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement on the Final Map (and in the CC&Rs). 29. “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.” Fees/Agreements 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required. The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless regarding drainage across the adjacent property. The owner shall enter into a lien contract for the future public improvement of Highland Drive along the subdivision frontage for a half street width of 30 feet. Public improvements shall include, but not be limited to, paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutter, medians, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire hydrants, street lights and retaining walls. The owner shall execute a hold harmless agreement for geologic failure. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner shall give written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the subdivision plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 on a form provided by the City. GRADING 35. 36. 37. 38. 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. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the developer shall submit proof that a Notice of Intention has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. Upon completion of grading, the developer shall ensure that an “as-graded” geologic plan is submitted to the City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based on a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. This plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist. The plan shall be prepared on a 24” x 36” mylar or similar drafting film and shall become a permanent record. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision unless a grading or slope easement or agreement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties and recorded. If the developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case the developer must either amend the tentative map or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project site in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved -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 - RESOLUTION NO. 99-531 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 98-22 TO CONSTRUCT TWO SECOND DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND WEST OF VALLEY STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 CASE NAME: MAGNOLIA GARDENS CASE NO.: SDP 98-22 WHEREAS, Pacific Scene Financial, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Gloria Aguilera Goitia, “Owner”, described as That portion of Tract 245 of Thum Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1681, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, December 9,1915 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development Plan as shown on Exhibits “A” - “J” dated December 14, 1999, on file in the Planning Department, MAGNOLIA GARDENS - SDP 98-22 as provided by Chapter 21 .OG/Section 21.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 14th day of December, 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 Council considered all factors relating to the Site Development Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council APPROVES MAGNOLIA GARDENS - SDP 98-22 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: . . . qo Findinas: 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 structures while providing all required front, side, and rear yard setbacks; b) the project complies with all City standards for lot configuration, street widths, grading and drainage for the development; c) the project is consistent and compatible with the surrounding development in scale and design; and d) the project design preserves the single family character of the surrounding neighborhood. 2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in that the proposed lots all exceed the minimum lot size requirements for the zone and can easily accommodate the proposed structures while providing all required front, side and rear yard setbacks, and the project design complies with all City standards for lot configuration, street width, grading and drainage. 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-l 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. 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Site Development Plan 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. 3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 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/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 Site Development Plan, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-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 Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. 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, including, but not limited to the following: 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. This approval is granted subject to the approval of CT 98-12 and the Magnolia Gardens Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and is subject to all conditions contained in the Resolutions for those other approvals. 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, -3- //’ ;;I / 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. “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 wver 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, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 14th day of December 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Hall, Finnila, Kulchin NOES: None ABSENT: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard Al-l-EST: KAREN R. KUNDTZ, Assistant City Clerk (SEAL) -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 I RESOLUTION NO. W-532 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE URGENCY ORDINANCE (NS-516) PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS FOR PROJECTS PROCESSED UNDER TITLE 20 AND 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE IN THE AREA KNOWN AS “OLDE CARLSBAD” CASE NAME: MAGNOLIA GARDENS CASE NO.: CT 98-12/SDP 98-22 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, on November 2, 1999, the City Council took action to adopt an urgency ordinance establishing a moratorium on the issuance of grading and/or building permits for all projects processed under Title 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and located within the area known as “Olde Carlsbad”; WHEREAS, the urgency ordinance included a process whereby the project applicant could be granted an exemption from the moratorium upon written request from the applicant and/or property owner; and WHEREAS, a written request has been submitted for the project known as Magnolia Gardens - CT 98-12/SDP 98-22; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 1999 the City Council considered said request, all information provided by the applicant and/or property owners as well as any other interested persons providing testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That the City Council DENIES the request for the following reasons: 1. The project includes more street improvements than just a small intervening area between properties with existing improvements where there are very limited options in regard to the appropriate type of street improvements which should be constructed. 2. Exemption of the project from the moratorium could ultimately cause street improvements to be constructed which are in conflict with the recommendation of the citizens committee and a future action by the City Council regarding street improvement requirements. 4’L. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 14th day of December 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Hall, Kulchin NOES: Council Member Finnila CLAUDE A. mls:“M+c@’ ’ ATTEST: HA ~~-#~TENK*Nz, City Clerk KAREN R. KUNDTZ,#ssistant Cmity Clerk (SEAL) -2- - ,- EXHIBIT 5 MAGNOLIA GARDENS CT 9842lSDP 98-22 EXHIBIT 6 DECEMBER 14,1999 TO: MAYOR CITY COUNCIL FROM: Senior Planner CT 98-12/SDP 98-22 - MAGNOLIA GARDENS This memo is provided in place of a staff report to the Planning Commission on the above referenced project. A previous design for a 15 lot subdivision on the property was considered by the City Council on July 6, 1999. On July 27, 1999 the City Council in lieu of adopting documents denying the project applications considered and granted a request by the applicant to remand the project back to staff so that the project could be redesigned and then returned to the City Council at a future public hearing for consideration. This memo contains the analysis of the new design which is normally included with the report to the Planning Commission and is made an attachment to the City Council Agenda Bill. I. INTRODUCTION The proposed project is for the creation of a 12 lot single-family residential subdivision on an intill site located north of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street. The project will consist of 12 single-family residences on lots all with areas greater than 7,500 square feet. The proposed density of the subdivision is 2.44 dwelling units per acre without the two second dwelling units and 2.84 including the second dwelling units. Lot number 3 and 8 will include a second dwelling unit with the single-family residence to satisfy the majority of the affordable housing requirement for the project. The fractional affordable housing requirement of .l 1 of a unit will be satisfied by the payment of a fee as permitted by Section 21.85.040 (c)(2) of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. On May 19, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a 15 lot project on the site which was returned to staff by the City Council for redesign. Because of the unusual configuration of the site 7 panhandle lots were proposed which complied with all panhandle standards and the required findings were made. City Council approval is required for panhandle lots in major subdivisions. The City Council directed the developer to attempt to acquire adjacent property to put in a through street rather than a cul-de-sac street and panhandle lots. The revised plan contains a through street and only one panhandle lot. A panhandle lot currently exists. All City standards have been complied with and all necessary findings can be made. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The project site is a 4.93 acre site consisting of three assessor parcels located north of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street. The property is located in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the city. Topographically the site is relatively flat and is occupied by old deteriorating agricultural greenhouses. Surrounding land uses are primarily single family residences with some remaining agricultural uses. -. CT 98-12/SDP 98-22 - MAGNOLIA GARDENS DECEMBER 14,1999 The proposed project is for the creation of 12 residential lots which will be developed with single-family detached residences two of which will incorporate a second dwelling unit. The existing zoning for the property is single-family residential (R-l) which requires a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The proposed lots range in size from just over 9,000 square feet to 15,990 square feet. The site development plan is required to demonstrate the design of the second dwelling unit. A building floor plan and elevations are proposed for the unit which includes the second dwelling unit. The second dwelling unit is 606 square feet in area and is located on the second floor above the garage with a separate entrance to the outside. Plans for the remaining units are not required by the existing land use designations. Proposed units will be checked for compliance with the standards of the R-l zone. The revised subdivision design contains a through street which connects to Magnolia Avenue and Valley Street. An additional future street connection is provided to the property south of the eastern portion of the project site. This connection provides another access point to the Carlsbad Unified School District owned property. The new design contains 1 panhandle lot off Highland Drive. This panhandle lot presently exists and the lot design complies with all city requirements. The panhandle lot is necessary because of the existing lot configuration. Proposed Street “B” will provide access to the adjacent property to the north which contains agricultural greenhouses so as to not preclude the possible future development of that property consistent with the R-l zoning designation. Development of the offsite property to the north can meet the required minimum lot depth of 90 feet. This can be accomplished because the proposed Street “B” alignment has been shifted onto the project site so that 44 feet of the required 60 foot right-of-way is located on the Magnolia Gardens Project instead of the standard practice of half of the width or 30 feet. The four lots adjacent to Street “B” have been made comer lots because of the proposed street access to the school district property which allows them to be turned to comply with the minimum lot depth requirement. The new design appears to address the objections the City Council had with the previous design. III. ANALYSIS The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards and policies: A. Residential Low-Medium Density (RIM) General Plan Land Use Designation; B. Single-Family Residential (R-1-7,500) Zone Regulations; C. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); D. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.85); and E. Growth Management Regulations (Local Facilities Management Zone 1). CT 98-12/SDP 98-22 - MAGNOLIA GARDENS DECEMBER 14,1999 PAGE 3 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 2.84 du/ac. The project complies with all elements of the General Plan as illustrated in Table A below: ELEMENT Land Use Housing Public Safety Circulation able A - GENERAL P USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM Site is designated for RLM at 3.2 du/ac Provision of affordable housing Review new development proposals to consider emergency access, fire hydrant locations, and fire flow requirements New development shall dedicate and improve all public right-of-way for circulation facilities needed to serve development AN COMPLIANCE PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS Single-family lots at 2.84 du/ac Construction of 2 second dwelling units and payment of a fee for .ll ofaunit Required facilities have been conditioned in addition to automatic fire sprinkler systems for the structure on the panhandle lot A thru public street will be dedicated and constructed on the project site to serve the development and adjacent properties COMPLY? Yes Yes Yes Yes B. R-1-7,500 Zoning Regulations The project site is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1-7,500). The proposed project meets or exceeds all applicable requirements of the underlying zone as demonstrated in Table B below. All lot sizes and widths meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the zone. All required setbacks, lot coverage, and building height for the zone will be reviewed by the Planning Department during building plancheck to confirm that the required standards are complied with. CT 98-12/SDP 98-22 - MAGNOLIA GARDENS DECEMBER 14,1999 PAGE 4 Table B: R-l ZONE COMPLIANCE STANDARD REQUIRED PROPOSED Minimum Lot Size - Std. Lot 7,500 sq. ft. 9,045 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Size - 8,000 sq. ft. buildable area 9,457 sq. ft. Panhandle Lot Minimum Lot Width - Std. 60 feet Lot Minimum Lot Width - 60 feet Panhandle Lot Maximum Panhandle Length 15 0 ft. for a single lot 65 feet and greater 70 feet 150 ft. max. for a single lot C. Subdivision Ordinance The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and has concluded that the subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. All major subdivision design criteria have been complied with including the minimum lot depth of 90 feet, provision of public access, required street frontage, and minimum lot area. The project is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan and Title 21. It is also compatible with surrounding residential and agricultural land uses. The entire site will be graded. The total amount of cut grading for the site is 13,500 cubic yards, fill totals 12,000 cubic yards, and 1,500 cubic yards of dirt will be exported from the site. The developer will be required to offer various dedications (e.g., drainage easements, street right- of-way) and install street and utility improvements, including but not limited to, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, sewer facilities, drainage facilities, fire hydrants, and street lights. The City Council will consider the issues concerning street design and street trees which are currently being studied by citizen committees when it reviews the proposed project at a noticed public hearing. D. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance 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 2.11 dwelling units. The applicant is proposing to satisfy this requirement by constructing two second dwelling units and purchasing a . 11 credit for the remaining partial unit. Therefore, the proposed project complies with all applicable inclusionary housing requirements as demonstrated in table “C” below. The second dwelling unit design includes 606 square feet of area located on the second story over a three car garage. Parking for the second dwelling unit can be provided either as a separate walled off one car garage or as tandem parking in front of the garage. CT 98-12/SDP 98-22 - MAGNOLIA GARDENS DECEMBER 14,1999 PAGE 5 STANDARD Inclusionary Requirements (Units/Fees) Table C: Inclusionary Housing REQUIRED PROVIDED COMPLIANCE 2.11 dwelling units 2 attached second Yes dwelling units and a .l 1 credit E. Growth Management The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table D below. 1 STANDARDS Table D: Growth Management Compliance 1 IMPACTS 1 COMPLIANCE City Administration Library Waste Water Treatment 48.67 sq. ft. 25.95 sq. ft. 14 EDU Yes Yes Yes Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools L Sewer Collection System Water .09 acre Basin B 140 ADT Station No. 1 N/A CUSD 14 EDU 3-080 GPD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes The proposed project is 1.77 dwelling units below the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The initial study prepared in conjunction with the project determined that potentially significant impacts could be created as a result of agricultural chemical residue that may exist in the soil on site which could affect the health of future residents. The project site has been occupied by greenhouses which have been used to grow flowers. The required mitigation measure of Master Environmental Impact Report 93-01 prepared for the General Plan Update requires a mitigation measure which has been applied to the project mandating soils testing and analysis to evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic use, handling, or storage of agricultural chemicals. If hazardous chemicals are detected at concentrations in the soil which would have a significantly adverse effect on human health mitigation measures included in the required report will be implemented so as to reduce the impact below a level of significance. . 5-i CT 98-12/SDP 98-22 - MAGNOLIA GARDENS DECEMBER 14,1999 PAGE 6 The project is within the scope of the City’s Master Environmental Impact Report which was utilized to address the project’s cumulative air quality and circulation impacts, Please see the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II for a detailed description of the mitigation measure and the expanded justification for the recommendation to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. In consideration of the foregoing, on September 13, 1999, the Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Report has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental documentation. Pursuant to $15162 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. DON NEU ATTACHMENTS: 1. Background Data Sheet 2. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form 3. Disclosure Statement 4. Reduced Exhibits 5. Full Size Exhibits “A” - “J”, dated December 14, 1999 C BACKGROUND DATA SHEET ATTACHMENT 1 CASE NO: CT 98-l 2/SDP 98-22 CASE NAME: Magnolia Gardens APPLICANT: Pacific Scene Financial, LLC REQUEST AND LOCATION: 12 lot residential subdivision with two second dwelling; units on a 4.93 acre site located north of Magnolia Avenue and west of Vallev Street. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of Tract 245 of Thum Lands, in the Citv of Carlsbad. Countv of San Dieao. State of California. according to Mar, thereof No. 1681. filed in the Office of the Countv Recorder of San Dieao County. December 9, 19 15 APN: 205-220-42.43 & 45 Acres: 4.93 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 12 lots/l4 units GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: RLM Density Allowed: O-4 Density Proposed: 2.84 Existing Zone: R-l Proposed Zone: N/A Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Zoning General Plan Site R-l North R-l RLM RLM South R-l RLM East R-l RLM West R-l RLM Current Land Use Agriculture Single Residential Agriculture Single Residential Family and Family Single Residential Family Single Residential Family PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: CUSD Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 14 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 0 Negative Declaration, issued 0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated w Other, Mitigated Negative Declaration - -- CITY OF CARLSBAD ATTACHMENT 2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: Maanolia Gardens - CT 98-12/SDP 98-22 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: L GENERAL PLAN: RLM ZONING: R-l DEVELOPER’S NAME: Pacific Scene Financial. LLC ADDRESS: 2505 Congress Street. Suite 2205. San Diego. CA 92110 PHONE NO.: 619-299-5112 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 205-220-42.43 & 45 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 4.93 ac.. 12 du + 2 sdu ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 48.67 Library: Demand in Square Footage = 25.95 Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 14 Park: Demand in Acreage = .09 Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A Identify Drainage Basin = B (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADT = 140 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 1 Open Space: Acreage Provided = N/A Schools: CUSD (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Demands in EDU 14 Identify Sub Basin = N/A (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD = 3.080 The project is 1.77 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. - . ATTACHMENT 3 . DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association. social club. fraternal organisation, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county. city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.” Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT OIJot 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 cornoration or uartnershin. include the names. title. addresses of all individuals owning more than Id% of the shares. IF NO JNDJVIDUALS OWN MORE I-J-JAN 10% OF THE SHARES. PLEASE 1NDJCATE NON- APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned cornoration, include the names, titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) I’ (I Carp/Part Title Title Address Address * 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 nartnershie. include the names. title. addresses of all individuals owning more than JO% of the shares. IF NO INDJVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE JNDJCATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv- owned corooration. include the names. titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Gloria Aquilera Goitia Carp/Part Title Owner Title Address 500 S. Santa Fe, Vista Address CA, 92084 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 5’76 - (760) 438-1161 l FAX (760) 438-0894 m -. ,- - >. NOSPROFIT Ot(GANIZATION OR TRUST . If any person identified pursuant to ‘<I ) or (2) above is a nontxofit organization or a trust. list the names and addresses of ANY person senkq as an offker or director of the non-profit oqynization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust N/A Non Profit/Trust Title Title Address Address 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of Cit?, staff. Boards. Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? cl Yes m No If yes, please indicate person(s): NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature of owner/date Signature of applicant/da& /’ Gloria Aguilera Goitia Print or type name of owner Dennis M. Ferdig Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant‘s agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant’s agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5198 .,...-/ ..3 &J Pat-w 3 nf 3 ATTACHMENT “A” TO D1SCL0SUFZ.E STATEMENT Applicant Name: Pacific Scene Financial, LLC Members of Pacific Scene Financial, LLC 25% Member, Manager, and Vice President Brian N. Khoury, Trustee of the Brian N. Khoury Revocable Trust U/A/D January 27,1987, as amended 2505 Congress Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92 110 25% Member, Manager, and Vice President Jason B. Khoury, Trustee of the Jason B. Khoury Revocable Trust U/A/D January 27,1987, as amended 2505 Congress Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 25% Member, Manager, Vice President, and Secretary Noelle F. Khoury, Trustee of the Noelle F. Khoury Revocable Trust U/AID January 27,1987, as amended 2505 Congress Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92 110 25% Member and Manager Tawfiq N. Khoury and Richel G. Khoury, Trustees of the TNKRGK Family Trust U/A/D December 23,1976, as amended 2505 Congress Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Additional Offkers: Dermis M. Ferdig, Vice President Russ Richard, Manager and President Tammy Miller, Vice President and Chief Financial Offker ---__ _- .^ ?. ;**,, i ‘N*, I I; 5, h - -9 ;$,y’;, ‘r STu ~2%; -kz- ATTACHMENTi l-w’ l-4: I / -- - ‘co l!!!%LE_u___ -. --, - --. STREET .- -_ - -___ --_.I ~_ --.. __ --_-_- ----L-- -------------- +.a-- ---HtGHtAND--DR,~-----------“------------;-----,i~-. p III IIh 6. 4 i P Q f B 9 I I v, Z LLI -e-s”.- ---- - . -- I I - v, Z l&J ncL \ -..--,#,&..~,.-..-.~ . \ \ (-----..p, i.! I- VI Z Id ne m* a’ wa ~>“” sg Itm 05 Z+ L2 a I M -8 g I I . MEI . . ..$g !I! B r v) - f .;I I! II .I i I’i I d i ! ! I i I , j I i I i i I 1 I I , 1 1 I Cl-l-Y OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA AB# I!!; 326 !/a?/f~ MTG. TITLE- DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDiCE OF MA GARDENS PROJECT (CT 98msDp 98-22) : DEPT. CA -.--__- RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 99,26 7, DENYING without prejudice a Tentative Tract Map (CT 98-12) and a Site Development Plan (SDP 98-22) or, alternatively, grant applicant’s request for reconsideration and place the matter on a subsequent agenda to remand it to staff. ITEM EXPLANATION: On July 6, 1999, the City Council conducted a public hearing and denied without prejudice the Magnolia Gardens project (3-O-2 Mayor Lewis and Council Member Nygaard did not participate). The Council carefully considered the public testimony and evidence that was presented at the hearing including concerns expressed about the volume of traffic including school traffic, and circulation and access problems. The subdivision was presented to the City Council as a result of the special standards for panhandle lots in major subdivisions. The Council was concerned that the concentration of panhandle lots presented access, circulation and traffic problems and was not the best use of the site. The Council could not make the findings that the property cannot be served adequately with a public street without panhandle lots, that the panhandle lots would not adversely affect the ability to provide full public street access and safety services, and encouraged the developer to present a redesigned alternative that provides for better access, fewer panhandle lots and/or wider ingress and egress to adjacent streets and better interior circulation. Attached are the findings supporting denial of the subdivision without prejudice. The Council should satisfy itself that the findings adequately reflect its decision to deny the subdivision without prejudice. Alternatively, in its letter of July 14, 1999 to the Council (copy attached), the applicant has requested reconsideration and presented three alternative development proposals. If the Council wishes to grant the applicant’s request, then it should move for reconsideration and place the item on a future Council agenda so it may be remanded to staff and returned to the Council’s agenda at a future date for further review. FISCAL IMPACT: None; project denied. Paae 2 of Aaenda Bill No. 15 3 26 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Since the project was denied without prejudice, no environmental findings are necessary pursuant to Government Code section 21080 and CEQA Guidelines 2 CCR section 15270. EXHIBITS: 1. Resolution No. 913-=1&F 2. Letter from Dennis M. Ferdig, Pacific Scene Financial, dated July 14, 1999. b v W c - m i au, - Y- -!htLK’ I GREET I I I I I: -v-w -_-----r-----------------L- .-.-. s.-------- --.- .- I I I \ I .I 1. ’ I I. ,’ , i * I* I !: J :I :I. me---- ; ,i! t * ” i; I i I I 8; 1: I’ I’ ,‘; : I: . ,* 1: ’ , ! : i* I x _ #2 N -, II - i 8 I -A L.. . w . ‘P -a---- b IfI rr) I if 1’ I’ t II ‘* If ,. - ---I w . .,.-mm - _ . . . . . --. . ___.-..._.._ -.*. ._- . -. --.- ..-.-......- ._- .___.. Hii;H~~~-~@E--*-- -4 _ e-B-- . ---- _- I I ‘. IFI I I \ iI 4 9 I .: II . . (b I 'i: i I ;i: i :. ' 4: ! I ,’ i; ;i 1. 1 . . ,: Ll. El R i zl i ’ -- 1 t T e-d -?D / P : I I i M ! i i I i I / i I ’ : ij / / ., ii I 1 A I * i i ! I I. ._ _ -_. . _ _ _ _ _ -. _. ._. - .-. . . _ - . . . . _. . . -- . -. -. -..-a. - HiGHLAND--zRvr ------- ?-- -4 w--e -- I I I I I .. 1 \i: / &A-- P I I I I I 1 * II STREET ; I’ ~,-,,-_,-,,---------;~-,- I #ALLEY -m-e- ’ N C : m-m--- -J .I I I . a. I .I, I ; .I : : :I - . I i : ; . *I I , ; ’ 1 I* ,’ I 1: I z ( :I I 1 . ------------------------- I . --I - ----- i t w I I T ,I II I I i a’ i I L i *: Ii jl ,’ I 91 jl a’ 1 1 r / : I w) N July 14, 1999 Honorable Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Council Hearings of July 6,1999 and July 20,1999 Magnolia Gardens: CT 9’8-12, SDP 98-22 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: . Pacific Scene Financial, LLC (PSF) is applicant for the above referenced project. As we understand it, the Council has directed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution denying our application. Accordingly, we ask that Council remove the substitute resolution from the consent calendar for discussion, and instead take the following actions outlined in this letter. ‘ The unusual configuration of the property necessitated some unusual design features. However, all requirements for the proposed design have been met or exceeded. PSF contacted neighboring property owners to see whether it could purchase adjacent land to simplify the design, but has been unsuccessful to date. PSF is once again in contact with the adjacent property owners and is negotiating in good fbith. We hope to have some resolution within the next two or three weeks. The Carlsbad Unified School District has offered to meet with us to discuss various possibilities. We understand that a resolution rejecting the project will be brought to the Count51 on July 20,1999. PSF respectfully requests that Council: 1. R&move the substitute Resolution hrn the “Consent Calendar” for discussion. 2. “Rescind, repeal, cancel or otherwise nullify” its July 6,1999 decision. 3. Provide clear direction for PSF and staff to redesign the layout. 4. Continue the project for 30 days to allow the’applicant to negotiate with landowners and review other possible layouts. 5. Order the matter set for another noticed; public hearing a&r the redesign has been completed. We have enclosed some possible layouts for your review that would reduce the number of “pan-handle lots” to between three and five instead of seven. Panhandle lots are common in this area of the City; in fact there are four within the same block as this project. However, we would prefer a more standard lot layout. PSF has worked diligently with staff to provideaccess to adjacent property owners for future development. We have consistently tried to design the project without the need for variances or waivers to design criteria. If a variance for minimum lot depth was allowed, Public Street “A” could be Pacific Scene Financial, LLC 2505 congress street. suite 220 San Dieg’o, California 92110 extended easterly to Valley Street. Unless directed otherwise, PSF will continue to apply the required standards in its redesign efforts. I would be happy to make myself available to the Council members or staff to discuss any comments or concerns they may have. I thank you in advance for your cooperation and understanding. Sincerely, Pacific Scene Financial, LLC Dermis M. Fexdig Vice President cc: City Attorney City Manager Michael Holzmiller Don Neu Enclosures (3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 RESOLUTION NO. 99-267 A RESOLUTION GF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO SUBDIVIDE 4.93 ACRES INTO 15 LOTS WITH TWO SECOND DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND WEST OF VALLEY STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 11 CASE NOME: MAGNOLIA GARDENS CASE NO.: CT 98-12/SDP 98-22 The City Council of the City of Cartsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, a verified application for a tentative map for certain property to wit: ’ That portion of Tract 245 of Thum Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1681, filed in the OfTice of the County Recorder of San Diego County, December 9,1915 has been filed with the City of Cartsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on May 19, 1999, hold a duly 17 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider a proposed Mitigated Negative I8 Declaration. and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and 19 Site Development. Plan to create and develop a 15 lot residential subdivision with two 20 second dwelling units, and adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4548, 4549 21 22 and 4550 recommending to the City Council that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and 23 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and Site 24 Development Plan be approved; and 25 WHEREAS, on July 6, 1999, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held a 26 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the recommendation and 27 28 69 1 -. 1 heard all persons interested in or opposed to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and Site Development Plan, 2 3 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of 5 Carlsbad, California, as follows: 6 1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 7 2. The Council finds that the property can be served adequately with a 8 9 10 11 12 public street without the intensity and density of panhandle lots which are presented in this application. The necessity for panhandle lots does not arise due to unusual topography or surrounding land development. Indeed, surrounding parcels are vacant or undeveloped and approval of this subdivision would forecast their development with 13 panhandle lots. There may be better configurations, by combining with adjacent parcels l4 or acquiring interest in adjacent parcels or by reducing the density and intensity of the 15 16 17 18 19 proposed subdivision. In effect, the site is not physically suitabje for the proposed density of development with panhandle lots. 3. The Council further finds that the subdivision with panhandle lots will adversely affect the ability to provide full public street access to other properties within 20 the same block of the subject property and will necessarily require that the adjacent 21 property also be served by panhandle lots. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i 4. The Council further cannot find that from the evidence submitted on the site plan that all of the requirements of section 21.10.080 will be satisfied and that any panhandle lot may be approved at less than 10,000 square foot lots. 2 1 : z 4 c . t 5 I 5 1c II 12 1: 14 1E 16 17 X 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. The application is remanded to staff for further processing in light of the comments received at its meeting of July 27, 1999, and to be returned to the City Council at a future public hearing for consideration. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cadsbad held on the 27 tt, day Of Jill" t 1999 by the following vote, to wit: AYES:counci~ Members Finnila, Hall & Kulchin NOES: Noqe ABSENT: Council Members L (SEAL) 3 EXHIBIT 8 ldwig besign Group, Inc, November 11,1999 Ray Patchett City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 I REF: REQUEST FOR CONCURRENT REVIEW OF MAGNOLIA GARDENS (CT98-12/SDP98-22) AND CLEARANCE TO GRADE. (CT98-12/SDP98-22) (LADWIG DESIGN GROUP JOB NO. L-l 063) Dear Ray: At the request ofPacific Scene Financial, applicant for Magnolia Gardens, we hereby request review by Council to include permission to grade during the period that urgency ordinance #NS5 16 is effective as specifically outlined in Section 2 of the new ordinance. This project has been before the Planning Commission and also the City Council on July 27, 1999. The Council did send the project back to the staff with instructions to return for future re- consideration at a public hearing before the City Council. < Since that time the applicant has worked with your City staff and we have made some major changes to the project. These changes include reducing the lot count from fifteen down to twelve. Also, we have reduced the number of pan handle lots from seven down to one and no variances are being requested at this time. In addition the project is below the growth control point at 2.43 dwelling units per acre. In addition the miniurn lot size has increased from Lhe previous proposal. Planning and engineering staff are currently preparing project conditions for review again before the City Council. I have been advised by staff (Mr. Bob Wojcik) that this project would be ready for council consideration on December 7, 1999. 703 Palomar Airport Road + Suite 300 + Carlsbad, California 92009 (760) 438-3 182 FAX (760) 438-O 173 r c /a Mr. Ray Patchett November 11,1999 Page 2 Based on the above we ask specific approval from the council to be able to commence grading during the period that the urgency ordinance (NS516) is in effect. In addition, we ask that the Council at the same time consider all the changes that have been made to the project since the Council last reviewed the tentative map on July 27, 1999. ,. Sincerely, LADWIG DESIGN GROUP, INC. Robert C. Ladwig, President RCL:mct.OO:! Attachment cc: Marty Orenyak, Lloyd Hubbs, Michael Holzmiller, Don Neu, Bob Wojcik, Dennis Ferdig 703 Palomar Rirport Road + Suite 300 l Carlsbad, California 92009 (760) 438-3182 FAX (760) 438-0173 7 3 MAGNOLIA GARDENS -CT 98-l 2/SDP 98-22 - PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) This space is for the County Clerks Filing Stamp STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Proof of Publication of Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general -of circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and San Diego County; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: Dec. 4, 1999 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at 6th , California ;s dec* lggg day/ NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising (Form A) TO: FROM: RE: C1T.Y CLERK’S OFFICE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice CT g8-12/SDP 98-22 - Magnolia Gardens for a public hearing before the City Council. Please notice the item for the council meeting of December 14, 1999 Thank you. November 30, 1999 Oate NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 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 14, 1999, to consider a request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and Site Development Plan to create and develop a 12 lot residential subdivision with two second dwelling units on a 4.93 acre site on property generally located north of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as: That portion of Tract 245 of Thum Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1681, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, December 9, 1915. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after DECEMBER 10, 1999. If you have any questions, please call Don Neu in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4446. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and Site Development Plan, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and Site Development Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad atpr prior to the public hearing. 2 CASE FILE: CT 9%12/SDP 98-22 CASE NAME: PUBLISH: MAGNOLIA GARDENS _ c./t 2 c - - c - 1 ~TICLW /L?+ ?Lj CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CT 9842lSDP 98-22 - MAGNOLIA GARDENS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, DECEMBER 14, 1999, to consider a request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and Site Development Plan to create and develop a 12 lot residential subdivision with two second dwelling units on a 4.93 acre site on property generally located north of Magnolia Avenue and west of Valley Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as: That portion of Tract 245 of Thum Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1681, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, December 9,1915. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after DECEMBER IO, 1999. If you have any questions, please call Don Neu in the Planning Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4446. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and Site Development Plan, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and Site Development Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: DECEMBER 4,1999. CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL - MAGNOLIA GARDENS CT 98421SDP 98122 Smooth Feed Sheet9 Use template for 5160@ ~ARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST CITY OF ENCINITAS 801 PINE AVE 505 S VULCAN AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 .I CALIF DEPT OF FISH 6 GAME STE 50 330 GOLDENSHORE LONG BEACH CA 90802 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE 2730 LOKER AVE WEST CARLSBAD CA 92008 CITY OF VISTA PO BOX 1988 VISTA CA 92085 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STE B 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 AIR POLLUTION CNT,RL DIST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 200 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NO SAN DIEGO CA 92108 CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS 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 DENNIS FERDIG STE 200 2505 CONGRESS ST SAN DIEGO CA 92110 ROBERT C LADWIG STE 300 703 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT DEPT CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER DON NEU _. a &\ AvERv@ Address Labels laser 5160@ - ’ BERNICE MILLER PO BOX 1245 CARLSBAD CA 92018-1245 RONALDHOGAN 349 1 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2525 THE HERNDON FAMILY 1350 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-25 16 __--~ ___.. .- ..- ~__ EDWIN & LILA RUDINGER 3457 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2525 WARREN & ZANDRA SPERLING 3440 SPANISH WAY CARLSBAD CA 9200x-2557 OLIVER & JEAN WILLMANN 3450 SPANISH WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008-2557 JEFFREY & RIM SELL 3460 SPANISH WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008-2557 CHARLES’&MARJORIEHUEY 3454 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2524 DONALD & ANNA RUSHWORTH 3460 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2524 MARK & ROSE PORTER 3486 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2524 GERASIM & SYLVIA DAOUSSIS 3490 HIGHLAND DR ’ CARLSBAD CA 92008-2524 COMMXE & EUNICE BELLAH 1490 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2609 THOMAS MULLIGAN 1604 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2613 HARRISON EALY 300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR 108 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2990 TYLER & TRACY BUCKLEY 1590 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2611 ALAN & KATHRYN LEWIS 1634 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2613 RICHARD & ILA SCHMIDT 1650 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2613 STEVEN & THERESE DOLKAS 1674 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2613 -~ ______~. _ ..~ __...~ - .-. KENNETH 8z PAMELA CRISMAN 3485 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2636 SEAN REUSCH 1694 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-26 13 STEVEN & KARYN GINER 154 1 SANDALWOOD LN CARLSBAD CA 92008-2617 MICHAEL & CLARA MARSDEN 3450 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2615 FLOYD & ELSIE GIORDANI 156 1 SANDALWOOD LN CARLSBAD CA 92008-2617 ROBERT WESTFALL 3460 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2615 ARTHUR & JANIS MULVEY 3440 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2615, THE KILLEN FAMILY 152 1 SANDALWOOD LN CARLSBAD CA 92008-26 17 RICHARD SARKISIAN 1536 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2611 - ..~ THE THERRIEN FAMILY 1536 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2611 _ -.___ -~__ WIEGAND NEGLIA CORP 1060 WIEGAND RD 1601 ENCINITAS CA 92024-6662 PATRICK THERRIEN 1536 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2611 - GWEN JONES 3515 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2527 DOUGLAS & SALLY BURGESS 3615 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2529 BARBARA GREER 1352 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2545 ___.--. .-. ..-- .- DONALD & MONICA WYMAN 1330 HILLVIEW CT CARLSBAD CA 92008-2537 MILLICENT JOHNSON 1360 HILLVIEW CT CARLSBAD CA 92008-2537 KAREN STERN-SALKIN 1435 1 MAGNOLIA BLVD 11 SHERMAN OAKS CA 91423-1075 THOMAS & JEAN CARROLL PO BOX 1282 LA JOLLA CA 92038-1282 LAURA LATRONICA 334 1 GRAYBAR CT OCEANSIDE CA 92056-3267 CHESTNUT VILLAS OWNE PO BOX 1282 LA JOLLA CA 92038-1282 GERALDINE MAGEE THE MCLEAN FAMILY SEEWEG 34 1375 CHESTNUT AVE 8590 ROMANSHORN*SWITZ 00000 CARLSBAD CA 92008-25 17 CAROLENE MONELL WINIFRED MCMAHON 3525 HIGHLAND DR 355 1 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2527 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2527 SARAHRAMIREZ LINDA SNYDER 1332 MAGNOLIA AVE 3655 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2545 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2529 BARRY & ROBERT HAASE THE HONDA FAMILY 1342 MAGNOLIA AVE 1328 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2545 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2545 VICKIE COLE MARK & LINDA SHELDONE 1340 HILLVIEW CT 1350 HILLVIEW CT CARLSBAD CA 92008-2537 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2537 EDITH PORTER DONNA ENGLEMAN 1310 HILLVIEW CT 1320 HILLVIEW CT CARLSBAD CA 92008-2537 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2537 MICHAEL CORBIN PATRICIA ICEOWN 35 16 WOODLAND WAY 3520 WOODLAND WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008-2560 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2560 KELLY LYNDON KERWIN & STANISLAS BERTRiM 7628 PALMILLA DR 85 3536 WOODLAND WAY SAN DIEGO CA 92122-4717 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2560 - -~___--~ THOMAS & JEAN CARROLL PO BOX 1282 LA JOLLA CA 92038-1282 RICHARD & KAREN SALKIN 14351 MAGNOLIA BLVD 11 SHERMAN OAKS CA 91423-1075 TIMOTHY & DAWN WRISLEY LINDA SNYDER 3635 HIGHLAND DR 3655 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2529 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2529 . RUTHHAWKINS CHARLES & KAREN KRAUSE TOM & ROBIN MOYER 1274 MAGNOLIA AVE 3650 WOODLAND WAY 3660 WOODLAND WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008-2542 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2572 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2572 TIMOTHY & DAWN WRISLEY MARL4 SANCHEZ LOUIS CANTABRANA 3635 HIGHLAND DR 15 19 CHESTNUT AVE 1537 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2529 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2612 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2612 - PAULA LARGENT 1547 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2612 .__ _--~~ __ - - THE HONDA FAMILY 1565 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2612 JOSEPH DUNN 1585 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-26 12 THE VALDEZ FAMILY JEFFREY ZACHRY RINK0 OZAKI 1605 CHESTNUT AVE 1635 CHESTNUT AVE: 1645 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2614 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2614 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2614 SAMCAITO THE STORM FAMILY MARIA SHARPE 2754 AUBURN AVE PO BOX 636 3656 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2 170 CARLSBAD CA 9201 S-0636 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2528 _-.__ -- _~~~._. -~ .--___--_ - -. _ - - MICHAEL LERNER RAYMOND & DARLENE GAUTHIER ARJE DEJONG 3636 HIGHLAND DR 3582 HIGHLAND DR 622 E MISSION RD CARLSBAD CA 92008-2528 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2526 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-1902 THE BELL FAMILY 3686 HIGHLAND DR -----___--.-~~~-- .- -- -jy- __ .~ iii?- CARLSBAD CA 92008-2528 - ~~ ____ -. MANNON & CLEO NIX JAMES & PATRICIA HANSEN MALCOLM & CHRJSTlNE CARi 1415 CHESTNUT AVE 35 14 HIGHLAND DR 3600 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2610 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2526 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2528 LYNNE LEWALLEN JUNE & CHERYL WIGHTMAN TR4CI DEVASHER PO BOX 2101 3700 HIGHLAND DR 2 3700 HIGHLAND DR 13 CARLSBAD CA 92018-2101. CARLSBAD CA 92008-2531 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2532 -- BOBBIE SCHINDLER CANDACE LYLE JOHN & GRACE MAMAUX 2421 LA COSTA AVE C 5 0 1 MELTON DR 1393 BASSWOOD AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009-73 12 RUSTON LA 7 1270-3443 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1904 ~ MARIENUNN 3700 HIGHLAND DR 19 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2532 RALPH & LANA BURNETT-E 390 GRAND AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2925 MICHAEL & SHARON RONCONE NDC NAPLES PSC 810 BOX 21O*FPO AE 09619 MICHAEL WETZEL 3.700 HIGHLAND DR 20 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2532 KAREN REEL 3700 HIGHLAND DR 16 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2532 RICHARD & MILLER BARDWELL 3700 HIGHLAND DR 8 CARLSBAD CA 92008-253 1 MARK BALLERINJ 3700 HIGHLAND DR 5 CARLSBAD CA 92008-253 1 DIANNE TEMPLE 3700 HIGHLAND DR 15 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2532 MINOSHJA HUMPHREY 3700 HIGHLAND DR 17 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2532 BARBARA CLARK MARY PENDLETON 3700 HIGHLAND DR 18 3700 HIGHLAND DR 9 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2532 CARLSBAD CA 92008-253 1 JERRY & NEPHTALY MEAKIN 206 1 ALLISON WAY SYRACUSE UT 84075-g 17 1 ..__ __. -~-__ --- .- . --._ - ._ DELMON & BARBARA THOMASSON JANICE MCCORMACK FRANK & CAROLYN WALLS 3700 HIGHLAND DR 12 1753 SUNSET DR 4050 SUNNYHILL DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2532 VISTA CA 92083-63 16 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2750 STEVEN & CATHY LAWLER 35 15 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2638 PAUL & CLAUDIA RJHA 3546 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2526 MARCELLA MENEES 298 AHMU TER VISTA CA 92084-2565 GEORGE & ANNE GRIFFITH EDWARD STRAUB JOSEPH & JENNJFER STENGER 1435 CHESTNUT AVE 3690 HIGHLAND DR 15 10 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2610 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2528 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2624 - ._. ___- ..~-- .~ .~ -~ I DAVID BATT THE SHEAREN FAMILY WILLIAM & ELEANOR PALENSCA 340 OLD RANCH RD 1530 MAGNOLIA AVE 3788 HIGHLAND DR BRADBURY CA 91010-1031 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2624 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2533 THOMAS & BONNIE PALENSCAR 3794 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2533. THOMAS & NANCY ELLIOTT POBOX4115 CARLSBAD CA 920 18-4 115 REX & DIANE ALLEN-BAINES 1475 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2610 THE POWELL FAMILY 3609 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2640 DALE OSHIMA PO BOX 497 CARLSBAD CA 9201 S-0497 PATRICK & GINA WALTERS 1826 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2629 SCOTT & MICHELLE RAYMOND 1790 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2627 MICHAEL & KELLY PERDUE 3670 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2639 DEAN FRICKE 3615 MARJORIE LN CARLSBAD CA 92008-2727 _~ -. . ~--~~ ROBERT & FLORENCE LEDESMA 3624 MARJORIE LN CARLSBAD CA 92008-2727 URSULA LEY 1835 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-27 11 -__.__--~ .--.. CORP OF THE PRESJDIN 50 E NORTH TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84 150-0002 JEAN FREIBURGER 1337 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2546 THE JOHNSTON FAMILY 3750 YVETTE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008-2559 JOSEPH & CHRISTINE MOORE 3612 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2639 THE PEYTON FAMILY 3638 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2639 THE DILLARD FAMJLY 1780 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2627 - THE FRIESEN FAMILY 1740 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2627 JACK & MARILYN RATCLIFF 3645 MARJORIE LN CARLSBAD CA 92008-2727 VERNON HOLBROOK 3614 MARJORIE LN CARLSBAD CA 92008-2727 HARRJSON EALY 300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR 108 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2990 B JOHN STEJNBACHER 13 69 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2546 RANDOLPH PEAK 3761 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2534 __ .-.-.~~ - -~ CODY OSBURN 3740 YVETTE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008-2559 - -- - . MARTIN & KAORU OSHIMA 1785 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2709 CAROL PELKNER 817SDYKERD NEW WESTMINSTER BC V3 00000 THE FRIESEN FAMILY 1740 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2627 JEANNE HJELT 1885 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2712 .__ ~-- THOMAS & KRISTEN KELLER 3634 MARJORIE LN CARLSBAD CA 92008-2727 THE MEJIA FAMILY 1845 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2711 MICHAEL SAHAGUN 3556 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2637 --- ~- .-- t ’ JOHN & MARJORIE OAKLEY 1243 LEXINGTON DR VISTA CA 92084-5725 ~__ - COREY WEBER 3785 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2534 ______ -- __-.- - BRENT DAVISON 3730 YVETTE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008-2559 ’ BRIAN & ESTHER CARTER 3720 YVETTE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008-2559 ‘P_._ .--____ ,