HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-28; City Council; 15672; Rancho Carrillo Village Lrh h
CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# /?67d TITLE:
MTG. &B/b0 RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE “L”
CT 99-I l/CP 99-08 DEPT. PLN @
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
I CITY MGR
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 3 000 - / 61 , APPROVING a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, CT 99-l 1 and Condominium Permit, CP 99-08.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On February 16, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the Ranch0
Carrillo Village “L” project located within the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and Zone 18 Local
Facilities Management Plan boundaries, south of Palomar Airport Road and east of Melrose Drive.
The Planning Commission approved (4-O) the Master Plan Amendment (MP 139(l)), determining it
to be minor, and recommended approval (4-O) of Tentative Tract Map, CT 99-l 1, and Condominium
Permit, CP 99-08, for the development of 84 attached airspace condominium units. There were no
comments received from the public during the notice period or at the public hearing.
The project consists of 84 attached airspace condominium units proposed as 11 two- and three-
story buildings on a 5.3 acre parcel that has been previously graded as part of the Ranch0 Carrillo
mass grading. The Residential Medium High (RMH) density General Plan designation and Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan would allow a maximum of 96 dwelling units.
The project design consists of a single entry from Carrillo Way, just east of Melrose Drive and a
circular private street that provides access to individual units and motor court driveway entries.
Each proposed group of condominium structures is designed so that the majority of garage doors
face interior motor courts. Each motor court serves two four- to six-plex structures, one on each
side. The proposed architectural style is California Mediterranean and structures are varied through
the provision of two different elevations and four color schemes. The street scene is further
enhanced by off-set building planes and variation in front yard setbacks. The project includes an
8,862 square foot common active recreation area consisting of lawn area with tot lot and a pool located in the center of the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Environmental Assessment performed for the project revealed potentially significant traffic and noise impacts that require mitigation. Mitigation includes payment of fees for the short term
improvements to the Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real intersection and the construction of a
combination berm and six foot high noise wall along Melrose Drive. Based on this agreed upon
mitigation, the Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 4, 2000.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All public facilities required to serve the additional dwelling units will be constructed prior to or
concurrent with development as required by the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. As
noted above, the applicant will be responsible for a pro rata share of the cost for short term improvements to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. Development of the
multi-family condominium project will increase land values thus creating a positive fiscal impact in the form of increased property tax revenues.
-
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. / 5 6 73
GROWTH MANAGMENT STATUS:
Facilities Zone 18
Growth Control Point 15.8
Net Density* 10 du/ac
Special Facilities CFD No. 1
Melrose Drive Assessment District 1 San Marcos Unified School District Mello Roos 1
* The project is 12 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. aOoo -lOf
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4721, 4723, and 4724
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated February 16,200O
5. Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated February 16, 2000.
.
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. ZOOO-lQ1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO DEVELOP 84 AIRSPACE
CONDOMINIUMS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND EAST OF
MELROSE DRIVE WITHIN THE RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER
PLAN IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 18
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE L
CASE NO.: CT 99-l 1 /CP 99-08
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code the Planning
Commission did, on February 16, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law
to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
Minor Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and Condominium Permit to subdivide 84
airspace condominium units on a 5.3 acre parcel in the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan. The
Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4721, 4723, and 4724
recommending to the City Council that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit be approved
and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 4722 approving the Minor Master Plan
Amendment, determining it to be minor; and;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 28th day of
March , 2000, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said matters and at that
time received recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or
opposed to CT 99-l 1 and CP 99-08;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council approves Planning Commission recommendations on
CT 99-l IICP 99-08 and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set
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
forth in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4721, 4723 and 4724 on file with the City Clerk
and made a part hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City.
3. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The provisions of Chapter 1 .I6 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial
Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been
made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed in
the appropriate court not later than the nineteenth day following the date
on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the deposit in an
amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such
record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is
extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the
record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney
of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the
record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA. 92008.”
:, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 28th day of mch , 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Hall, Finnila and Kulchin
I NOES: Council Member Lewis
ABSENT: Council Mfiber Nygaard
A-l-TEST: ,, b7pflm
LORRAhE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
C EXHIBIT 2
N- \,\
.
RANCH0 CARRILLO
VI LLAG E “L”
CT 99-i IICP 99-08
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4721
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO SUBDIVIDE 5.3 ACRES INTO 84 AIRSPACE
CONDOMINIUM UNITS LOCATED ON THE NORTH-
EASTERN CORNER OF MELROSE DRIVE AND CARRILLO
WAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 18.
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE L
CASE NO.: MP 1390KT 99-l l/CP 99-08
EXHl6lT 3
WHEREAS, D. R Horton San Diego Inc., (‘Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by D. R. Horton San Diego
II
Holding Company, Inc., a California Corporation, “Owner”, described as
Lot 240 of Carlsbad Tract No. 93-04 Ranch0 Carrillo Villages
“L and M” in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to Map thereof No. 13838 filed in the
office of the County Recorder of San Diego County August 23,
1999 as file no. 1999-582013
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of February, 2000,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to
Exhibit “ND” dated January 4, 2000, and “PII” dated December 23, 1999,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findiws:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Condition:
‘it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project, and any comments thereon prior to
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program 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
it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
1. The developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Ranch0 Carrillo
Village L Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
PC RESO NO. 4721 -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 Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of February 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Nielsen, Trigas and
Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HtiZMIl%ER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4721 -3-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, Village “L”, located on the northeast
comer of Melrose Drive and Carrillo Way, Carlsbad ,CA property
is also identified by APN 222-01 O-44
Project Description: Project consists of developing a pre-graded 5.3 acre site with 84
multi-family condominium units on the northeast comer of
Melrose Drive and Carrillo Way within Village L of the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan. Proposed are 11 two- and three-story
buildings with five six-plex, three eight-plex, and three ten-plex
buildings and common recreation facilities which consist of yards
areas and swimming pool. Project is requesting an amendment to
the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan to reduce the front yard setbacks
and to allow for reduced driveway widths to 24 feet.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines’ for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EL4 Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
’ effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department9
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 Van Lynch in the Planning
Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4447.
DATED: JANUARY 4,200O
CASE NO: MP 139(I)/ CT99-1 l/ CP 99-08
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE “L”
PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY. 4,200O
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-l 161 l FAX (760) 438-0894
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: MP 139(I)/ CT99-1 I/ CP 99-08
DATE: December 23. 1999
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE “L”
2. APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5900 Pasteur Court. Suite 150. Carlsbad
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 19.1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proiect consists of develoning a nre-eraded 5.3 acre site with 82
multi-familv condominium units on the northeast comer of Melrose Drive and Carrillo Way
within Village L of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan. Proposed are 11 two- and three-storv
buildings with five six-nlex. three eight-olex. and three ten-olex buildinzs and common
recreation facilities which consist of vards areas and swimmine ~001. Project is reauestinz an
amendment to the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan to reduce the front vard setbacks and to allow for
reduced driveway widths to 24 feet. Proiect will include frontage imnrovements to Carrillo
Wav.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
cl Land Use and Planning lxl Transportation/Circulation cl Public Services
III Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities 6% Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources III Aesthetics
cl Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
151 Air Quality lxl Noise 0 Recreation
El Mandatory Findings of Significance
.
Rev. 03/28/96
-
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
El
0
q
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION,will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
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. A Negative Declaration is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) and
the Ranch Can-i110 Master Plan EIR 91-04 pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01) and
Ranch Carrillo Master Plan EIR 91-04, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
12-27-W
Date
/A2%)9y ’
Date /
Rev. 03/28/96
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 si&nificant
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but a 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).
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.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
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 revie’w. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less. than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant,
4 Rev. 03/28/96 /3
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, #2 Pg. 122-143) q
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the cl
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18 #2 Pg. 122-143)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18 #2 Pg. 122-143) q
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible q
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18, #2 Pg. 122-143)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or III
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18 #2 Pg.
122-143)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulativel) exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6 #2 Pg. q
122-143)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area q
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6 #2 Pg. 122-143)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6 #2 Pg. 122-143) q
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4
b)
cl
4
e)
f)
8)
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts &lving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102-111,
#3) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15, #2 Pgs
102-111,#3)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l :Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1.15, #2 Pgs 102-111, #3)
Seiche, tsunami, or vblcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I -
5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102-111, #3)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2
Pgs 102-111,#3)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102-111, ##4, #5)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15, #2 Pgs
102-l 11, #3)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102-
111,#3,#4)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l :Pgs 5.1-l -
5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102-l 11, #3)
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
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- q
11, #2 Pgs 95-101)
q
Ll
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
q lxl
q El
q -xl
q (XI
q lxl
q lzl
I23 Ix1
q lxl
cl lxl
q la
q Ix1
q Ix1
q lxl
q Ix1
q Ix1
q IXI
q El
cl lzl
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
c>
4
e)
f)
fit)
h)
0
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11, #2 Pgs 95-
101)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11, #2 Pgs
95-101, #6)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11, #2 Pgs 95-101)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11, #2 Pgs 95-101)
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 - 51.2-l 1, #2 Pgs 95-101)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..&11, #2 Pgs 95-101)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11, #2 Pgs 95-101)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11, #2 Pgs 95-101)
Potentially
Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- Ix1
1 - 5.3-12, #2 Pgs 112-121)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12, #2 Pgs 112-121) 0
c) Alter air movement, tnoisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12, #2 Pgs q
112-121)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12, #2
Pgs 112-121) .u
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
a)
Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188, #3) Ix]
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses q
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs
164-188)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188) q
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188) q
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188) q
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? q
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188) q
b)
c)
4
e)
cl
d
6
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
q lxl
q lxl
q [XI
q lxl
q Ix1
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
III
III
Rev. 03128196
lzl
El
Is1
q
lxl
Ix1
ta
q
Ix]
lxl
lzl
lxl
El
lxl
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24, #2 Pgs 54-
81) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24, #2 Pgs 54-81)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24, #2
Pgs 54-8 1)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24, #2 Pgs 54-81)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24, #2 Pgs 54-81)
q q q Ia a)
b)
c>
d)
e)
VIII.
a>
b)
c)
q
q
q
q
q El
q IXI
q El
q Ix1
q
q
q
q
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-I - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -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)
q
q
q q lxl
0. El q
q q q El
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, q
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5, #2
Pgs 126)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 0
5.10.1-5, #2 Pgs 218)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) q
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5, #2 Pgs 47) q
e) Increase fue hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) q
q q
q IXI 0
q
q
q
q Ix1
q lxl
q Ix1
_
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15, #2 Pgs 189-207)
0
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15, #7) q I
q
IXI
q lxl
q q
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Rev. 03128196 7
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
b)
cl
4
e)
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6, #2 Pgs
208-221)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4, #2 Pgs
208-22 1)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5, #2 Pgs 208-221)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,
pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.8-7, #2 Pgs 208-221)
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7, #2 Pgs 208-22 1)
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
4
b)
c)
4
4
r)
g)
XIII.
4
b)
cl
XIV.
a)
b)
c>
4
e)
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9, #2 Pgs 208-221)
Communications systems? (#l; Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7,
#2 P& 208-221)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7, #2 Pgs 208-221)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7, #2
Pgs 208-22 1)
Storm water drainage? (#l :Pg 5.2-8, #2 Pgs 208-22 1)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3, #2
Pgs 222-224)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7, #2 Pgs 219)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.1 l-l - 5.11-5, #2 Pgs 145-163)
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.1 l-l - 5.11-5, #2 Pgs 145-163)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5, #2 Pgs
145-163)
CULTURAL. RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological’resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10, #2 Pg 93,94)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10, #2 Pg 82-93)
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10, #2
Pg 82-93)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10, #2 Pg 82-93).
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10, #2 Pg
82-93)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant impact Unless impact
Mitigation Incorporated . q q (XI
q q IXI
q q El q q lxl
q
q
q lxl
q El
q cl* Ia
q cl El
q q lxl
q q q -xl q q q lxl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q l‘xl
q q (XI
q q lxl
q q El
q a El
q q lx’l
q q IXI
q q El
q q Ix1
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - q q
5.12.8-7, #2 Pgs 210)
8
q lxl
Rev. 03128196 17
C
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Less Than No Significant Impact
Impact
Incorporated
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ,(#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7, #2 Pgs 210) q q q IXI
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the q
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fsh or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? q
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, q
either directly or indirectly?
q
cl
q
q IXI
q lxl
q lxl
9 . Rev. 03/28/96 /g
C
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Referenced in the above checklist are the earlier environmental analysis that have been
conducted for the project site. Source #l is the Master Environmental Impact Report for the
City’s General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report
(MEIR 93-01) which reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the City’s General Plan,
including transportation and air quality impacts. Source #2 is the Environmental Impact Report
for the Ranch0 Can-i110 Master Plan (EIR 91-04) for MP 139(-F) certified on July 27, 1993,
analyzed all the potential impacts for the development and occupation of the over 1800 unit
residential master plan.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is located on the northeast comer of Melrose Drive and Canillo Way within
Village “L” of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master. The site is 5.3 acres in size and has been pre-graded
with the mass grading of the master plan area. Access to the site will be via an entrance off
Carrillo Way, a local street. The project is bound by Melrose Drive, adjacent to the west, which
is a prime circulation element roadway and Carrillo Way, a local street, to the south. To the
north and east are existing 2:l manufactured slopes which fall to open space. The project
consists of constructing 82 multi-family condominium units. Proposed are 11 buildings with five
six-plex, three, eight-plex, and three ten-plex buildings and common recreation facilities which
consist of yards areas and swimming pool. Project is requesting an amendment to the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan to reduce the front yard setbacks and to allow for reduced driveway widths
to 24 feet. Project will include frontage improvements to Canillo Way.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Air Oualitv
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips. through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
10 Rev. 03128196 19
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.
TransnortationKirculation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include, all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
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.
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
11 Rev. 03/28/96 a0
to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements”, thereby guaranteeing
mitigation to a level of insignificance.
Noise
Noise levels along Melrose Drive adjacent to Units 3 through 6 are projected to exceed the City’s
60 dBA CNEL noise standard without mitigation. In accordance with the “Noise Technical
Report for Ranch0 Carrillo Village “L” prepared by RECON dated May 28,1999 and letter dated
August 13, 1999, noise levels will be reduced to the City’s standard through construction of
noise barriers that are 11’ in height for Units 3 through 5. Mitigation for this impact includes a
combination of an earthen berm and 6’ noise wall, as shown on the tentative map, to attenuate
noise at these locations to the City’s 60 dBA CNEL standard.
III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department. located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(760) 438-l 161, extension 4447.
1. Final Master Environmental Imnact Reuort for the City of C&bad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Final Environmental Imnact Renort for the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and General Plan
Amendment (EIR 91-04), dated February 8, 1993, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
3. Preliminarv Geotechnical Investigation for Ranch0 Can-i110 Villages F, G. L, M. and P,
dated August 1993, Geocon Incorporated.
4. Final Renort of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading. Village L Ranch0
Carrillo. Carlsbad; CA, Dated October 1999, Geocon Incorporated.
5. Undated Renort. Village L. Ranch0 Carrillo. Carlsbad. CA, dated December 1999,
Geocon Incorporated.
6. Preliminarv Hvdrolorrv Studv for Ranch0 Carrillo Village L, Dated April 15, 1999,
Hunsaker and Associates.
7. Noise Technical Renort for Ranch0 Can-i110 Village L, Carlsbad. CA, Dated May 28,
1999.
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 issuance of a building permit. 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 18
LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos
taxing district.
12 Rev. 03/28/96 a
2. The developer shall construct and ensure maintenance of the combination earthen berm and
maximum 6’ high noise wall as shown on the approved Ranch0 Can410 Village “L” tentative
map.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
SEE ATTACHED
13 Rev. 03/28/96
.h
ENVIRONMENTAL MITI-ATION MONITORING CHECKLIS’r, ./age 1 of 1
P a CQ) a @g !k 6’- 8 5 % .- E .- E n P
$ 5 u- 9 E 5 5 E - al 2 = ; E .- I
s E
2 g
3 ‘S r Ei ‘CI s! ‘E 2 g .- P
&j8J CO= o-0 “m $J z
mu m E c= Ernt-0
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASUFUZS
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date
I z/z t/w I Signature I u
14 Rev. 03/28/96 ay’
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4723
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 99-11 TO
SUBDIVIDE 5.3 ACRES INTO 84 AIRSPACE
CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF
MELROSE DRIVE AND CARRILLO WAY IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 18.
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE L
CASE NO.: CT 99-l 1
WHEREAS, D. R Horton San Diego Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by D. R. Horton San Diego
Holding Company, Inc., a California Corporation, “Owner”, described as
Lot 240 of Carlsbad Tract No. 93-04 Ranch0 Carrillo Villages
“L and M” in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to Map thereof No. 13838 filed in the
office of the County Recorder of San Diego County August 23,
1999 as file no. 1999-582013
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map as shown on Exhibits “A” - “HH” dated February 16, 2000, on file in the Planning
Department RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE L, CT 99-11, as provided by Title 20 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 16th day of February, 2000,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Tentative Tract Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE L, CT
99-11, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as
conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any
applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State
Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the
project is consistent with all Titles 20 and 21 regulations governing airspace
subdivisions and the design of multi-family condominiums.
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated by the Master Plan and General Plan for
residential single family uses that are adequately separated and buffered.
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 is limited to the building pad created by the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan mass grading, below the maximum number of units permitted
by the Master Plan, and consistent with all applicable development standards and
design criteria.
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 projects design does pot cause conflict with existing or proposed 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 building setbacks and
separation will allow for adequate air circulation and the opportunity for passive
heating and cooling.
That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed
by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs
against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental
resources.
That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that all applicable biological mitigation measures required by Final EIR
91-04 and MEIR 93-01 have been incorporated into the project and/or added to the
project as conditions of approval.
. cy I-
PC RESO NO. 4723 -2- o(v
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
9.
10.
11.
12.
That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the sewer and
drainage requirements of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and EIR 91-04 have
been considered and appropriate sewer and drainage facilities have been designed
to accommodate the project. In addition to City Engineering Standards and
compliance with the City’s Master Sewer and Drainage Plans, National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards will be satisfied.
The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan and Ranch0 Carrillo Master
Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated February 16, 2000, including,
but not limited to the following:
A. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan Residential
Medium High (RH) land use designation for the site since the proposed
density of 15.8 dwelling units/acre is within the density range of 15 to 23
dwelling units/acre and below the Growth Management Growth Control
Point of 19 dwelling units/acre.
B. Circulation - The project is served by Carrillo Way, a local street, and the
Melrose Drive prime circulation arterial roadway which has been completed
and the project is conditioned to complete all necessary onsite roadway
improvements prior to occupancy of any unit.
C. Noise - Project noise levels that exceed the City’s 60 dBA CNEL standard
along Melrose drive have been mitigated to the standard through the use of a
combination berm and solid 6’ masonry wall.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 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.
Specifically,
A. The project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities within the San Marcos
School District.
B. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and
will be collected prior to issuance of building permit.
C. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be
collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B).
PC RESO NO. 4723
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 13. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
1 Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to final map or
issuance of 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 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.
2. 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.
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. 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.
5. 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.
PC RESO NO: 4723 -4- 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
The Developer shall submit to the Planning Department a reproducible 24” x 36”,
mylar copy of the Tentative Map reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision
making body.
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.
The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Ranch0 Carrillo
Village L Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. .
This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, MP 139(I), and CP 99-08 and is
subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4721,
4722, and 4724 for those other approvals.
Prior to 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 18 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to issuance of building permits.
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.
All entry monument walls and signs, perimeter walls and/or fencing shall be in
conformance with the approved Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan. The noise wall
proposed along Melrose Drive shall be in accordance with the Community Theme
Wall.
The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the
Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official
CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real l&state and the Planning
Director. At a minimum, the CURS shall contain the following provisions:
PC RESO NO. 4723 -5- a9
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.
B.
C.
D.
C
General Enforcement bv the City. The City shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in
favor of, or in which the City has an interest.
Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to
the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have
the right to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be
transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record.
Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the
event that the Association fails to maintain the “Common Area Lots and/or the
Association’s Easements” as provided in Article , Section
the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary
maintenance. If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give
written notice to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project,
setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required
and requesting the same be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty
(30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to
carry out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association’s
Easements within the period specified by the City’s notice, the City shall be
entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to
reimbursement with respect thereto from the Owners as provided herein.
Snecial Assessments Levied bv the Citv. In the event the City has performed the
necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association’s
Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs
incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and
or Association’s Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to
each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to
pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection
against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said
invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of
receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full
within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be
subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of
the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by
means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available
to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot
in the Project for an equal prorata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such
special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing
lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in
the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special
assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal
actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and
his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration.
PC RESO NO. 4723 -6- 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E.
F.
G.
H.
Landscane Maintenance Responsibilities. Maintenance responsibilities for the
common open space lots (to be maintained by the Master Homeowners
Association or the Village “L” Homeowners Association) and for the
exclusive use areas (to be maintained by the individual unit owners) shall be
as delineated on the approved “Maintenance Responsibilities” exhibit, and
this information shall also be shown on the detailed landscape plan for this
project. The Condominium Plan (filed with the Department of Real Estate)
shall be in conformance with the “Maintenance Responsibilities” exhibit.
Balconies. trellis and decks. The individual lot or unit owner allowances and
prohibitions regarding balconies, trellis and decks shall be as set forth in
Article of this Declaration. The exterior patio spaces (ground floor
and second floor balcony space) shall not be enlarged or modified as to create
an enclosed condition (i.e. solarium, screen room, or conditioned airspace).
No parking shall be allowed in the courtyard areas, except within designated
guest parking spaces.
Management shall impose, enact, and enforce provisions preventing
unsightly conditions, including storage of objects taller than the railing or
overhanging the balcony railing to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
16. Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the
County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all
interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a
Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit by Resolutions No. 4723 and 4724 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.
17. 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.
18. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building
permits, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice
that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from
McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning
Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning
Department).
Enpineering
General
19. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall comply with the
PC RESO NO. 4723 -7- , 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
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.
Developer shall provide, to the City Engineer, sufficient instruments (via CC&Rs or other
acceptable record document) for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision
and all the private: streets, sidewalks, street lights, and storm drain facilities located
therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the
owners of the properties within the subdivision.
Developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, actjon or proceeding against the City or its agents, offricers, 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.
Developer shall install sight distance corridors (see below for types) at all street
intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following
statement on the Final Map and in the CC&Rs.
1 TVDe
“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.”
TvDe 11
“No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object shall be placed or
permitted on the subject property along or east of the line designated as the
275’ sight line located at the project entrance, looking east onto Carrillo
Way. No obstructions shall impede nor conflict with the line-of-sight which
is established per City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3
The 275’ sight line is depicted on the tentative map. The underlying
property owner shall maintain this condition.”
The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on any improvement,
grading, or landscape plan prepared in association with this development.
Fees/Apreements
25. Developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
PC RESO NO. 4723 -8- 3a
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
26.
27.
28.
29.
The subject property is within the boundaries of Assessment District No. 96-l (Ranch0
Carrillo). Upon the subdivision of land within the district boundaries, the owner may
pass through assessments to subsequent owners c& if the owner has executed a Special
Assessment District Pass-through Authorization Agreement. Said Agreement contains
provision regarding notice to potential buyers of the amount of the assessment and other
provisions and requires the owner to have each buyer receive and execute a Notice of
Assessment and an Option Agreement. In the event that the owner does not execute the
Authorization Agreement, the assessment on the subject property must be paid off in full
bv the owner mior to final man annroval.
As required by state law, the subdivider shall submit to the City an application for
segregation of assessments along with the appropriate fee. A segregation is not required
if the developer pays off the assessment on the subject property prior to the recordation of
the final map. In the event a segregation of assessments is not recorded and property is
subdivided, the full amount of kssessment will appear on the tax bills of & new lot.
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.
Prior to work in City right-of-way, the Developer shall obtain an Encroachment
Permit for the installation of the private storm drain connecting to the public system
on Melrose Drive. This storm drain pipe shall be a private improvement and shall
be maintained by the owner or future owner(s) of this development.
Grading
30. 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 Final Map approval.
31. 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.
32. Upon completion of grading, Developer shall file an “as-graded” geologic plan with 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.
Dedications/Imnrovements
33. The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all easements required by
these conditions or shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate
PC RESO NO. 4723 -9- 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on the final map for this project. All land so offered shall be granted to the City free and
clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City.
34. Developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best management
practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management Practices
Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to
sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
35. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the
developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided
by law, improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements:
A. Public potable water system
B. Public sewer system
A list of the above improvements shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final
map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements
listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured
improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
36. The structural section for the access aisles must be designed with a traffic index of 5.0 in
accordance with City Standards due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles
with an ADT greater than 500. The structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be
submitted together with required R-value soil test information and approved by the City
as part of the building site plan review.
37. The design of all private streets and drainage systems shall be approved by the City
Engineer. The structural section of all private streets shall conform to City of Carlsbad
Standards based on R-value tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall be
inspected by the City. The standard improvement plan check and inspection fees shall be
PC RESO Nd. 4723 -lO- 3q
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
paid prior to approval of the Final Map or Grading Permit for this project.
Final Man Notes
38. Notes to the following effects shall be placed on the final map as non-mapping data:
A.
B.
C.
“All improvements are private and are to be privately maintained with the
exception of the following:
a. Potable water system
b. Sewer system”
“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.”
“No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object shall be
placed or permitted on the subject property along or east of the line
designated as the 275’ sight line located at the project entrance,
looking east onto Carrillo Way. No obstructions shall impede nor
conflict with the line-of-sight which is established per City Standard
Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3 The 275’ sight line is
depicted on the tentative map. The underlying property owner shall
maintain this condition.”
Water:
39. All potable water and recycled water services and meters shall be placed at a location
approved by the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities and shown on public improvement
plans.
40. Sewer laterals and cleanouts shall be placed at a location approved by the Deputy City
Engineer - Utilities and shown on public improvement plans.
41. All public water and sewer improvements shall be designed and constructed substantially
as shown on the Tentative Map 99-11 to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Engineer -
Utilities.
42. All public facilities required for this project by the District shall be within public right-of-
way or within minimum 20’ wide easements granted to the District or the City of
Carlsbad. At the discretion of the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities, wider easements may
be deemed necessary for adequate maintenance, access and/or joint utility purposes, as
appropriate.
43. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be designed for the use of reclaimed water and
submitted to the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities for review, comment and approval.
PC RESO NO. 4723 -ll- 3g
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
-
44. The Developer shall provide separate potable water meters for each separately owned
condominium unit.
Fire:
45. All buildings classified as R-l occupancies must be protected by automatic fire sprinklers
designed in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
Code Reminder
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following:
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final
map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #l special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 18, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Planning.
The Developer shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name
policy subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval.
Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required
passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and
recreational facilities, in accordance with a phasing plan as approved by the Planning
Director.
Addresses, approved by the Building Official, shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification
and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color, as required by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 18.04.320.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
PC RESO NO. 4723 -12- 3tL
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
with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning
Director prior to installation of such signs.
’ 55. The tentative map approval shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of final
decision for tentative map approval.
56. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer.
57. Some improvements shown on the tentative parcel map and/or required by these
conditions are located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has
sufficient title or interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of
title or interest. The Developer shall immediately initiate negotiations to acquire such
property* The Developer shall use its best efforts to effectuate negotiated
acquisition. If unsuccessful, Developer shall demonstrate to the City Engineer its
best efforts, and comply with the requirements of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
Section 20.16.095 to notify and enable the City to successfully acquire said property
by condemnation.
a 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 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. I
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PC RESO NO. 4723 -13- 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of February, 2000, by the ,
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Nielsen, Trigas and
Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, ChairPerson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: 4
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4723 -14- 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4724
AIR-SPACE CONDOMINIUM
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEASTERN CO
OF MELROSE DRIVE AND CARRILLO WAY IN L
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 18.
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE L
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by D. R Hor
Holding Company, Inc., a California Corporation, “Owner”, described as
Lot 240 of Carlsbad Tract No. 93-04 Ranch0 Carrillo Villag
“L and M” in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, S
of California, according to Map thereof No. 13838 filed in
office of the County Recorder of San Diego County August 2
1999 as file no. 1999-582013
(“the Property”); and
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “HH” dated February 16, 2000, on fil
Department, RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE L, CP 99-08 as provided by
the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and conside
relating to the Condominium Permit.
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
39
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE L, CP
99-08, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the granting of this permit will not adversely effect and will be consistent with the
Municipal Code, the General Plan, master plans, and all adopted plans of the City and
other governmental agencies, in that the project density of 15.8 dwelling units/acre is
consistent with the RH General Plan Designation and Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan
which designates the property for a maximum of 96 multi-family units.
2. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the
neighborhood and the community, in that the multi-family development will contribute
to the balance of housing types in the City.
3. That such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity in that the project is conditioned to comply with: 1) all design and
development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and /or the Ranch Carrillo
Master Plan (as amended); 2) the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan
ensuring that the necessary public facilities and infrastructure will be provided
concurrent with demand; 3) that grading will be in accordance with the provisions
of the Grading Ordinance and the recommendations of the geotechnical analysis;
and 4) that adequate access to the site will be provided from Carrillo Way.
4. That the proposed Planned Development meets all of the minimum development
standards set forth in Chapter 21.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.080,
except as modified by the Master Plan, and has been designed in accordance with the
concepts contained in the Design Guidelines Manual, in that all development standards
for building height, setbacks, separation, recreational requirements, off-street
resident parking and guest parking, and private street widths are satisfied. The
project is designed with usable open space that is centrally located, natural open
space surrounding the development is preserved, and the California Mediterranean
architectural style with two different elevations is compatible with surrounding
development.
5. That the proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural
topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on the
site, in that the project grading is consistent with the approved Ranch0 Carrillo
Master Plan Hillside Development Permit, HDP 91-17, and units will provide
variation in architecture and roof colors as well as landscaping and uniform fencing
on HOA maintained slopes to screen structures from surrounding roadways.
6. That the proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site is
compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or
disruptive element to the neighborhood, in that the project is consistent with the
development type and intensity approved for Village L by the Ranch0 Carrillo
PC RESO NO. 4724 -2- 40
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
Master Plan. Village L abuts Melrose Drive and is adjacent to two other villages
designated for single-family development.
7. That the project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with
the project and does not dominate the project, in that the internal circulation is
designed to provide automobile access to each of the units motor court and to the
guest parking spaces via a private street system and a pedestrian walkway system
that provides access to each unit.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to final map or
issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first.
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, MP 139(I) and CT 99-11 and is
subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4721,
4722, and 4723 for those other approvals.
2. The Condominium Plan filed with the State must be consistent with the Tentative
Map and the Condominium Permit approved by the City.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PC RESO NO. 4724 -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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of February, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Nielsen, Trigas and
Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperson ’
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOI.%&&R
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4724 -4-
‘me City of Carlsbad Planning Departunt EXHIBIT 4
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
Application complete date: January 4,200O
P.C. AGENDA OF: February 16,200O Project Planner: Van Lynch
Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle
Sl BJECT: MP 139(I)/CT 99-ll/CP 99-08 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE L -
Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract
Map, and Condominium Permit to subdivide 5.3 acres into 84 airspace
condominium units on property generally located on the northeast comer of
Melrose Drive and Carrillo Way within the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and in
Local Facilities Management Zone 18.
I. -,.RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4722
APPROVING MP 139(I) and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4721, 4723,
4724 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, CT 99-l 1 and CP 99-08 based upon the findings and subject
to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The Ranch0 Carrillo Village L project consists of a minor amendment to the Ranch0 Carrillo
Master Plan to allow reduced front yard setbacks and driveway widths, a tentative map, and
condominium permit for the subdivision of the 5.3 acre site into 84 airspace condominium units.
The overall development consists of a single entrance off of Carrillo Way to 11 two- and three-
story buildings which are developed around individual motor courts, and a central pool and spa
recreation area. As designed and conditioned, the project is in conformance with the General
Plan, Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance), and Planned Development
Ordinance.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The Village L project is located within the boundaries of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, which
was approved by the City Council on October 21, 1997. The purpose of the Master Plan is to
provide for the orderly development of Ranch0 Carrillo, while preserving the environmental
resources of the area. Grading for the entire Master Plan area was approved under Hillside
Development Permit HDP 91-17. For planning purposes, the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan is
divided into Villages “A”- “T”. The Master Plan identifies the allowable type and intensity of
land uses in each village and provides general development and design standards, requirements,
and the method by which the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan will be implemented. Village L is the
last of the multi-family villages to be approved within the master plan. j
4
MP 139(I)/CT 99-l l/CP 99-08 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE L
February 16,200O
The proposed Village L project consists ofi 1) a minor Master Plan Amendment to allow front
yard setbacks to be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet and motor court driveway widths to be
reduced to 24 feet; and 2) a Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit for the airspace
subdivision of 84 condominium units. Village L is a 5.3 acre site located on the northeasterly
comer of Melrose Drive and Carrillo Way and is bounded on the north by an open space
easement which also separates the property from Village G (single-family) to the east, Melrose
Drive on the west, and Village M (single-family), to the south. The property is designated by the
General Plan for Residential High (RH) density development and zoned Residential Density-
Multiple (RD-M) allowing multiple-family development. The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan calls
for multi-family development with a maximum of 96 units based on 5.1 net developable acres.
The proposed project density is 15.8 dwelling units per acre.
.
The project site has been previously graded into a large building pad as part of the Ranch0
Carrillo mass grading and is therefore devoid of vegetation. The site is surrounded by
manufactured slopes and an open space lot (portion of Open Space Area OS-4) that provides
buffers on the northern and eastern sides. The existing pad will only require finish grading work
and the maximum cut/fill will be within one and a half feet of the existing grade. The proposed
grading is balanced so that no import or export of material will be required.
As shown on Exhibits “A” - “HH”, the proposed project consists of 11 two- and three-story
buildings, consisting of three lo-plex, three eight-plex, and five six-plex. Units will be two- and
three-bedroom with four plan types ranging in size from 1,115 to 1,189 square feet. The
buildings are located parallel to each other with a 24-foot wide motor court in-between. The
length of the motor court depends on the number of units within the -plex. An entry feature to
the motor court is formed by the connection of the second stories of the first units together over
the drive entrance. In two cases the arrangement is reversed such that the arch is at the end of the
motor court (buildings 3 and 5). The two-story units have living area on the first and second
floors and the three-story units have living area on the second and third floors.
The buildings vary between two different elevations and are variations of the California
Mediterranean architectural style, i.e., stucco with tile roofs. One additional elevation is
provided by the reversal of the units so that the back elevation becomes the front elevation. The
proposed architectural design offers four color schemes, a great deal of variation in roof and
building planes, wood shutters, iron and wood rail trim elements, and recessed entry doors.
Offset building planes along with variation in front yard setbacks from a minimum of 10 to 16
feet behind sidewalk or curb line provide street scene interest. All units are provided with a two-
car garage which will be equipped with garage door openers. The project includes 8,862 square
feet of common active recreation area divided into two locations. One consists of horseshoe pits,
lawn area and a tot lot along the western side of the site. The other area consists of a pool and
shower/bathroom facility located near the center of the project. Private passive recreation space
will be provided by ground floor patios and second story decks.
Buildings four, six, eight and eleven have an architectural wall and arch at the rear of the motor
court. The wall is five feet tall. In the middle is a twelve foot tall arch element with an eight foot
tall by twelve foot wide opening. For buildings four and eleven, this element provides separation
of the recreation areas from the motor court. The wall and arch for building four projects into the
50 foot building setback from Melrose Avenue. Section 21.46.130 allows fences over six feet in
height for special uses or under special circumstances to be granted by the Planning Commission. 44
MP 139(I)/CT 99-l l/CP 9~48 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE, L
February 16,200O
Page 3
In that the wall for building four provides an element of separation between the recreation area
and motor court; the architectural feature will not be visible from Melrose Avenue because of the
noise wall which is 35 feet to the west; and the architectural feature adds interest; staff
recommends support of this feature.
Access to the project is provided from Carrillo Way by Private Drive “A” which has divided
entry with a 24 foot wide ingress and 24 foot wide egress reviewed and approved by Engineering
and Fire Departments. The project is served by 32 foot wide private streets with guest parking on
one side of the street. The private streets provide access to driveway entrances into the motor
courts. These driveway entrances are proposed to be reduced from 32’ to 24’ by the Master Plan
amendment. The distance provided between garage faces is 33 feet which, as shown on the
turning movement exhibit (sheet three of the tentative map), provides adequate vehicle
movement to enter and exit the garages.
Pursuant to the City’s adopted Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, 15% of the base dwelling units
in the Master Plan must be provided for lower income households. The affordable housing
requirement has been satisfied for the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan through the provision of 198
affordable (rental and for sale) units in Village B as well as 50 second dwelling units dispersed in
various villages.
The project is subject to the following land use plans, policies, programs and zoning regulations:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
General Plan;
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan (MP-l 39 and its amendments);
Planned Development and Residential Density-Multiple Zone Ordinance
Standards;
Subdivision Ordinance;
Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code)
and the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies in tables and project specific
discussions.
A. General Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan. Table 1
below indicates how the project complies with the Elements of the General Plan which are
particularly relevant to this proposal.
-
MP 139(I)/CT 99-l l/CP 99-08 - RANCH0 CARFULLO VILLAGE. L
February l&2000
Page 4
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT USE CLASSIFICATION,
GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR
PROGRAM
PROPOSED USE AND
IMPROVEMENTS
COMPLIANCE
Land Use Site is designated for Residential- The project consists of multi- Yes
High Density uses which allows 15 family residential units at a
- 23 dwelling units per acre and 19 density of 15.8 dufac.
du/ac Growth Control Point.
Ensure that all hillside
development is designed to
preserve the visual quality of the
pre-existing topography.
Grading is consistent with the
approved HDP for the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan.
Yes
Permit the approval of
discretionary actions and the * The project is conditioned to
development of land only after construct/install all public Yes
adequate provision has been made facilities necessary to serve the
for public facilities and services in development. Citywide and
accordance with the Growth quadrant wide public facilities
Management public facility are adequate to satisfy the
standards. additional demand, therefore,
the project is consistent with
the Zone 18 LFMP.
Housing Ensure that master planned The affordable housing Yes
communities and all qualified requirement for the Ranch0
subdivisions provide a range of Can-i110 Master Plan has been
housing for all economic income satisfied through the provision
ranges. A minimum of 15% of all of 198 multiple family units
units approved in master planned and 50 second dwelling units.
communities shall be affordable to
lower income households.
Circulation Require new development to
construct all roadways necessary
prior to or concurrent with need.
The project is conditioned to
complete all necessary street
improvements prior to
occupancy of any unit.
Yes
Noise 60 dBA CNEL is the exterior noise The project is conditioned to Yes
level and 45 dBA CNEL is the comply with the 45 dBA
interior noise level to which all CNEL interior noise standard
residential units should be and the 60 dBA CNEL
mitigated. exterior noise level standard
through the construction of a
a noise wall designed in
conformance with the
community theme wall.
MP 139(I)/CT 99-l l/CP 99-08 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE, L
February 16,200O
Paere 5
B. Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan
The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan requires that projects be developed to the Planned
Development standards unless an alternative standard is stated within the specific Village special
design criteria. The project requires a Master Plan amendment to the Village L standards to
allow front yard setbacks to be reduced from the minimum 20 foot standard required by the
Planned Development Ordinance to a minimum of 10 feet and to allow the private driveway
width standard to be reduced from 30 feet to a minimum of 24 feet for driveways and motor
courts.
In accordance with the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, amendments determined to be minor by the
Planning Commission may’ be approved and implemented administratively by the Planning
Director. Staff recommends that the proposed Master Plan amendment is “minor” because the
addition of two development standards to the special design criteria for Village L will not affect
allowable density, and boundary or use changes are not being proposed. The Master Plan
permits 96 multi-family units. If the Planning Commission determines that the amendments are
“minor,” the proposed graphics and text changes can be incorporated into the Master Plan
without either a public hearing or further City action. It should be noted that the project
including the amendment is being considered in a public hearing context. Therefore, conversely
if the Commission determines that the amendments are “major” or otherwise a matter requiring a
public hearing, its action would be to forward a recommendation on both the project and the
amendments to the City Council.
Reduced Setback
Justification for the reduced front yard setbacks is based on the project’s somewhat unique
design. The proposed multi-plex units are designed around interior motor courts whereby no
garage doors will face directly onto the street, with the exception of buildings five and three
which are of reversed design. The proposed buildings will have varying front yard setbacks
ranging from a minimum of 10 to 16 feet from the private street. The overall variation in setback
creates a much more interesting street scene than a consistent 20 foot setback with garage doors
along the entire street scene. The project’s looped circulation pattern avoids a linear or “tunnel”
design that would demand greater setbacks to mitigate visual impacts. The buildings also exhibit
great variety and interest due to both good building articulation and variation in roof line and
direction.
Reduced Drivewav Width
Justification for the reduced driveway width to 24 feet is also based on the project’s design. The
proposed amendment would reduce the private driveway entrances into each motor court to 24
feet. Although technically the 30 foot wide Planned Development standard for private driveways
applies to the proposed driveways, the intent of the standard is to allow private streets that are
defined as private driveways to be 30 feet in width because they serve 12 or fewer units. The
proposed driveways are not designed as private streets; they are entrances into interior motor
courts that have a minimum width of 24 feet. Within the project, the proposed private streets that
provide access to these driveways conform to the Planned Development Ordinance private street
standards, i.e. 32 feet wide with parking on one side.
47
MP 139(I)/CT 99-l l/CP 4~-08 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGL L
February 16,200O
Page 6
As described below, the proposed project complies with the applicable Ranch0 Carrillo Master
Plan requirements including: 1) product type and density; 2) approved Hillside Development
Permit HDP 91-17; 3) Master Plan Community development standards and Village development
standards; and 4) Master Plan infrastructure requirements.
1. The Master Plan designates Village L for multi-family development with a maximum
density of 96 dwelling units based on the Growth Management growth control point of 19
dwelling units/acre for the applicable RH General Plan designation. The proposed
project consists of 84 multi-family condominium units on 5.3 net developable acres for a
density of 15.8 dwelling units per acre.
2. The proposed development is consistent with the approved Hillside Development Permit
(HDP 91-17) in that the rough-grading that has been done on the site is consistent with
the approved mass grading design for the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan area. The
proposed finish grading will only require cut and fill depths of one and a half feet and
will be balanced grading.
3. The project will not adversely impact the overall cohesiveness and appearance of the
Master Plan area. The California Mediterranean architectural style is one of the styles
permitted by the Master Plan and the proposed materials and colors are similar to other
single family and multi-family developments in the neighborhood. The project will
provide onsite parking and recreational facilities to adequately serve the project, and it is
buffered from surrounding development by open space to the north and east.
As required by the Master Plan community development standards and Village L
development standards and special design criteria, a 50’ building and landscape setback is
provided along Melrose Drive to screen the units from the roadway and to buffer
residential units from traffic noise. The existing landscaping within this setback area is
consistent with the Master Plan landscape requirements, and a proposed berm and 6 foot
high noise wall will reduce exterior noise levels to 60 dBA or below as required by the
General Plan. Streetscape landscaping, community theme walls and fences, and village
fences, as well as a village entry monument at the project entrance, will be provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan. The access to Village L from Carrillo
Way has been laid out in accordance with the requirements of the Master Plan. Internal
streets have been designed to City private street standards and will consist of curb, gutter,
and sidewalk to the right-of-way widths specified in the Master Plan.
4. The project is conditioned to require that all public facilities necessary to serve the project
are provided prior to, or concurrent with, development in accordance with the Zone 18
Local Facilities Management Plan. All project related off-site public street and storm
drain improvements are already installed. Surface runoff will drain to a private storm
drain system within the project limits that will connect to an existing public storm drain
located in Melrose Drive, and sewer lines will gravity flow and connect to an existing 8”
sewer main located at the northwestern comer of the site.
MP 139(I)/CT 99-l l/CP 4r-08 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGb L
February 16,200O
Page 7
C. Planned Development Ordinance and Residential Density-Multiple Zone
The development standards of the Residential Density-Multiple @D-M) zone are replaced by the
same or more restrictive requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance. Table 2 below
summarizes the project’s compliance with the applicable development standards from the
Planned Development Ordinance (PD) and/or Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M) zone:
TABLE 2 - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPLIANCE
STANDARD REQUIRED PROPOSED
Dwelling Unit Setback from
Palomar Airport Road and
Melrose Drive
Street Widths:
50 feet minimum 50 feet minimum
32 feet (Parking on one side) 32 feet
Driveway Widths: 1 30 feet (No parking) I *24 feet
*The reduced driveway width is proposed as a Master Plan amendment to the special design
criteria for Village L. Justification for this reduction is provided under Section B, Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan - reduced driveway width.
**The reduced setbacks are proposed as a Master Plan amendment to the special design criteria
for Village L. Justification for this reduction is provided under Section B, Ranch0 Carrillo
Master Plan - reduced setback of this report.
Setbacks:
Multi-family:
Building Height:
20 feet
35 feet
**lo - 16 feet
35 feet
Building Separation (PD)
Recreation space:
10 feet minimum
Common active:
8,400 square feet
18 feet minimum between
buildings
Swimming pool w/ pool
building and active rec. area
at 8,862 square feet
Private passive: Private patio and/or deck
Recreational vehicle storage
PW
Required to provide Provided in Village T per
Master Plan
D. Subdivision Ordinance
The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and has concluded that the
subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s
Subdivision Ordinance. As noted in Section A and B above, all infrastructure improvements are
installed or will be installed concurrent with development. The proposed building setbacks and c/9
MP 139(I)/CT 99-l l/CP 9r-08 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE. L
February 16,200O
Page 8
structure separation will allow for adequate air circulation and the opportunity for passive
heating and cooling.
E. Growth Management Ordinance - Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan
The project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 18 in the City’s southwest
quadrant and is subject to the conditions of the Zone 18 LFMP. The 84 units proposed are 12
units below the Growth Management control point allowance of 96 units for the 5.3 net
developable acre site. The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan has mitigated all facilities impacts
created by this subdivision.
1 STANDARD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
1 IMPACTS 1 COMPLIANCE
1 Water ) 18,480 GPD 1 Yes
* The project is 12 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The initial study (EIA-Part II) prepared in conjunction with this project determined that the
project would not have a significant impact on the environment. The project falls within the
scope of the City’s MEIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (EIR 93-01) certified in
September, 1994, in which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for cumulative
impacts to air quality and traffic. The project is in compliance with, and incorporates the
mitigation measures of, the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan EIR 91-04. An Average Daily Trip
(ADT) of 672 would be generated by the proposed project. This ADT is consistent with the
generation rate analyzed for the site in the MEIR.
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. 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
3-o
MP 139(I)/CT 99-l l/CP 4r-08 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGL: L
February 16,200O
conditioned to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements,” thereby
guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance.
In consideration of the foregoing, on January 4, 2000 the Planning Director issued a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the proposed project.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 472 1 (ND)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4722 (MP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4723 (CT)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4724 (CP)
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Statement
Reduced Exhibits
Exhibits “A” - “HH” dated February 16,200O
VL:cs:mh
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: MP 139(I)/CT 99-l l/CP 99-08
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE L
APPLICANT: D. R. Horton San Diego Inc.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Subdivide 5.3 acres into 84 airsnace condominium units on
pronertv generallv located on the northeast comer of Melrose Drive and Carrillo Wav within the
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and in Local Facilities Management Zone 18.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 240 of Carlsbad Tract No. 93-04 Ranch0 Carrillo VillaPes “L
and M” in the Citv of Carlsbad. Countv of San Dieno. State of California. according to Man
thereof No. 13838 filed in the office of the Countv Recorder of San Dieeo County August 23,
1999 as file no. 1999-582013.
APN: 222-010-44 (uortion) Acres: 5.3 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 84
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Residential High (RH)
Density Allowed: 15-23 Density Proposed: 15.8
Existing Zone: RD-M Proposed Zone: RD-M
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Site
North
South
East
West
Zoning
RD-M
OS
OS/R-l
RD-M
OS
General Plan
RH
OS
RLM
RD-M/OS
OS
Current Land Use
Vacant
Open space
Open Space
Vacant/Open Space
Open Space
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: San Marcos Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 84
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
El Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued Januarv 4.2000
l-l Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
III Other,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE L - MP 139(I)/CT 99-l l/CP 99-08
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 18 GENERAL PLAN: Residential High
ZONING: Residential Medium Densitv
DEVELOPER’S NAME: D.R. Horton San Diego Inc.
ADDRESS: 1010 S. Coast Highway 101. Suite 101. Encinitas Ca. 92024
PHONE NO.: (760) - 634-6700 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 222-010-44-00
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 5.3 acres
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: N/A
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 292
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 155
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 84 edu
Park: Demand in Acreage = .58
Drainage: Identify Drainage Basin = Batiauitos
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 672
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 2.5. and 6
Open Space: Acreage Provided = 189.9 (Master Plan)
Schools: San Marcos Unified
Elementary 22.5
Junior 8.2
High 8.3
Sewer: Demands in EDU 84
Water: Demand in GPD = 18.480
The project is 12 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
5-3
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
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this .and any other county, city and county. city
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other soup or combination acting as a unit.”
Agents mal; sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and propeq owner must be
provided below.
I. .4PPLICAXT (Xot 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 coruorarion or uaflnershio. include the
names. title. addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
INDIVIDUALS 0W-N MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES. PLEASE WDICXTE 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 ma\’ be attached if
necessap.)
Person &l,., 0. &pyc Jr. carp/pan D.R. Horton San Diego, Inc.
Title 13iV PWS.
Address
Title
Address 1010 S. Coast Hwy 101, Ste 101
Encinitas; CA 92024
‘) -. OWNER (Xot the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of m persons having any ownership
interest in the propeny involved. Also. provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e.
partnership. tenants in common. non-profit. corporation. etc.). If the ownership includes a
. corporation or uartnershio. include the names. title. addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF FjO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES.
PLEASE INDICATE 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
pase Inay be attached if necessary.)
Person Z&e D. err Jr.
Title 0 iv. PWc
Carp/Pan D.R. Horton San Diego Holding
Title Company, Inc
Address Address 1010 S. Coast Hwy 101, Ste 101
Encinitas, CA 92024
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carisbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-11610 FAX (760) 438-0894 d@
- -
2. .
3:
NON-PROFIT ORGANXZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (I ) or (2) above is a normrofit orranization or a trust. list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
orgnization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non ProfWTrust Non ProfWTrust
Title Title
Address Address
Have you had more than 5250 worth of business transacted with any member of Cit\, staff.
Boards. Commissions. Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
q Yes El NO If yes. please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
Signature of appIicant/date
JoAn 13. Kerr Jr.
Print or t>*pe name of owner
CLL I>. 1C4PP .3-r .
Print or Fpe name of applicant
Signature of wnerlapplicant’s agent if applicableidate
Print or type name of owneriapplicant’s agent
2 i?’ l 1”‘?411 lr’T’3 CllCP, nc, ,DT C’A-rEMEp<T 5’99 Page 2 of 2
E 0 E’ nl--l rzi- gc= $ -$s= i ‘z1 a
kl E
a i!
F;
Y; B!
-n-
\ “‘ i--
t f s & - E! a AS a
jg
I p * 1 P
”
-I
g
ha
& % 5 2 W
z
B 0
P
4
2
!
!
I
/
/ii i,,
-/
.?(i,
y i :
“2’ ’ n -2e ? :
t I \
-z3 -,
‘;z -;,
‘:: ‘1
2 ~,
j 4, -=+- 5, *. $-- _,. =, & ,- I-.. r 1 ~ ,;~ $-
m .-w E y #‘,61 7 I, ,T I- 74; PrnlW ,_ ‘Pw : :I_;~. .a- b “- l.5. ! 4’
1
7 ‘I ~.
5: /
-I
&! -/
4-
1
- -;
7 4
I 7-7 ‘4 - -- 1 --- -__- t I
:
?”
1 r
i i : 1 I
I
1 r
L
I
~ :,,
I,
, ;
-;
,
.- ‘1 . . :
r-c...---. .~ 44 -9 ..- .- ~. ---.. ----~.--.----__~_.-.--_ - __--______-.. , I
..- r~,,--- - 7 & cc, ----. /------ - R ------_.___ 0-d ---_
TOTAL. 1.189 SF GARAQE IVQ I w4. “U __->.-. ~- --
_/--
-=I___
---.___
35 -z
-l
I_.
- -- .- --. -..:-~c-.--- /’
I,.--. I
.: 7
UC-E *‘x50* P-ACE-E\’ COTRESPS4SS ‘0 A E,Ev/l-C\
6-UNIT BUILDING
FIRST FLOOR
VILLAGE ‘L’
FOR D.R. HORTON wmvPI4Du‘,
597 9.F
2
511 SF.
1 /
Ii 841 S.F.
,z
11
“I [-
/ ‘D /
DECK 7-T x w-7 UWNQ *t-w . W-I.
Yf;tf --
-3
fc2
i -
AT
DmMG .Q x co 2
-:fl
- I- BATH
3!!& -A 3E
hCTE tilh30h ‘-ACE-TUT COsrzE “ONDB
-c A E-E‘/A-O\ i
6-UNIT BUILDING
SECOND FLOOR
VILLAGE ‘L’
.
FOR D.R. HORTON
q’
Q; Q od 497 8.F w,rl CYI w.
WT”
i;\e*w 2
BFJE.2 j
v k
r”
498 S.F. WI0 EXT. WALLS
606 SF WITH EXT. WAL
,OTE N \50+. P-;CE’E+.- ‘,s54E5=otas -0 L E-EVA- cz
6-UNIT BUILDING
THIRD FLOOR
VILLAGE ‘L’
FOR D.R. HORTON -4DnO ,:c-I’m
-
TFCCF 5-0-S 4 ‘1
I “/I
6-UNIT BUILDING
ROOF PLAN
VILLAGE ‘L’
FOR D.R. HORTON . v%oe”W DBYL
- ,‘--
..--, i
;
1
_*. I_ -- .._
/, . . . ..;-~
1) I
.a --. . ,
_.f .
. . . - i. 7 ! 8 Y
. .
!
I i -
It----TiijDi.iZm
t -4 m hlmk3oMll mw 6-m 1
_-* -. --
.. r-* ,.
AI CI
i - -. -
-4’-- -_.
_-
Cd
:l,‘-i~~.~:.-~~--” I , if -7 j
> -! *-+ * w ; 2. ‘-.&ql - : 2
! I I ! I
Q@OGJBO
‘t i ,~ -.-. -.
7 ,.
I /
.~-
* -__ =zz-
F== tT
F
I, ::
I. 1 f, i ---a- “-2, ri’;k Y-----~ -- II &=-= /I * ___. zZ=Si’ ,--
--------l:- ;;;*
I--
I
! = j :f+t-
-.-
/ ~----- /,.& *.--.-- .-.- ~. -..l gi
i ,l-.A
.-;-
_ ..j _..~-_ ~__.
t --
L ._ , .__~. - ~__
--a ---. __- --L.. .--.-,
.‘a* -.1-* .A, -.+-A ,‘. ---.,
7:; .m?,E-
“z-z :I
F
6
,
\
:\, :- -.
-
-
TOTAL. I.?@2 S.F.
8-UNIT BUILDING
FIRST FLOOR
)) .- - -_ -- . .._ _ ji __ -> . --
4
___ _--- --’
/, ---- .__
‘11
/]v 1 -JI.> .._---
;I ----.. .._.
;/ -.. ._ ._ --) _ - .--~ _ . -.--
\c-c h \.35* =-iz~-I\- CO9ES~OKx -0 ^ E-EVA-C,
VILLAGE ‘L’
FOR D.R. HORTON ?XE%?l.I.DWb
F QD,S
687 SF.
171 SF
0
A 671 SF.
/ ri
li 841 SF.
BEDROOM 3
I k--
\OF )* \ZOh “-‘iCE”EZ- to*PEs-h55 TO L E-E’,i-=\
8-UNIT BUILDING
SECOND FLOOR
VILLAGE ‘L’
FOR D.R. HORTON wIIP2SDUO
WW EXT. WALLS ;pt?+rJ -- ^.._
Rkl
Y
I I- I -
--.d w.r. WI0 EXT WALLS +: I I : ,
WITHSED%LLS -&i?hi?- ~~~.2
P
1
4sE SP. WI0 EXT. WALLS 50s IF ___ _-. WITH EXT. WALLS
\iS-E: n \3c* P-.eE’EV~ C3R4E5POW5 -0 0 E-E”i-s\
8-UNIT BUILDING
THIRD FLOOR
VILLAGE ‘L’
FOR D.R. HORTON s (IIDIN.” DUG
8-UNIT BUILDING
ROOF PLAN
VILLAGE ‘L’
FOR D.R. HORTON wmLT.8 DWld
.-_~- __
, ..--~.:Y __~_
I
~1 .---
_. = : ..~ _,.. -- .-f I -MY, --_. - _- _..-._
: ._I’-- -_-I J *-_:’
L--- ? , A-.i A L- ~~ -_ -.-.-&
T t lN3mB *w-J xvii ..oa -__ .--‘, I
++----q..- _~.__ ~_. _~~__ I- AlaI*-) ‘yyw .D,sE + I
1 -f ” I / TV-
t- (.-..-.--- -.- _ lN3w-n AtlolaMTrn~.~e-E - - 4
-
,
I
1
I
1
I
I
,
\
jl
I? .r
18
,B
i 1 e ! :
%
I3
I-’ ,
‘Jm nr\
QJo”4;
TOTAL. I.188 SF se *I
i p& ‘1
TOTAL, 1.m SF oe II
v Q ID’ 0’1
TOTAL. l.M.7 8.F as aI
-=L/-- ------._._ --.___
QIRIQE aWe I 2-4.
___--- . ~-.--
-<~---- -
-.. -------by. _.__
___ __.- A- - --
-
-=-
--------_
-.-
-\t /--
/’ L.
,cTE h’Y5Ch ‘-LCE’EV CO=AE5’0\35
TS A LE./A-a
IO-UNIT BUILDING : 5 + 5
FIRST FLOOR
VILLAGE ‘L’
FOR D.R. HORTON -.I.,DDWG
P n/v\) ‘3Jl U~/s-/-’ (is, S.F
&I 671 S.F.
0
A
571 S.F.
/pi
l-L
841 SF.
DECK /
1 Ij
i!Ey- 0 7-V x ‘c;
LNYQ P-P I u-w q BMQ
--. ‘><‘\ > -.-~\
lk
‘1--: ’ . . . . ‘\ ‘9 -1. . .~ ._~~_~_ ,.-.- _^
1 O-UNIT BUILDING : 5 + 5
SECOND FLOOR
VILLAGE ‘L’
FOR D.R. HORTON
487 s F. W/O EXT. WALLS 61. .9 F _._ _..
WlTH EXT v
1, ‘:yy-Y{ ,; ._ J -I
50s S.P WITH EXT. Y
WI0 EXT WALLS
ALL!3
498 S.F w/o EXT. WALLS
506 SF. WITH EXT. WALLS
.OI SF. WI0 EXT. W
601 SF W,IH EXT. W
hC’E n h50r\ -->zE”eYT C045ESPOV35
‘0 4% E-E JL- c-3
1 O-UNIT BUILDING : 5 + 5
THIRD FLOOR
VILLAGE ? f L
FOR D.R. HORTON m MII.IODIII X4’=,w
/
1 O-UNIT BUILDING : 5 + 5
ROOF PLAN
VILLAGE ‘L’
FOR D.R. HORTON VwaRE 318 DUC
1.._,1~ -i--I,
.-
.-.+--yt _-F* ----
i d
FA, 1 -- t-i--h
r=== ,
ii I
/
I ~ 1 -A
i !
:
77
I
I I I
! F I @ 3
: I
:
,i ;I, ji!! ,j--’
..~ .-- / --bawl3 M(31sm xw ,s-J.z
UtQwa M(oIs~ll m 6%
+- -- iL -c
I-
F
G -hYV’
TOTAL I.,09 SF. -z-- ~. e6IF
F
-A= --. _,_-A-. _-
d,-_ ._ ----_. _-
/ .._.--. -
<-Y- ---
-.---.. ._ _
GARAGE ame I WC
_- --
__A- --
<. -----_ __
------.- ._ ~~
2.A
ii -2 \
,r
<.::;-:--------
---___
QARAQE m-0. I: euc
_ __-.----- -----.
-=:- -..____
----- __
.- .-_ __ ~.--- _.- -- ~_- ----
---. ._._ _ -_ -->. _--. I .- ----
--
QARAQE now I 2wQ
__/-----
1 O-UNIT BUILDING: 4+6 ‘*o-E N \:cn = -ACE’-‘ELIT C3RRESOYS
FIRST FLOOR -5 ; E-E /Lx%
VILLAGE ‘L’
FOR D.R. HORTON ‘ROOI,,4-0DU(I
I ,,,I~~- PQI ‘.$
‘% / ,!p!“$, 0 DIN1IIG lrw I WQ
;+ m _. _..+ _._d
I LI--_i’ ‘,! 11; pJ?J Tz;a ( C’ I i 1
DECK e-r I M-I,
1 O-UNIT BUILDING: 4+6
SECOND FLOOR \c-B v. \.33n ‘I/i.SEEh’ cc4F+zPs,35 -0 I EbEgATm
FOR D.R. HORTON
498 S.F. w/o EXT. W*L‘s
506 S.F. WlTH EXT. WALLS
/ m
:- : 1 :-j ‘- I,
CL. .^ __
IO-UNIT BUILDING: 4+6
THIRD FLOOR ,0-E h 43SA “,LCE%\T C0~9ES~oN35 -^ L E-E/A-‘C\
FOR D.R. HORTON
______ / -u’ / - P - i+ j i
1 O-UNIT BUILDING: 4+6
ROOF PLAN VILLAGE ‘L’
I 4 , I J
I I I + I I
FOR D.R. HORTON YrmW4L”YO ,I”=,,+
AZ, m.G-8s -- --- -- - ,~ ~. beai3 &3~h3zsiil Y?m O-SE
rlw0Q~L)ylylb-m ? -.-.. TLIwn hWS%i) WV4 a-L2 - -?
I
,
+--
a
f
I j c I
83
I I
,
I
I I
a
1 + I 0 . .
I B
/ Fi! ?
’ 2” d
j
I
I / I
PLANNING COMMISSION February 16,200O lIZAFT Pag~r(~~~~~ 5
1. MP 139WT 994lICP 99-08 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE L - Request for approval
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and Condominium Permit to subdivide 5.3
acres into 84 airspace condominium units on property generally located on the northeast
corner of Melrose Drive and Carrillo Way within the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and in
Local Facilities Management Zone 18.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that the first item on the agenda is a request for a minor
Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Map and Condominium Permit for Village L of Ranch0 Carrillo. The
Commission’s action on the minor Master Plan Amendment is final at the Planning Commission, but will
be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the Planning Commissions’ recommendation on the
Environmental Review, Tentative Map, and the Condominium Permit.
Van Lynch, Associate Planner, presented the agenda item as follows: The project request is for approval
of a Master Plan Amendment, and a recommendation of approval of a Tentative Tract Map and
Condominium Permit. The project is the last multi-family project in Ranch0 Carrillo. The project is located
on the east side of Melrose Drive, south of Poinsettia Lane and just north of Carrillo Way.
Mr. Lynch stated that the site is a pre-graded pad, 5.3 acres in size. It has open space slopes to the north
and to the south, Melrose Drive to the west and Village G residential area to the east. The project is an
84 unit attached multi-family condominium project, consisting of six-plex and IO-plex units on motor
courts. The units are two and three story. The two story units are primarily along the entry to the motor
courts with the three stories behind. The project has common and active recreational areas. The active
recreational area consists of a pool in the center bf the project and some active recreational areas along
the perimeter. The project has a 24-foot entrance and exit off of Carrillo Way. The project has a circular
spine road, with access to the units via a 24-foot driveway into each of the plex units. Each of these have
motor courts to provide access to the garages on the bottom floors of the units. The project does not have
access onto Melrose Drive. The entrance is a two-story structure with the second story over the driveway
entrance into the motor court.
The project is consistent with the General Plan. The project is designated by the General Plan for
Residential High (RH) density development and zoned Residential Density Multiple (RD-M) allowing
multiple-family development. As a high density planning designation, 19 units per the Growth Control
Point are allowed. The proposed project density is 15.8 dwelling units per acre. The project is in
compliance with the housing element. Affordable housing isbeing provided through the affordable project
units in Village B, which has apartments and multi-family condominiums for sale and second dwelling
units throughout the Master Plan.
Mr. Lynch stated that the project has adequate circulation as designed through the Master Plan. The
project has been conditioned to provide noise mitigation in the form of a noise wall along Melrose Drive.
The project is designated as a multi-family site and is proposed as such. The maximum number of units
proposed in the Master Plan is 96 units. With the project proposing 84 units it conforms to the Master
Plan.
The architectural style of the proposed project is California Mediterranean, i.e., stucco with tile roofs,
beige earth tone colors. A 50-foot landscape setback from Melrose Drive is provided. The proposed
community wall fences an entry monument, which,conforms to the design guidelines of the Carrillo Master
Plan. The site access is solely from Carrillo Way. There are constraints that require the project to have
one point of entry and exit, i.e. intersection spacing for a right-in, right-out from Melrose Drive and Carrillo
Way. If one were provided there would be potential traffic conflicts. The safety issue is proposed to be
overridden by providing only one point of access. The safety issue is also mitigated by all of the units
having fire sprinklers.
The amendment is for standards from the private‘street requirement of 30 feet. The design for the
driveways of this project are more of a driveway than a street, as the driveways do not provide through-
access to another unit or any location beyond the units. Engineering has reviewed the turning
movements for vehicles in the motor court, and found them to be adequate. The building height
requirement of 35 feet is complied with. Building separation of 18-feet is provided. Recreational areas
active, common and passive are provided. RV storage is provided by the Master Plan on the western
portion of the Master Plan site. Mr. Lynch indicated that a Negative Declaration was prepared and the
PLANNING COMMISSION February 16,200O Page 2
Mitigation Measures were for noise on Melrose Drive and for the traffic impacts on El Camino Real and
Palomar Airport Road interim.
In conclusion, Mr. Lynch stated that Staffs’ recommendation is that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution No. 4721, which determines the Master Plan Amendment as minor in nature and adopt the
remaining Resolutions, recommending approval of the project to the City Council.
Commissioner Welshons asked if the fire sprinklers were mentioned in the Resolution.
Mr. Lynch responded that there is a fire condition that all of the buildings conform to the Uniform Building
Code.
Commissioner Welshons referred to the ground floor patio, noting there were no living quarters on the
ground floor. She wanted to know how the space would be used.
Mr. Lynch responded that it was patio space, which is an amenity that has been provided and the
architect could better address the issue of its actual use.
Commissioner Welshons referred to Resolution 4723, pages 5, 6 & 7, noting that some of the units face
Melrose Drive. She wanted the appearance of the balconies addressed. She suggested that a condition
be crafted to prohibit the storage of unsightly items on the balconies.
Mr. Lynch responded that regulating aesthetics to Melrose Drive would be appropriate and wording to that
effect could be added to the condition.
Assistant City Attorney, Jane Mobaldi indicated that she had the language for such a condition and would
give it to staff, e.g. “No items shall be stored as to be visible above the balcony railing or overhanging the
balcony railing.”
Commissioner Welshons was concerned about the maintenance of the proposed awnings.
Mr. Lynch stated that the association would be responsible for maintaining all of the project’s exterior
components.
Commissioner Welshons wanted reassurance from the applicant that there would be some relief in the
architectural design as not to create a tunnel vision.
Mr. Lynch indicated that the garages were recessed on the bottom floor and there are also allowances for
two-foot projections for architectural features.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know the distance from the driveway entrance to the project units.
Mr. Lynch replied that the distance is approximately 550-feet. He noted that the private drive began at
Village G, heading south into Village M would be public roads.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know how many units would be in the southern projects.
Mr. Lynch stated that there would be approximately 50 units in Village M.
Commissioner Welshons asked if Village M would take ingress and egress from Carrillo Way.
Mr. Lynch responded yes.
Commissioner Welshons asked if a signal would be installed at Carrillo Way and Melrose Drive.
Mr. Lynch stated that yes there would be a signal installed.
Commissioner Welshons asked if it would be a gated community, where the private road began.
Mr. Lynch responded that further to the northeast it would be gated. 86
4
-
PLANNING COMMISSION February 16,200O Page 3
Commissioner Welshons asked the width of the street into the project on Carrillo Way.
Mr. Lynch replied that the street width was 60 foot from right-of-way to right-of way, one lane in each
direction. There are also emergency access points through Village M over to Red Wing over in San
Marcos and another emergency access to Village G to the north.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if there would be parking on Carrillo Way.
Mr. Lynch replied yes.
Commissioner Nielsen asked what the road width would be.
Mr. Lynch replied 40 feet. There would be parking on each side, with 24-foot lanes.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if this was the sole access for three developments.
Mr. Lynch responded that it was.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that a great deal of vehicular traffic would be using the street.
Chairperson Compas asked the applicant to make a presentation.
Mike Howes, Hoffman Planning Associates, 5900 Pasteur Court- Suite 150, Carlsbad, CA, stated that this
is the last multi-family project in the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan. He indicated that he began work on this
project in 1989. The project is below the maximum number of units permitted by the General Plan and
Master Plan. He indicated that a new product type was being proposed, which has not been provided in
any other part of Carlsbad. He stated that this would fulfil1 a great need in Carlsbad. There is a very high
demand for the 1100 to 1300 square-foot dwelling units because not everyone can afford a 2,000 square
foot, single family attached home. Ranch0 Carrillo provides a wide variety of housing types. He advised
the Commission that the homeowners association would maintain the awnings. Each unit has a two car
garage which allows for a great deal of storage. Restrictions in the CC&Rs will address the issues
regarding no storage of unsightly items on the balcony. He agreed to take a look at the design of the
internal garage courtyard, to determine if pop outs and other architectural features could be installed to
add interest to that area. Addressing the number of units accessing via Carrillo Way, he did not foresee
any problems.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know how many visitor-parking spaces would be available.
Mr. Howes stated that the project exceeded the minimum requirement.
Mr. Lynch interjected that there would be 28 visitor-parking spaces and that the minimum requirement
was 24 visitor-parking spaces.
Commissioner Welshons asked the applicant if he objected to a condition regarding the balconies as
recited by the Assistant City Attorney.
Mr. Howes responded that the condition regarding the balconies was acceptable.
Mr. Wayne stated that the homeowners might become more restrictive than the condition as related to
storing items on the balcony.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
Chairperson Compas opened public testimony. As no one wished to speak, he closed public testimony.
Mr. Wayne asked the Commission to consider these items before making a motion. 1) The Master Plan
Amendment is Resolution No. 4722, 2) The Mitigated Declaration is Resolution No. 4721, that a condition
be added into the Condominium Permit - Resolution No. 4724, Page 3 - 2. The Condominium Plan filed
with the State must be consistent with the Tentative Map and the Condominium Permit approved by the
City and the restriction regarding the balconies, i.e. “No unsightly items shall be stored as to be visible
above the balcony railing or overhanging the balcony railing.” Mr. Wayne indicated that a modification
PLANNING COMMISSION February 16,200O Page 4
was in order for Resolution 4722, Finding 1 on Page 2, thus adding the phase, “...and in addition it shall
not change the densities or the boundaries of the subject property or involve an addition of a new use or
group of uses not shown on the original Master Plan or the rearrangement of those uses.”
Chairperson Compas asked the applicant if the aforementioned was acceptable.
The applicant indicated that the changes were acceptable.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt, Planning Commission Resolution No. 4722, approving MP
139 (I) and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4721, 4723, 4724
recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, CT 99-l 1 and CP 99-08, based upon the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Adding a condition to
Resolution 4723, “No unsightly items shall be stored as to be visible above the
balcony railing or overhanging the balcony railing.” Adding a condition into the
Condominium Permit - Resolution No. 4724, Page 3 - 2. The Condominium
Plan filed with the State must be consistent with the Tentative Map and the
Condominium Permit approved by the City and modifying Resolution 4722,
Finding 1 on Page 2, thus adding the phase, “. . . and in addition it shall not change
the densities or the boundaries of the subject property or involve an addition of a
new use or group of uses not shown on the original Master Plan or the
rearrangement of those uses.”
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
4-o-o
Compas, Trigas, Nielsen, Welshons
None
None
Heineman, L’Heureux, Segall
Chairperson Compas closed the Public Hearing.
88
P--
City
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council
Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, February 16, 2000, to consider a request for approval of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, m
m, Tentative Tract Map, and Condominium Permit to subdivide 5.3 acres into
84 airspace condominium units on property generally located on the northeast corner of
Melrose Drive and Carrillo Way within the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and in Local
Facilities Management Zone 18 and more particularly described as:
Lot 240 of Carlsbad Tract No. 93-04 Ranch0 Carrillo Villages
“L and M” in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to Map thereof No. 13838 filed
in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County
August 23,1999 as file no. 1999-582013
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 February 10,
2000. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at
(760) 6024613.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, , Tentative
Tract Map, and Condominium Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or
city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, w, Tentative
Tract Map, and Condominium Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public
hearing.
CASE FILE: -CT 99-l l/CP 99-08
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE L
PUBLISH: FEBRUARY 3,200O
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559
, - - rfikE COPY
City of Carlsbad
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council
Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, February 16, 2000, to consider a request for approval of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Master Plan
Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and Condominium Permit to subdivide 5.3 acres into
84 airspace condominium units on property generally located on the northeast corner of
Melrose Drive and Carrillo Way within the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and in Local
Facilities Management Zone 18 and more particularly described as:
Lot 240 of Carlsbad Tract No. 93-04 Ranch0 Carrillo Villages
“L and M” in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to Map thereof No. 13838 filed
in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County
August 23,1999 as file no. 1999-582013
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 February 10,
2000. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at
(760) 6024613.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Master Plan Amendment, Tentative
Tract Map, and Condominium Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or
city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Master Plan Amendment, Tentative
Tract Map, and Condominium Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public
hearing.
CASE FILE: MP 139(I)/CT 99-1 l/CP 99-08
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE L
PUBLISH: FEBRUARY 3,200O
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559
RANCH0 CARRILLO
VILLAGE “L”
MP 139(I)/CT 99-1 IICP 99-08
CONTINENTAL RANCH INC CAROL R MCCUE 2237 FARADAY AVE 100 6323 PASEO CORONO CARLSBAD CA 92008-7209 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3012
JOANNE A OSWALD LANCE & TRACI BLOCK 6331 PASEO CORONO 6335 PASEO CORONO CARLSBAD CA 92009-3012 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3012
DAVID N ABELES
6327 PASEO CORONC
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3;;:
ROBERT H SCHAEFFER 6339 PASEO CORONO CARLSBAD CA 92009-3012
WILLIAM E KENNEDY RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER SCOTT MUIRHEAD 6343 PASEO CORONO 12636 HIGH BLUFF DR 300 6347 PASEC C3RONO CARLSBAD CA 92009-3012 SAN DIEGO CA 92130-2071 2ARLSBAD CA 92009-3312
KEVIN HAGLOF JOHN 0 BAHRENBURG 6351 PASEO CORONO 6337 PASEO ASPADA CARLSBAD CA 92009-3012 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3009
JAMES M MCINERNEY JOESPH L ESTHER 6333 PASEO ASPADA 6329 PASEO ASPADA CARLSBAD CA 92009-3009 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3009
JOHN Q BAHRENBURG 12230 EL CAMINO REAL 30
SAN DIEGO CA 92130-209C
DANIEL D SULLIVAN 12230 EL CAMINO REAL 30 SAN DIEGO CA 92130-2090
GORDON & DONNA ZABLOTNY RANCH0 CARRILLP-MASTER 6321 PASEO ASPADA 12636 HIGH/XXJFF DR 300 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3009 SAN D1E.m CA 92130-2071
/'
*** 17 Printed ***
v ': .'
,’ -.
-L
:; -, ..I . i.r , ’
SAN MARCOS USD 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 SAN MARCOS CA 92069
A notice txs been mailed t0 all property owners/occupantS lided herei?. ,
(Form A)
TO:
FROM:
RE:
C1T.Y CLERK’S OFFICE
PC~AYW’W’t4 U’=DEfWRTM E N T
PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notide
CT 99-11 /CP 99-08 -.-.Rancho Carrillo Village “L”
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for’ the council meeting of First Available Hearing
. Preferably March 28, 2000
Thank you.
Assistant Clty Han--
l
March 1, 2000
Date
-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
-
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the
Carlsbad City Council will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 28,2000, to consider
a request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and Condominium Permit to subdivide 5.3
acres into 84 airspace condominium units on property generally located on the northeast
corner of Melrose Drive and Carrillo Way within the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and in
Local Facilities Management Zone 18 and more particularly described as:
Lot 240 of Carlsbad Tract No. 93-04 Ranch0 Carrillo
Villages “L and M” in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
13838 filed in the office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, August 23,1999 as File No. 1999-582013.
Those persons wishing to speak on this matter are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after Friday, March 24,200O.
If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760)
602-4613.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and
Condominium Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and
is very short. If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, and Condominium Permit in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City
of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 99-l l/CP 99-08
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGE L
PUBLISH: MARCH 14,2000
I . . --
PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P,)
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
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general 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:
March 14, 2000
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at sa ~COS , California
this 14th day
of Nmxx March 2000
/ / / Signature
This space is for the County Clerks Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearkg
1999 as Fii No. 1999482013.
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
.Smooth Feed SheetsTM . Use template for 5160*
VALLECITOS WATER DIST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD 1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069 SAN MARCOS CA 92069
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE
505 S VULCAN AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NORTH COAST HWY
ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SANDAG
STE 50 STE B STE 800
330 GOLDENSHORE 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 401 B STREET
LONG BEACH CA 90802 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 SAN DIEGO CA 92101
I.P.U.A. LAFCO AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND 1600 PACIFIC HWY 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
HOFMAN PLANNING
STE 150
5900 PASTEUR CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7317
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
VAN LYNCH
I3 ,&ii AVERY@ Address Labels
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 200
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NO
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
laser 5160@
-
CONTINENTAL RANCH INC CAROL R MCCUE DAVID N ABELES
2237 FARADAY AVE 100 6323 PASEO CORONO 6327 PASEO CORONO CARLSBAD CA 92008-7209 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3012 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3012
JOANNE A OSWALD LANCE & TRACI BLOCK ROBERT H SCHAEFFER 6331 PASEO CORONO 6335 PASEO CORONO 6339 PASEO CORONO CARLSBAD CA 92009-3012 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3012 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3012
WILLIAM E KENNEDY SCOTT MUIRHEAD 6343 PASEO CORONO 6347 PASEO CORONO CARLSBAD CA 92009-3012 92130-2071 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3012
KEVIN HAGLOF JOHN 0 BAHRENBURG JOHN Q BAHRENBURG 6351 PASEO CORONO 6337 PASEO ASPADA 12230 EL CAMINO REAL 30 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3012 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3009 SAN DIEGO CA 92130-2090
JAMES M MCINERNEY JOESPH L ESTHER DANIEL D SULLIVAN 6333 PASEO ASPADA 6329 PASEO ASPADA 12230 EL CAMINO REAL 30 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3009 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3009 SAN DIEGO CA 92130-2090
GORDON & DONNA ZABLOTNY 6321 PASEO ASPADA CARLSBAD CA 92009-3009
*** 17 Printed ***