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_._ .--____
,