HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-03; City Council; 16119; Charles Jacobs Propertya 13 CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# lb; 119 TITLE:,
MTG. a-200 1 CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY
CT 00-09 &nr TO LfG-01
DEPT. PLN & CITY MGR +
1 RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. &DO I-8;) APPROVING a Negative Declaration
and Tentative Map CT 00-09 based upon the findings contained therein.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The Charles Jacobs Property project proposes the subdivision of a 1.38 acre single family lot into
four standard single family lots and one panhandle lot. Per Section 21.10.080(b) of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, the City Council may approve panhandle or flag-shaped lots where the lot width and
yards shall be measured in accord with Section 21 .I 0.080 if certain circumstances can be found.
The Planning Commission determined that the circumstances can be found to approve a panhandle
lot and recommended approval of the subdivision by a vote of 6-l. Those findings are included in
the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 4860. Planning Commission discussion
regarding the project is included in the attached Planning Commission minutes excerpt.
In summary, regarding the analysis of the panhandle lot, the 1.38 acre property is adequate in area
to accommodate five residential lots greater than the minimum requirement of 10,000 square feet
each, however, there is not enough street frontage on either Seacrest or Ridgecrest Drives to
accommodate the required individual lot street frontage (75 feet measured 20 feet back of the right-
of-way) for more than two lots. The panhandle provides access to the central lot without interfering
with access to any of the other proposed or established lots on Ridgecrest Drive.
Regarding the projects compatibility with the existing neighborhood, several existing residents spoke
in favor of reducing the number of lots from five to four for the sake of lot size compatibility. A
general compatibility analysis of the proposed subdivision lot sizes with the nearest existing lots
reveals that the majority of those lots on Ridgecrest and Seacrest Drives are between 11,500 and
12,500 square feet. Since the project proposes two lots of just over 10,000 square feet and one just
over 11,000 square feet, that means that 2 of the proposed lots are about 2,500 square feet smaller
and one about 1,500 square feet smaller than the majority of nearby existing lots. One lot is
proposed to be about 12,600 square feet and is therefore within the same range as the majority of
nearby existing lots. The panhandle lot is proposed to be about 14,500 square feet and is therefore
about 2,000 square feet larger than the majority of the nearby existing lots. If only four lots were
allowed, the subdivision would result in lots of about 15,000 square feet which would mean that all of
the new lots would be about 2,500 square feet larger than the majority of the nearby existing lots. A
determination of compatibility can be made for either scenario.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The initial study prepared in conjunction with the project determined that there are no
potentially significant impacts. A follow-up Phase 1 soils analysis to establish if there are any
contaminated soils on the site was completed and no contamination was discovered. There is no
evidence onsite of biological significance and all short-term impacts resulting from the grading and
construction of the project will be mitigated. A Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning
Director on September 28, 2000.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 1 b l 1 iq
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of the project will not have a fiscal impact on the City.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. /;lm 1 - %7
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4859 and 4860
4. Planning Commission Staff Reports, dated November 15,200O and January 3,200l
5. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 3, 2001
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2o01-*7 --VOID--
follows:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE 5
LOTS WITH GRADING, STREET IMPROVEMENTS, AND
UTILITIES ON A 1.38 ACRE SITE LOCATED WEST OF
RIDGECREST DRIVE AND EAST OF
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CHARLES JACOBS PROPERT
CASE NO.: CT 00-09
The City Council of the City of Carlsba alifornia, does hereby resolve as
WHEREAS, pursuant t of the Municipal Code the Planning
Commission did, on November 15, ary 3, 2001, hold duly noticed public hearings
as prescribed by law to consider a&Negative aration, and Tentative Tract Map, to subdivide
five lots on a 1.38 acre r&g Commission adopted Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 4859 the City Council that the Negative
Declaration and
time received
opposed to CT 00-09;
Carlsbad, on the day of
duly noticed public hearing to consider said matters and at that
objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or
HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad as follow$! I
1 d
,I That the above recitations are true and correct.
x. That the City Council approves Planning Commission recommendations on
CT 00-09 and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4859 and 4860 on file with the City Clerk and made a
part hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
3. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial
Review” shall apply:
-7 *.:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“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
Chapter 1.16. Any petition or view must be filed in
the appropriate court not later
on which this decision
decision becomes
amount sufficient
record, the time be filed in court is
extended to not
record is either
of record, if he request for the preparation of the
record of the proceedings shall Ile filed with the City Clerk, City of
Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village B rive, Carlsbad, CA. 92008.”
/
PASSED AND ADOPTEDbt a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the -day of&. 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
t. i
CLAUDE A. L@V -- e--c&k+
ATTEST:
/
LORRAINE M. OOD, City Clerk
(SEAL) r : ; ! r
-2-
SITE
CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY
CT 00-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4859
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO CREATE 5
LOTS WITH GRADING, STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND
UTILITIES ON A 1.38 ACRE SITE LOCATED WEST OF
RIDGECREST DRIVE AND EAST OF SEACREST DRIVE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY
CASE NO.: CT 00-09
WHEREAS, CHARLES JACOBS, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lot 25 of Seacrest Estates Unit No. 1, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 3906, filed in the offke of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, June 10,19X
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of November 2000
and on the 3rd day of January ‘2001, 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 Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 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 Negative Declaration
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
according to Exhibit “ND” dated October 9, 2000, “PII” dated October 2. 2000.
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings: -
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration, and the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of January 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
L’Heureux, and Trigas
NOES: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HO%MILL%R
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4859 7
City .of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: West of Ridgecrest Drive and east of Seacrest Drive.
Project Description: Demolition of an existing single family home and the subdivision
and grading of a 1.38 acre property onto 5 residential lots.
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, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. 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 Christer Westman in the Planning Department
at (760) 602-4614.
DATED: OCTOBER 9 2000
CASE NO: CT 00-09
CASE NAME: CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY 17
PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 9,200O
LZMILLF
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 6024600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.car1sbad.ca.m
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 00-09
DATE: September 28.2000
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Charles Jacobs Prouertv
2. APPLICANT: Charles Jacobs
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 7725 Haley Drive, Granite Bav CA 95746
916-791-4610
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Mav 29.2000
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Demolition of an existinp single family home and subdivision of a
1.38 acre uronertv into 5 lots
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
q Land Use and Planning lxl Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
q Population and Housing q Biological Resources q Utilities & Service Systems
q Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
q Water q Hazards cl Cultural Resources
q Air Quality q Noise q Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03128196 9
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Ix1
Cl
cl
cl
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A(n) EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature M&#Jm Date
/D-2- 2-a
Date
Rev. 03/28/96 lo
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cit)
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
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 & 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 Il
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant. and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
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 /a
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
4
b)
c>
4
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source ##(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
4
b)
4
Cumulatively exceed offkial regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l :Pgs 5.5- 1 -
5.5-6)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4 b) c>
4
e) 0
g) h) i>
expose people to potential impacts i&Olving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1.15)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I -
5.1-15) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes’ in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l :Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l :Pgs 5. l-l -
5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Porentially
Sgnificant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q q q
q
q q
q q q
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitqation
lncorporared
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
cl
q q
q q q
q
cl
17
Less Than
Sl_cmficant
impact
q -
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Cl q q
q
q q
q q q
cl
0
0
so
Impact
Ix1
Ix1
lx7
El
IXI
Ix)
Ix]
Ix)
IXI
IXI
lxl
El
Ix1
lzl
lxl
lzl
lxl
lxl
1xI
Ix]
5 Rev. 03/28/96 I3
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
9
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
4
b)
4
4
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
4
b)
4
d>
e)
cl
9)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
IXI
q
q
q
lxl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than
Sqmficanl
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
so
Impact
[xl
lxl
Ix1
Ed
Ix1
Ix1
q
lxl
IXI
Ix]
q
tzl
Ix)
IXI
IXI
Ix1
El
Ix1
lxl
6 Rev. 03128196 ILl
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c)
4
4
VIII.
a)
b)
c)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l :Pgs 5.4- 1
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
4
b)
cl
4
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals orradiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
4
b)
cl
4
4
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas: Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Local Facilities Management Plan: Zone 1)
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
II
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q q
q
PotentialI>
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q q
q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
III
q
q
q
q q q q
q
so
Impact
Is1
Ix]
lxl
lxl
El
IXI
Ix)
lxl
lxl
IXI
lxl
lzl
Ix1
(XI
(XI
Ix1
Ia
lxl
Rev. 03f28196 /a-
Issues (and Supporting Infoznation Sources).
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
a>
b) d
4 e> fl
59
XIII.
4
b)
4
XIV.
a)
b)
cl
4
e)
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Communications systems? (N/A)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-I - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8) .
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l - 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-I - 5.1 l-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l :Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
1 - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l :Pgs 5.12.8-I -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-I - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Potentially PotentialI! Less Than 10 Significant Significant Synificant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
q
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q Ix]
q lxl q El
q q Ix1 q q IXI q q lxl q cl Ix)
q
cl
q
q
q
q 0
q
q
q
q
q IXI
q El
q Ix1
q lxl
q Ix1
q IXI q lxl
q IXI
q lzl
cl 1x)
q lz
8 Rev. 03128196 /6
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than so Significant Significant Slgmficant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mmgation
Incorporated q q cl lzl
q q q IXI
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
W Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refmed from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96 i7
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
GENERAL:
The site is located within an existing development of single family homes and is entirely
surrounded by residential development. There is no indication that the site has any significant
biological value. There are no significant trees or other natural features. Grading of the site
includes the export of approximately 3,800 cubic yards of earth. Standard measures including
limits of work hours, watering of the site and street washing will maintain short term
construction impacts at a level of insignificance. A haul route for the grading export and
recipient location will be established with the issuance of a grading permit.
AIR OUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the foxm of 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 build-out
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 build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2)
measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation
Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including
mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by
City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for
air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects
covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR.
This document is available at the Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
10 Rev. 03/28/96 /B
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-our
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted b!. regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generalI>, include ltll
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even nith the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) 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 build-out 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 projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning
Department.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance.
Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects.
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 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
11 Rev. 03/28/96 1’ i/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4860 i
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 00-09 TO
SUBDIVIDE 1.38 ACRES INTO 5 LOTS ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF RIDGECREST DRIVE
AND EAST OF SEACREST DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY
CASE NO.: CT 00-05
WHEREAS, CHARLES JACOBS, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lot 25 of Seacrest Estates Unit No. 1, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 3906, filed in the ofiice of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, June 10,1958.
(‘the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map as shown on Exhibits “A” - “B” dated November 15, 2000, on file in the Planning
Department CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY - CT 00-09, as provided by Title 20 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of November 2000
and on the 3rd day of January 2001, 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:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTJ’ - CT
00-09, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
FindinPs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
9.
- .
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, an>
applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State
Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the lots
being created satisfy all minimum requirements of Title 20 governing lot sizes and
configuration and have been designed to comply with all other applicable City
regulations.
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for Residential Low to Medium (RLM)
development on the General Plan, in that this is the same general plan land use
designation as the project site and surrounding development is residential.
That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density
proposed, in that the project site can accommodate the proposed residential
development while providing the required lot area, all required setbacks and
improvements mandated by applicable city regulations.
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in
that the project is designed and conditioned to avoid conflicts with any established
easements.
That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that lots will have
southern exposure for passive heating and all lots will benefit from ocean breezes for
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 there is no sensitive habitat on the site or offsite which the project will
impact.
That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that lot drainage will
PC RESO NO. 4860 -2- j4)/
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
typically filter through the front yard landscape prior to exiting to the storm drain
system.
10. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in
the staff report dated November 15,200O including, but not limited to the following:
A. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the
proposed density of 3.62 du/acre is within the density range of O-4 du/acre
specified for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General
Plan, and is above the growth control point of 3.2 du/acre. Although the
project exceeds the growth control point, it is consistent with the General
Plan provision allowing an iniill subdivision located in LFMP Zone 1 to
exceed the density range and/or Growth Control Point in certain
circumstances. Public facilities are adequate in LFMP Zone 1 to
accommodate the proposed units and there are excess dwelling units in the
northwest quadrant to ensure that the maximum number of dwelling units in
the quadrant would not be exceeded.
B. Circulation - The circulation system is designed to provide adequate access to
the proposed lots, adjacent properties and complies with all applicable City
design standards.
C. Housing - That the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the
General Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the Developer has
been conditioned to pay the Affordable Housing In-Lieu fee.
D. Public Safety - Required facilities have been conditioned to be constructed or
are shown on the project plans.
11. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for. Zone 1 and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
Specifically,
A. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified
School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities.
B. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and
will be collected prior to issuance of building permit.
C. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
12. That the project is not required to provide additional public facilities for the density in
excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s public facility plans
PC RESO NO. 4860 -3- aa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
will not be adversely impacted, in that public facilities are adequate in Zone 1 to
accommodate the additional .42 units above the Growth Control Point.
That there have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities belo\\.
the control point to offset the units in the project above the control point so that approval
will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit.
That all necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance will
be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them
created by this project and in compliance with adopted City standards, in that the project
has been designed and conditioned to provide street and drainage improvements
consistent with adopted city standards.
That the property cannot be served adequately with a public street without panhandle lots
due to unfavorable conditions resulting from unusual topography, surrounding land
development, or lot configuration, in that there is sufficient land area to create 5 lots
on the site however, there is not adequate street frontage on either Seacrest Drive or
Ridgecrest Drive to satisfy the required lot width for three standard lots.
That subdivision with panhandle lots will not preclude or adversely affect the ability to
provide full public street access to other properties within the same block of the subject
property, in that all adjacent lots are developed and have access to public streets.
That the buildable portion of the lot consists of at least 10,600 square feet, which meets
the requirements of Section 21.10.080(c) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
That the front, side, and rear property lines of the buildable lot, for purposes of
determining required yards, are as shown on Exhibit B.
That any panhandle lot hereby approved satisfies all the requirements of Section
21.10.080(d) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to Final Map
approval or issuance of a grading permit whichever occurs first.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein g-ranted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building per-nits; 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
PC FLESO NO. 4860 -4- 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the Cit>,‘s approixl of
this tentative map.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the tentative map documents, as necessary to make them internally
consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. - Development shall
occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
all requirements of law.
The Developer shall and does hereby agree to indernnifjr, 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 Tract Map, and (b) City’s
approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary,
in connection with the use contemplated herein. This obligation survives until all legal
proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval is not
validated.
The Developer shall submit to Planning Director a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy
of the Tentative Map reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making
body.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24” x 36” blueline drawing
format.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its
obligation to provide school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building pennits 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
PC RESO NO. 4860 -5- c94
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
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect
shall be placed on the Final Map.
Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Polic!,
#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 b>
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
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.
The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map, or an alternative,
suitable to the Planning Director, in the sales office at all times. All sales maps that are
distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, future
and existing schools, parks and streets.
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.
.
The Developer shall submit a plan’showing the fence design and proposed location
for Planning Director approval prior to grading plan approval. A uniform fence
design shall be utilized for all residential lots within the project.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director that the proposed building plans are
architecturally compatible with surrounding development. To ensure such
compatibility, proposed building architecture shall incorporate a variety of building
masses and roof planes including single-story features. Building architecture,
materials and colors shall be varied to be consistent with the “custom home”
appearance of the neighborhood. Garages shall be designed to be less prominent to
the street than the residences.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer shall pay to the City an
inclusionary housing in-lieu fee as an individual fee on a per market rate dwelling unit
basis in the amount in effect at the time, as established by City Council Resolution from
time to time.
PC RESO NO. 4860 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
, Enpineering:
~ NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
approval of this proposed tentative map, must be met prior to approval of a final map.
1 General
19. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
20. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is
formally established by the City.
21. Prior to occupancy of the future home on Lot 3, the builder shall install rain gutters to
convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
22. There shall be one Final Map recorded for this project.
Fees/APreements
23. Developer shall cause Property Owner to enter into a Neighborhood Improvement
Agreement with the City for the future public improvement of Ridgecrest Drive and
Seacrest Drive along the subdivision frontage. The cost of public improvements shall
include but are not limited to: sidewalks, grading, clearing and grubbing,
undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, iire hydrants, street lights,
retaining walls, reclaimed water and cost involving formation of the assessment
district (the L61mprovements”). In said Agreement, the Property Owner shall also
approve of and consent to the formation of an assessment district that may be
formed by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad for the purpose of financing the
construction of the Improvements.
24. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street
Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
Grading
25. 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. Developer shall apply for and
obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits, or
final map approval, whichever occurs first.
PC RESO NO. 4860 -7- 26
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. 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 Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
DedicationsAmDrovements
27. Developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed
pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the “California Stoma 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 submitted to
and subject to the approval of 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.
Final Mar, Notes
28. Developer shall show on Final Map the net developable acres for each lot.
29. Note to the following effect shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data:
a. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
the appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available.
Water and Sewer
30. The Developer shall install potable water and recycled water services and meters at a
location approved by the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities. The locations of said services
shall be reflected on public improvement plans.
31. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on
public improvement plans.
PC RESO NO. 4860 -8- 27
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
32.
33.
34.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building penits u.ill not bc
issued for the development of the subject property, unless the Deputy City Engineer
Utilities has deterrnined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the timc
of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map, as non-mapping
data.
Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diego Countv !!‘ater
Authoritv capacity charge prior to issuance of Building Permits.
Prior to issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever is first,
Developer shall apply for and receive approval for a construction revision to an
Improvement Plan(s) for Ridgecrest Drive and Seacrest Drive reflecting the
proposed sewer and water laterals required to serve this project. Said construction
revision shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities.
Code Reminders
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following code requirements:
35.
36.
37.
38.
The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final
map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08,050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map
approval becomes final.
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.
PC PESO NO. 4860 -9-
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
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 m%h this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been gi\.en
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously othen\ise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of January 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman.
L’Heureux, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNTNG COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
29 PC RESO NO. 4860 -lO-
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION fi
, Item No. 0 6
Application complete date: May 29,200O.
P.C. AGENDA OF: November 15,200O Project Planner: Christer Westman
Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle
SUBJECT: CT 00-09 - CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY - Demolition of an existing
single-family residence and subdivision of an existing 1.38 acre property into 5
lots generally located between Ridgecrest Drive and Seacrest Drive in Local
Facilities Impact Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4859
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4860 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL Carlsbad Tract CT 00-09
based on the findings and subject to the conditions found therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval of a Tentative Tract Map for the
subdivision of a 1.38 acre property within the R-A-10,000 zone and the Residential Low-
Medium General Plan land use area. The project complies with all applicable development
regulations and policies. Because the subdivision includes a panhandle lot, final approval must
be granted by the City Council.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project is the subdivision of a 1.38 acre property into 5 residential lots which equates to 3.62
dwelling units per acre. The Residential Low Medium General Plan designation allows up to 4
dwellings per acre and the Growth Management Control Point limits the density to 3.2 dwellings
per acre. The project proposes .42 dwellings above the Growth Control Point. The site is
located between Ridgecrest Drive to the north and Seacrest Drive to the south. The property
zoning is R-A-10,000 which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Each lot is
proposed to be a minimum of 0.25 acres which is 10,890 square feet. There are no homes
proposed at this time. The site is currently occupied by a single-family, detached residential structure which will be removed. Surrounding development consists of single-story, and two-
story, single-family residential homes. There is no biologically significant vegetation on-site nor
is there any indication that the site has any significant environmental resource value. The site
has an elevation of 325 feet in the center. It slopes down to Ridgecrest Drive on the east to an elevation of 3 14 feet and Seacrest Drive on the west to an elevation of 3 14 feet. Views are to the
east and the west. The project includes grading pads for each lot. A discussion of proposed pad
elevations is found in IV (C) of this report. The project is subject to the inclusionary housing ordinance and will be required to pay an Impact Fee for each lot created. The site is within an
30
CT 00-09 - CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY
November 15,200O
Page 2
area designated for alternative street design regarding sidewalk and parkway improvements. The
proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards and policies:
A. Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) General Plan Land Use Designation
B. Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21 .OS (Residential Agricultural)
C. Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.00 (Subdivision Ordinance)
D. Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.85 (Inclusionary Housing)
E. Growth Management Regulations (Local Facilities Management Zone 1)
F. Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 19.00 (Environmental Procedures)
G. California Environmental Quality Act
IV. ANALYSIS
A. General Plan
The following Table A identifies General Plan goals and objectives relevant to the proposed
project and indicates the compliance of the proposal.
TABLE A - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT USE, PROPOSED USES & COMPLY?
CLASSIFICATION, IMPROVEMENTS
GOAL OBJECTIVE,
OR PROGRAM
Land Use Site is designated for RLM 5 lots; 3.62 du/ac Yes. Refer to discussion
at O-4 du/ac. below.
Circulation New development shall Access is via driveways Yes
dedicate and improve all from Seacrest and
public right-of-way for Ridgecrest Drives.
circulation facilities Sidewalk improvements
needed to serve will be required along both
development. frontages.
Housing Provision of affordable The project will be Yes
housing. conditioned to pay an
impact fee at building
permit issuance.
Open Space & Utilize Best Management The project will conform Yes
Conservation Practices for control of to all NPDES
storm water and to protect requirements. The project
water quality. does not encroach into any
areas of General Plan
designated Gpen Space or
un-developable slopes.
Public Safety Review new development Required facilities have Yes
proposals to consider been conditioned to be
emergency access, tire provided concurrent or in
hydrant locations, and fire advance of demand.
flow requirements.
CT 00-09 - CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY
November 15,200O
Pane 3
Ensure that parks are
developed prior to or
concurrent with need, as
defined by the Growth
Management Plan.
The project will pay a Yes
contribution toward the
provision of parks through
a Park-in-Lieu fee.
The project is proposed within the General Plan density range of O-4 dwelling units per acre,
however, it is proposed above the Growth Management Control Point. Per Council policy No.
43, unit allocation above the growth control point may be granted on a first, second, or third
priority. As a single-family subdivision which meets all of the development standards and where
the lots will be equal to the adjacent subdivided properties, it falls into a first priority category.
B. Residential Agricultural (R-A- 10,000)
The R-A-10,000 zone allows one-family dwellings as well as a variety of agriculturally-related
uses. The intent of subdividing the property is for one-family residential use, Although the site
has an agricultural zoning, it is surrounded by residential development and therefore the single-
family residential subdivision is appropriate.
Lots are being proposed consistent with the size and dimension requirements of the zone. The
minimum lot size may not be less than 10,000 square feet. Proposed lots range in size from
10,890 to 14,375. Adjacent lots have sizes of approximately 12,000. The proposed lots on
Seacrest Drive have 75-foot widths and those proposed on Ridgecrest have greater widths of 90
- 105 feet. The minimum requirement is 75 feet.
The site is considered “infill” and therefore special noticing is required. The specified “project
pending” onsite notice was posted in September and the notice of “public hearing” was posted in
October. One request for general project information at the public counter was generated by the
“project pending” notice.
One panhandle lot is proposed and may be approved by the City Council if certain circumstances
are found to exist.
1) The nropertv cannot be served adequately with a public street without panhandle lots due
to unfavorable conditions resulting from unusual topography, surrounding, land
development, or lot configuration.
The fifth lot cannot be created without use of a panhandle because there is not adequate frontage
on either Seacrest or Ridgecrest Drives to satisfy the minimum lot width of 75 feet.
2) Subdivision with panhandle lots will not preclude or adversely affect the ability to
provide Ml public street access to other properties within the same block of the subiect
property.
All other lots within the same block have been previously subdivided and have public street
access. In addition specific findings must be made and specific lot standards must be met as
follows:
CT 00-09 - CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY
November 15,200O
Page 4
3) The area of the buildable portion of the lot shall be a minimum ten thousand square feet.
The buildable portion of the panhandle lot is approximately 10,600 square feet.
4) The width requirements for the buildable portion of the lot shall be met as required for
interior lots in the zone district.
The panhandle lot has an irregular shape. The widest portion of the panhandle lot is
approximately 80 feet. The narrowest portion of the lot is approximately 46 feet.
5) The yard requirements of the zone district shall be met as required for interior lots.
There are no structures proposed for any of the lots within the subdivision at this time. “Front,
side and rear yards” have been established through the map which will regulate the location of
buildings on the site.
6) The 1enrJth of the portion of the lot fronting on a public street or publicly dedicated
easement afforded access to the buildable lot shall not be greater than one hundred fifty
feet for a single lot. The minimum width for such access portion shall be twenty feet.
The “handle” length is 120-feet. The “handle” width is 30 feet with a 20 foot wide graded
driveway bed.
7) An improved driveway shall be provided within the access portion of the lot from the
public street or public easement to the parking area on the buildable lot at least fourteen
feet wide.
A minimum 14-foot wide drive will be provided as shown on the exhibits.
8) Drainage from the lot shall be channeled down the private access to a public street or
special drainage means must be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The panhandle lot has been designed so that surface waters will be collected and channeled to the
driveway and down to Ridgecrest Drive.
9) Each lot shall have three non-tandem parking spaces with an approach not less than
twenty-four feet in length with proper turnaround space to permit complete turnaround
for forward access to the street. This parking and access arrangement shall be designed to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
There are no structures proposed for any of the lots within the subdivision at this time and
therefore parking areas and “turnarounds” have not been designed. The lot is sufficient in size to
accommodate the required parking and turnaround area. The final design will be determined
with the request for a building permit. Photo simulations have been provided to illustrate how
the subdivision might look from Ridgecrest and Seacrest Drives when homes are built.
As a property within an area designated for alternative street design, typical street improvements
will not be required. Since there are no sidewalk improvements along either of the streets, the 53
CT 00-09 - CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY
November 15,200O
Page 5
applicant will not be required to install sidewalks. However, the property will be encumbered by
a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement for the future improvement of Ridgecrest Drive and
Seacrest Drive. The agreement will record that the owner approves and consents to the
formation of an assessment district that may be formed by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad for the purpose of financing the construction of those future improvements.
C. Subdivision Ordinance
The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and
the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. All major subdivision design criteria have been complied
with including the minimum lot width of 75-feet, minimum lot depth of 90 feet, provision of
public access and minimum lot area.
Grading is proposed to create pads for future homes. The total amount of cut grading for the site
is 4,600 cubic yards and fill totals 800 cubic yards, leaving 3,800 cubic yards of dirt to be
exported from the site. The site may be able to be designed to balance onsite, but the net effect
would be the increase in height of building pads. Staff has determined that the short term impact
of exporting the dirt from the site is less significant than the long term benefit of keeping the
pads at lower levels. The recipient location of the export material has not yet been determined,
but will be established at grading permit issuance. Pad elevations will be consistent with the
pattern developed by the existing, surrounding residential development. Pads increase or
decrease in height as the street elevation changes. On Ridgecrest Drive, Lot 1 is 5 feet lower
than the adjacent existing home and Lot 2 is 2 feet lower than Lot 1. The existing home adjacent
to Lot 2 is 3 feet lower. On Seacrest Drive, Lot 5 is 7 feet lower than the adjacent existing home
and Lot 4 is 3 feet lower than Lot 5. The existing home adjacent to Lot 4 is 3 feet lower.
In order for the proposed lots to have utility services and access from the adjacent streets, the
developer will be required to offer various dedications (e.g., drainage easements, street right-of-
way) and install street and utility improvements, including but not limited to, driveway aprons,
gutters, sewer facilities, drainage facilities, and fire hydrants.
D. Inclusionary Housing
The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.85) requires that a minimum of 15% of
all approved units in any residential development be restricted to and affordable to lower-income
households. Section 21.85.110 of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance specifies that, “For any
residential development or development revision of less than seven units, the inclusionary
requirements may be satisfied through the payment to the city of an in-lieu fee.” This project is
for a maximum of 5 residential lots and therefore, will be conditioned to pay the affordable
housing in-lieu fee. The proposed project complies with all applicable inclusionary housing
requirements.
E. Growth Management Ordinance
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest
quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance
with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table B below.
CT 00-09 - CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY
November 15,200O
TABLE B: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
STANDARDS IMPACTS COMPLIANCE
City Administration 17.38 sq. ft. Yes
Library 9.27 sq. ft. Yes
Waste Water Treatment 5 EDU Yes
Parks .03 acre
Drainage Basin B
Circulation 50 ADT
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Station No. 1
N/A
CUSD
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sewer Collection System
Water
ISEDU
1 1,lOOGPD
1 Yes
1 Yes
The proposed project is 0.42 dwelling units above the Growth Management dwelling unit
allowance. However, public facilities are adequate in Zone 1 to accommodate the additional .42
units, there have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities below the
control point to offset the units in the project above the control point so that approval will not
result in exceeding the quadrant limit, and the project has been designed and conditioned to
provide street and drainage improvements consistent with adopted city standards.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The initial study prepared in conjunction with the project determined that there are no
potentially significant impacts. There is no evidence onsite of biological significance and all
short term impacts resulting from the grading and construction of the site will be mitigated by
standard practices including restrictions on hours of work, site watering, and street washing.
The General Plan land use designation and zoning for the site remain the same. The project falls
within the scope of the City’s MEIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan update (EIR 93-01)
certified in September, 1994, in which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for
cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic. An MEIR may not be used to review projects if it
was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later project except
under certain circumstances. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine
whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified
more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial
changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified.
The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El
Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally,
there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have been known at
the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects.
All feasible mitigation measures identified by the MEIR which are appropriate to this project
have been incorporated into the project. In consideration of the foregoing, on September 28,
2000 the Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration for the proposed project. The
environmental document was noticed in the newspaper and no public comments were received
during the 20-day public review and comment period
33-
CT 00-09 - CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY
November 15,200O
Pane 7
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
cw:cs
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4859 (Neg Dee)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4860 (CT)
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Statement
Photo Simulations
Reduced Exhibits
Full Size Exhibits “A” - “B ,” dated November 15,200O
36
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 00-09
CASE NAME: Charles Jacobs Property
APPLICANT: Charles Jacobs
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Demolition of an existing home and subdivision of the
property for 5 residential lots west of Ridgecrest Drive and east of Seacrest Drive.
APN: 167-053-18-00 Acres: 1.38 acres Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 5 lots
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RLM
Density Allowed: O-4 du/ac Density Proposed: 3.62 du/ac
Existing Zone: R-A- 10,000 Proposed Zone: N/A
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning General Plan Current Land Use
Site
North
South
East
West
R-A-10,000
R-A-10,000
R-A- 10,000
R-A- 10,000
R-A-l 0,000
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
Single-family Residential
Single-family Residential
Single-family Residential
Single-family Residential
Single-family Residential
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 5 EDU
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
w Negative Declaration, issued Sentember 28.2000
III Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
- L-l Other,
37
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Charles Jacobs Propertv CT 00-09
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1 GENERAL PLAN: RLM
ZONING: R-A- 10,000
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Charles Jacobs
ADDRESS: 7725 Haley Drive Granite Bay California 95746
PHONE NO.: 916-791-4610 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 167-053-18-00
QUANTITY GF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 1.38 acres/5 lots
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 17.38 square feet
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 9.27 square feet
Wastewater Treatment Capacity 5 EDU
Park: Demand in Acreage = .03 acres
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin = Basin B
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 50 ADT
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = No. 1
Qpen Space: Acreage Provided = N/A
Schools: 1.3E/.36JR/.68 H.S.
Sewer: Demands in EDU 5 EDU
Identify Sub Basin =
Water: Demand in GPD = 1,100 GPD
The project is .42 units ABOVE the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
38
City of Carlsbad
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 defmed as “‘Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, htemal
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 group or combination acting as a unit.”
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or mirtnershin, include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares, IF NO
JNDMDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned cornoration, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
Carp/part
Title 0u b EQ Title 72s CtfiAE ftAkliQBfk\r. &c\ DP -+& Address
2. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
coi-ooration or DartnershiD, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned cornoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Carp/Part
Title O~~CR Title
Address
39
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559
3. NON-PROFIT \ LhlNIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonorofit organizatlon or a trust, llsr the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non ProfitrTrust Non Profit/Trust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
cl yes cl No If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
e
QhegJL.5;. s, ~cor3s p~/+,q/& .. a s. x&wRS
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant’s agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISdLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98
4-Q
Page 2 of 2
3’3
>
11 h
51 i I I 1
d; q $
iI & Is 1 _
J
D c
i ,
l’ne City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 0 4
Application complete date: Continued
P.C. AGENDA OF: January 3,200l Project Planner: Christer Westman
Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle
SUBJECT: CT 00-09 - CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY - Demolition of an existing
single-family residence and subdivision of an existing 1.38 acre property into 5
lots generally located between Ridgecrest Drive and Seacrest Drive in Local
Facilities Impact Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4859
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4860 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Carlsbad Tract CT OO-
09 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The project was continued from the November 15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. The
continuance was required to allow the applicant additional time to perform a soils analysis. The
additional time could also be used to explore issues raised by the Planning Commission and
neighboring property owner.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project is the subdivision of a 1.38 acre property into 5 residential lots which equates to 3.62
dwelling units per acre. The site is located between Ridgecrest Drive to the north and Seacrest
Drive to the south. The property zoning is R-A-10,000 which requires a minimum lot size of
10,000 square feet. Each lot is proposed to be a minimum of 0.25 acres which is 10,890 square
feet. There are no homes proposed at this time. The site is currently occupied by a single-family,
detached residential structure which will be removed. Surrounding development consists of
single-story, and two-story, single-family residential homes. There is no biologically significant
vegetation on-site nor is there any indication that the site has any significant environmental
resource value. The site has an elevation of 325 feet above sea level in the center. It slopes
down to Ridgecrest Drive on the east to an elevation of 314 feet above sea level and Seacrest
Drive on the west to an elevation of 314 feet above sea level. Views are to the east and the west.
The project includes grading pads for each lot. The project is subject to the inclusionary housing
ordinance and will be required to pay an Impact Fee for each lot created. The site is within an
area designated for alternative street design regarding sidewalk and parkway improvements.
Issues raised by the Planning Commission for resolution included the statement that the site had
been used for agricultural production and could therefore have contaminated soils; the statement
CT 00-09 Charles Jacobs Property
January 3,200l
PAGE 2
that a building onsite has significant historic value; and the Planning Commission’s authority to
review future product design and placement.
Concerns raised by the Planning Commission included exceeding the Growth Control Point by
.42 units; impacts to off-site drainage; and the compatibility of two-story, 4,000 square foot
homes with the existing neighborhood.
IV. ANALYSIS
A soils analysis was conducted and no ground contaminants were found. The applicant
conducted research regarding the history of the site and it has been concluded that there has not
been any significant use of the site for agricultural purposes nor is there any historic value to the
buildings onsite. (The soils analysis is available for review in the Planning Department.)
The Planning Department has determined that the Planning Commission may require review of
product on major subdivisions for the purpose of determining compatibility. The review may be
part of the subdivision analysis and a Site Development Plan is not necessary. A condition may
be added to the resolution requiring a product review prior to the issuance of building permits.
The applicable density range for the 1.38 acre site (General Plan - RLM) is O-4 dwellings per
acre which is equal to O-5.52 homes. The Growth Control Point of 3.2 dwellings per acre, limits
the site to O-4.42 homes unless certain findings can be made. The applicant has proposed 5
homes which is 0.58 more homes than the limit set by the Growth Control Point. The required
findings to allow the additional 0.58 units on the site can be made and are included in the
attached resolution. A summary of the findings are: 1) Public facilities are adequate in Zone 1
to accommodate the additional 0.58 units; 2) There have been sufficient developments approved
in the quadrant at densities below the control point to offset the units in the project above the
control point so that approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit; and 3) The project
has been designed and conditioned to provide the necessary public facilities, including street and
drainage improvements, in compliance with the adopted City standards.
Staff has indicated that there is no cumulative effect in terms of drainage associated with this
project, there is no net increase in runoff, and therefore it meets the standards set in the code and
findings can made that drainage has been adequately provided for. The applicant has provided
documentation from which the determination has been made. Regarding the existing drainage
issues on RidgecrestBeacrest Drives, staff recommends that the project should not be burdened
with correcting existing storm drain inadequacies. Those issues may be addressed through a
separate process which is the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Details regarding inclusion
of a storm drain project to the CIP may be obtained from the Engineering Division at the Faraday
Center, 1635 Faraday Avenue.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4859 (Neg Dee)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4860 (CT)
3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 15,2000, with attachments.
48
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,200l EXHIBIT 5
Page 9
CT 00-09 - CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY - Demolition of an existing single-family residence and
subdivision of an existing 1.38 acre property into 5 lots generally located between Ridgecrest Drive and
Seacrest Drive in Local Facilities Impact Zone 1.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, advised the Commission that the action of the Commission on
this item is not final and it will be forwarded, as a recommendation, to the City Council for its review.
In the absence of the Project Planner, Christer Westman, and the Project Engineer, Jeremy Riddle,
Principal Planner, Adrienne Landers and Senior Engineer, Skip Hammann presented the staff report as
follows: This project includes the demolition of an existing single-family residence and the subdivision of an
existing 1.38 acre site into five residential lots designated for single-family homes. The property is generally
located between Ridgecrest Drive and Seacrest Drive. It is zoned R-A-1 0,000, which means the minimum
lots sizes must be 10,000 square feet or greater. When the Planning Commission reviewed this project on
November 15, 2000, there were four issues that were discussed at length and the project was then
continued to allow time for a soils analysis to be performed. To review the aforementioned four issues; 1.
Concern regarding prior use of the site for agriculture and subsequent soil contamination: A Phase I Soil
Study was conducted and it was determined that there was no significant agricultural use on this site.
There may have been some type of agricultural use but it was very limited and it involved no soil
contamination. 2. Drainage: The Engineering Department requested and received from the applicant, a
preliminary hydrology report that demonstrated that there will be no net increase in run-off. A more detailed
report will be submitted by the applicant when grading permits are ready to be issued. That would further
ensure that there will be no increased run-off. The existing drainage problems will have to be addressed
through the Capital Improvement Program Policy, through some type of storm drainage project because
these issues relate to a larger area rather than just the subject site itself. 3. Density: The density range for
the 1.3 acre site is O-4 dwelling units per acre, with the Growth Control Point of 3.2. This would limit the
number of units to 4.42, unless certain findings can be made. The findings relate to the provision of public
facilities, both in Zone 1 and also with the development of the site, this includes public facilities with the
construction and as well as street improvements. The last finding requires that enough units in the
northwest quadrant, have been built below the growth control point to off-set the units that are being
proposed, above the growth control point. That ensures that the quadrant cap will not be exceeded. These
findings are made, frequently, for small in-fill projects in the northwest quadrant. Possibly the major issue,
that came up at the last meeting, related to neighborhood compatibility. The first issue that staff looks at
when coming up with a proposed subdivision, is consistency with the required zoning and the lot size. In
this case, that is a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Generally, with some variation in size, the size
of the new lot should be consistent with the surrounding lot sizes. The proposed lot sizes are generally
similar in size. The proposed five lots are slightly smaller in size than the surrounding lots but each lot
would be slightly larger if the project were to be reduced to only four lots. In reviewing the proposed
subdivision, Staff determined that to preserve the land formation (the small hill at the middle of the site) and
reduce the grading totals, that five lots are probably more consistent with the existing lot sizes. Regarding
the appearance (architectural design) of the proposed homes, they should be sensitively designed to retain
the character of the neighborhood. This could be done by reducing the building mass, particularly on the
second story, by providing off-set or facade articulations, varying roof planes, a variety of colors and
materials, etc. The applicant has indicated a willingness to provide these types of features.
There are a variety of slightly larger lots in the area as well as a few that are 10,000 square feet, a few that
are 11,000 square feet, with the average size being approximately 12,500 square feet. Again, if the
property is subdivided with 5 lots, then the average lot size will about 10,800 square feet. On the other
hand, if the property is divided into 4 lots, the average lot size will be a bit larger than the surrounding
development. The project, as proposed, is consistent with the surrounding development. Staff feels that the
proposed is consistent with the zoning and the development would be compatible. Therefore, Staff is
recommending approval of the Negative Declaration and the recommendation for approval to the City
Council.
Commissioner Baker asked if there is a way that the Commission could have some input or approval of the
architectural design(s) for this project.
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,200l Page 10
Ms. Landers replied that she has sent a proposed condition to the applicant which the applicant, himself,
would like to read into the record during his presentation. Basically, the condition includes a smaller mass
on the second floor, some facade articulation, a variety of building materials and roof planes, and slightly
different architectural styles.
Commissioner Baker asked if there is any landscaping requirement that would require the developer to put
in trees that would eventually make the area more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
Ms. Landers responded by stating that a landscape requirement is generally not required but that the
developer might possibly take it upon himself to address the issue of landscaping.
Commissioner Nielsen asked Ms. Landers to explain the term “single-story” feature.
In response to the inquiry, Ms. Landers referred to a photograph, shown earlier, illustrating a “single-story
feature where a portion of the home is single-story (most often the garage area) while another portion has a
second story (most often above the main portion of the house.)
Referring to the lot exhibit, Commissioner Trigas asked Ms. Landers to explain a 5,000 square foot parcel
that appears to not be a part of the proposed subdivision.
Ms. Landers explained that the parcel in question was sold to a neighbor, several years ago.
Commissioner Trigas asked how large the lots would be if the subdivision was held to only four lots instead
of the proposed five lots.
Ms. Landers replied that, when asked, the applicant had stated that the average size of a lot, in a four lot
subdivision, would be approximately 12,000 square feet and would not include the square footage of the
panhandle portion.
For clarification, Commissioner Trigas asked if she is correct in assuming that the lots in the proposed five
lot subdivision would be considerably smaller than those in the immediate neighborhood.
Ms. Landers replied that the Commissioner is correct.
Commissioner L’Heureux asked staff to address the capital improvement project that is scheduled for the
area in question.
Senior Civil Engineer, Skip Hammann stated as follows: There is a capital improvement project that
identifies some work in this immediate area. However, the work has not been completed because of the
issue of the trees on Charlene Circle. That project was going to replace some existing curb and gutter that
has been damaged by tree root intrusion. However, after the last public hearing regarding the removal of
the offending trees, Staff discussed the issue with the capital improvement staff and requested that they
take a more detailed look at the drainage in the area and offer some solutions to the drainage issue.
Because of the nature of the neighborhood, it will be difficult to resolve because the typical engineering
solutions would not be compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Therefore, meetings with the residents
of the area will be held in an effort to come to an agreeable solution.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Hammann to reiterate his position regarding the drainage system.
Mr. Hammann responded by stating that Staff has studied and discussed the engineering calculations with
the applicant. Those calculations show that the proposed project will not create a net increase in run-off
and that the existing drainage system will be a City problem and will be addressed by the Capital
Improvement Program.
Commissioner Compas asked what assurances can be given to the residents of the area, if the engineering
calculations prove to be incorrect and a drainage problem develops.
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,200l Page 11
Mr. Hammann replied that because it is a somewhat hypothetical question, he can only state that the
development cannot damage their downstream neighbor by their drainage. He further stated that there is
nothing unusual about this project and staff feels comfortable that there is little (or no) potential for thattype
of damage. Mr. Hammann pointed out that Staff looks at the drainage issues very carefully as they study
the grading plan. One of the things they will be watching for, regarding this issue, is run-off from the
panhandle lot. The project planner, Jeremy Riddle, has worked with the engineer for this project to study a
number of suggestions that have been made, in an effort to find an appropriate solution. Also, extra effort
will be made to correct (avoid) any run-off problems that may occur.
Chairperson Segall asked if the project will be conditioned to ensure that the extra effort in correcting and/or
avoiding run-off from the panhandle lot will be done.
Mr. Hammann replied that no specific condition has been placed on the project but that all the normal
engineering standards and practices will be applied at the grading permit stage.
Addressing Ms. Landers, Commissioner Heineman asked if she has been shown, or advised, what this
subdivision would look like if it were divided into only four lots instead of the proposed five.
Ms. Landers replied that she has not seen anything with four lots and can only surmise what it might look
like. She indicated that it would probably have two lots fronting on each of the two streets. For clarification,
Ms. Landers stated the actual square footage of the proposed lots, as follows:
Lot 1. - 11,326 ft.; Lot sq. 2. - 10,890 ft.; Lot sq. 3. - 14,375 sq. ft. (including the panhandle portion of the
lot; Lot. 4. - 12,632 sq. ft.; Lot 5. - 10,890 sq. ft.
Commissioner Nielsen, referring to the number of square feet of hardscape that is proposed, stated that it is
somewhat difficult to believe that there will be no significant increase in run-off.
In response, Mr. Hammann stated that from a layman’s standpoint, it is understandable that it is a difficult
concept to accept. However, there are three elements that are looked at to determine the quantity of run-
off; 1. The rainfall intensity; 2. The duration of a storm (time of concentration.); 3. The imperviousness of
the ground. The existing topography allows for more rapid and concentrated run-off because of its lack of
vegetation and the steep slope of the whole parcel as it exists today. When the grading is done the area will
be significantly more level, grass will be planted, other run-off inhibitors could be added, and as a result,
water will be absorbed more readily into the ground and the result will be no net increase in run-off.
Regarding the frontage of Lot. No. 4, Commissioner Trigas stated that it appears to be very narrow and
asked what the side yard setbacks will be.
Ms. Landers replied that the street frontage of Lot. No. 4 is 70 feet and the side yard would be seven feet.
She added that it is entirely possible that these homes will be set a considerable distance back (minimum
20 feet) from the street (as are most of the homes in the neighborhood) because there will be a slope on
one or both sides of the driveway.
Chairperson Segall opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to make his presentation.
Developer/Applicant, Joe Gallagher, 1165 Hoover St., Carlsbad, stated that the property owner, Charles
Jacobs is present and wishes to speak prior to the applicant’s presentation.
Property owner, Charles Jacobs, Granite Bay, CA., stated that the subject property has been in his family
for over 50 years and it is his (and the developer’s) intention to make the community better with the building
of this subdivision and not offend any of the neighbors.
In response to issues discussed during the presentation of the staff report, Mr. Gallagher stated the
following: 1. Historical significance - There is no historical significance to the existing building that will be
removed; 2. Site distance on the panhandle driveway -The project meets CalTrans standards (there are no
5-t
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,200l Page 12
standards for urban in-fill developments.); 3. Drainage - The developer believes that the hydraulic studies
that have been conducted (to date) have satisfied any questions regarding drainage impacts; 4. Four lots
as opposed to five lots -The net developable property divided by five, nets an average size of 12,109 sq. ft.
The panhandle lot, in excess of 14,000 square feet, is creating an anomaly and reduces some of the lots
down to something in excess of 10,000 square feet. If the site were graded down to flat, each of the lots
would be 12,100 square feet. The developer’s objective is to work with the topography and create
articulation and interest. If the project is reduced to a total of four lots, there would be an additional export
of approximately 4,000 cubic yards. Additionally, if this project could be treated the same as some of the
more recent new subdivisions in the city, this project would calculate out at 3.1 dwelling units (not 3.6 d. u.)
per acre which is below the Growth Management Point of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. If in-fill projects were
treated in the same manner as new subdivisions, this project would be below the Growth Point and density
would not be an issue in this case; 5. Architecture -The architecture has been designed to be compatible
with the neighborhood (a photograph board was presented to the Commission, with photos of several
homes in the neighborhood). The photos effectively show that there is no consistent architectural theme in
the area. However, the applicant would be willing to work with Staff, in an effort to develop an architectural
design that is consistent. In discussion with Staff, the applicant has agreed to a compromise language as
follows: “Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director, that the proposed building plans are architecturally compatible with surrounding
development. To ensure such compatibility, proposed building architecture shall incorporate a variety of
building masses and roof planes, including single-story features. Building architecture, materials, and
colors shall be varied to be consistent with the “custom home” appearance of the neighborhood. Garages
shall be designed to be less prominent to the street than the residences.”
Chairperson Segall asked if the above language was composed by the applicant or Staff,
Mr. Gallagher replied that the language was a joint effort and the applicant is in full agreement with it.
Continuing his discussion of the issues raised in the staff report, Mr. Gallagher moved to the next item: 6.
Seventy foot wide street frontage versus one hundred foot frontage - The applicant has inventoried other
lots in the RidgecresffSeacrest area and find there is obviously a narrowing of lot frontage where there is a
curve or cul-de-sac condition. In excess of 30% of the existing homes have the same condition as is
present in this proposed project. This is not a new feature or minimum lot frontage. These conditions
already exist. Mr. Gallagher stated that they have tried to be consistent with the neighborhood and be n L..m.,rr L..rrA... b.AlA+A rl
ong the topics discussed was architecture and a series of
elevations were provided for review. Finally, with regard to increased traffic, Mr. Gallagher pointed out that
using the traffic standard used by all planners, a single family home generates ten trips per day and the
difference between five homes and four homes is only ten trips per day, which is less than significant. The
applicant believes this proposed project to be consistent with all the City’s policies and zoning ordinances,
and requests the Commission to adopt Resolutions No. 4859 and 4860.
Commissioner Compas asked if the developer would agree that no two houses will be of the same design.
Mr. Gallagher responded by stating that no two homes will look the same from the outside. They won’t be
five totally different homes but there will be five different exterior elevations. However, the interior design of
all the houses will be somewhat alike.
Commissioner Compas asked if Mr. Gallagher has another project, in town, that has perhaps four different
designs.
Mr. Gallagher replied that they have another project consisting of nine lots, three different designs with three
different elevations for each house. In this proposed project, each home will appear to be different and will
not be a patterned subdivision.
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,200l Page 13
Commissioner Baker pointed out that there are no photographs of single-story homes on the photo board
exhibit and stated that most of the houses adjacent to the proposed project tend to be single-story homes,
and asked Mr. Gallagher to respond.
Mr. Gallagher suggested that not all the homes are single-story but there is a predominance of single-story
houses. Also, that exhibit was put together to show that there are several two-story houses with garage
elevations prominent to the street.
Commissioner Baker stated that she is concerned that the proposed project will be on a considerably higher
plane than the rest of the community.
John Strohminger, 5900 Pasteur Court, Carlsbad, representing O’Day Consultants, responded to
Commissioner Baker’s concerns by pointing out that the lots on one side of the project are lower, however,
the lots on the other side are actually higher, so the “stepping up” continues on up into the cul-de-sac.
Joe Gallagher reiterated that their objective is to work with the topography of the land and grading the site
plane as little as possible. Since the project is located on a ridge, their intention is to step up to the ridge
rather than cut it all down.
Commissioner Trigas asked Mr. Gallagher to clarify his statement that “over 30% of the neighboring lots do
not meet the 100 foot frontage.
Mr. Gallagher replied that the neighboring lots do not meet the 100 foot frontage criteria due to the fact they
are located on a curvilinear street that can’t accommodate a wider frontage.
Referring to roof planes and a variety of building masses, Commissioner Trigas asked if all the homes will
be approximately the same square footage but different features.
In response, Mr. Gallagher explained that a final decision on the architecture has not been made but they
are proposing at least two different interior floor plans; one being approximately 200 square feet larger than
the other. Ultimately there would be three houses with similar interior floor plans (but different on the
outside) and two homes that will be quite similar but, again, will not be exact copies of each other.
Commissioner Trigas asked if the applicant has considered building one or more single-story houses, to
which Mr. Gallagher replied that they have considered it. However, the problem is that it would take such
an excessively large area of the lot and it also would not be economically feasible.
Commissioner Nielsen asked why the lots would have to be graded level if they were to go to a four lot
subdivision.
Mr. Gallagher explained that in order for a four lot project to be cost effective they would have to grade the
ridge away so that each pair of lots (2 on Seacrest and 2 on Ridgecrest) backed up to each other. The
other reason is that if they were to leave the ridge in place and extend the property lines to meet
somewhere on the panhandle lot, the portion between the now existing lot line and the new lot line would
have such a steep slope up (a 9’ to 10’ vertical rise) to the relatively small portion of additional land, that it
would be virtually unusable. If the panhandle lot remains in place but is not used, the project then becomes
economically unfeasible.
Chairperson Segall requested Mr. Gallagher to approach the exhibit and point out where the existing house
is located.
Mr. Gallagher did as requested and indicated that the house sits on the highest point of the panhandle lot.
Referring to the Planning Commission meeting of November 15,2000, Chairperson Segall stated that then
Chairperson Compas announced that no new testimony would be taken at this meeting (l-3-01 ).
53
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,200l Page 14
Chairperson Segall pointed out that four people have requested time to testify and asked for a consensus of
the Commission regarding opening public testimony to introduce new testimony only.
By consensus, Chairperson Segall opened public testimony.
James Gaiser, 3340 Ridgecrest Drive, Carlsbad, read (and submitted) his letter addressing the subjects of
public safety, conformity with the existing community, and density bonus. The original of Mr. Gaiser’s letter
is on file in the Planning Department.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Gaiser where his home is located in proximity to this project. Mr. Gaiser
replied that his home is located to the north.
Responding to Mr. Gaiser’s letter, Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Gaiser if he has a proposal regarding what
Mr. Gaiser perceives to be a Density Bonus.
Mr. Gaiser replied that he doesn’t understand why there is a density bonus being given when there is
nothing being received by the neighborhood, in return.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Gaiser if he is proposing that there be no additional homes in this
development.
Mr. Gaiser replied that he is not suggesting that but he is suggesting that if the density bonus is not allowed,
then the project would be cut back to four lots instead of five.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Gaiser if cutting the project to four lots would address his safety issues.
Mr. Gaiser replied that that would be a 20% reduction in daily trips and that would certainly be better than no
reduction at all.
Anna Kelso, 3350 Ridgecrest, Carlsbad, stated that upon leaving the meeting mentioned earlier, that she
was feeling some frustration regarding the lot frontages. She pointed out that she and her husband had
researched the frontages of each of the ninety-three homes in Seacrest Estates. After some calculations
they determined that the average frontage is one hundred fifteen feet per lot. She expressed her pleasure
at the questions and discussions by the Commissioners. She added that she would like to see the number
of lots reduced to four and also added that she and her husband don’t see a need for more grading if the
panhandle lot is left vacant. Ms. Kelso questioned the safety of the panhandle lot and also pointed out that
a panhandle lot is not normal in the neighborhood. Ms. Kelso encouraged the developer to design four very
nice, distinctively different homes. She also indicated that they may be a safety issue because of the
steepness of the roadway and a blind spot at the intersection. She also mentioned that she had (that
morning) observed four police officers sitting at that intersection with radar guns and assumed that their
presence was to slow speeding motorists.
Howard Reitzes, 3485 Ridgecrest Drive, Carlsbad, stated that his home is the closest (south) to the project
expressed his concern regarding the grading. He pointed out that, in his estimation, a small pad nine feet
above the rest of the property would not be as detrimental as the developer seems to think it is. Therefore
he thinks there is no need to grade down the existing ridge.
Kevin McCann, 3475 Charter Oak Drive, Carlsbad, stated that the original concept of Seacrest Estates was
to have individual custom homes set well back from the streets. He suggested that the idea that 30% of the
homes in the area have 70 foot frontages, is ridiculous, and that his home is one of the smaller ones and he
has a 110 foot frontage and that most of the homes are that way. He further stated that this project will
result in too much density. He expressed concern for an already existing ground water problem which
washed all the soil away from his neighbor’s swimming pool, threatening the collapse of the walls of the
pool. Another neighbor has water constantly running down her bank and his neighbor complains regularly
about water coming from the McCann property. After engaging a soils engineer, he was informed that
below a depth of six feet, there is a “river” flowing directly beneath the area. Mr. McCann further expressed
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,200l Page 15
concern for run-off when the project area begins being irrigated. To date the property has not been irrigated
in many years and even though the development may not add to the surface run-off, it will do nothing but
add to the existing ground water. Although he is not an engineer and doesn’t understand flood analysis,
absorption rates and run-off, Mr. McCann stated that it is a very serious problem and an issue of liability to
the city.
Joe Gallagher, stated his appreciation for the concerns of the neighborhood and that the applicant has
worked diligently to design this project to address those concerns. He pointed out that many of the
concerns voiced are out of the purview of this project. Mr. Gallagher addressed the health and safety of the
one-way in and out street issue by stating that a number of years ago, when a capital improvement project
was proposed to extend a secondary access through this area, it was voted down by the residents. He
pointed out that if that secondary access been built, there would not be a health and safety issue here.
Regarding the panhandle lot, he reminded everyone that the lot meets, and exceeds, all of the CalTrans
standards for sight distance and traffic. Mr. Gallagher further pointed out that the ground water problem is a
much larger issue and that they will gutter, collect water in one concentrated area and will deal with it in an
engineered and professional manner. Super-saturation from the ridge line will not be allowed and it will be
handled as designed by a certified and licensed engineer which they believe will accommodate those
impacts.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Segall closed the public testimony.
Commissioner Trigas stated that they seem to be getting different points of view regarding frontages and
asked Mr. Gallagher to clarify that point.
Mr. Gallagher stated that according to the Assessor’s Office parcel map, over 30% of the lot frontages are
less than 100 feet, and in that 30%, the lot frontages vary in size from as low as 50 feet due to curvilinear
nature of the streets.
Commissioner Trigas indicated that by her calculations, the average lot size, in Seacrest Estates, is about
14,000 square feet and asked Mr. Gallagher how he arrived at the approximate size of 12,500 square feet.
Mr. Gallagher stated that he did not make the calculations, himself, but took the figures provided to him by
Staff.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Gallagher what the frontages would be if this were to become a four lot
project.
Mr. Gallagher replied that the frontages would not change at all.
Responding to the issue of lot requirements (frontages), Ms. Landers stated that the minimum lot frontage
for lots 10,000 square feet or greater, is 75 feet. She added that that figure varies depending upon the
curvature that exists on the street. Ms. Landers then pointed out that if the streets were straight then 75
feet would be the minimum frontage. She also added that some of the homes in Seacrest have much larger
frontages than is required by code. Ms. Landers further stated that the frontages for these proposed lots
meet the code requirement. Responding to Mr. Gaiser’s mention of a density bonus, Ms. Landers denied
that there has been a density bonus given, and therefore the applicant is not required to provide anything
extra to the city. This issue comes under the Growth Management Plan and that plan allows an applicant to
exceed the Growth Control Point, based on certain findings. Ms. Landers then explained the formula used
to determine those findings. All the applicant has to do, in a case like this, is to make certain findings that all
of the facilities are in place to serve this particular piece of property and that the quadrant cap will not be
exceeded. With regard to safety on the panhandle lot, Ms. Landers stated that there are panhandle lots all
over the northwest quadrant of the city. They have been used in that area because of the size of some of
the lots -the only way to access the rear portion of the lots that could be subdivided is through a panhandle
subdivision. Applicants are required to provide three parking spaces on the large portion of the site which
allows a three point turn so a driver can exit the property facing the street rather than having to back into
traffic.
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,200l Page 16
Commissioner Compas asked Ms. Landers how overflow parking will be handled, regarding the panhandle
lot.
Ms. Landers replied that, as with any other residence, there will be times when there will be more than two
or three vehicles present and the extra cars will just have to find parking on the street. Considering the fact
that events like that don’t happen very frequently, this type of situation has not been a problem.
Senior Civil Engineer, Skip Hammann addressed Mr. Gaiser’s concern regarding public safety by stating
that a “one way in and one way out” access is a concern of the city and it would be preferable to have two
entrances/exits. He continued by saying that this project was discussed with Mike Smith of the Carlsbad
Fire Department and it was his determination that since this is an in-fill project in an established area with
this pre-existing situation, he felt comfortable with recommending his approval of the project as proposed.
Regarding the ground water, Mr. Hammann stated that there are some existing drainage problems in that
area, for a variety of reasons. He pointed out that this is not a typical subdivision where the preference
(from an engineering standpoint) would be to have all the lots graded above the streets so that when they
drain, the water runs into the gutters and then into the sewers. He also stated that people who live in
downstream areas are obligated to accept a certain amount of water from higher properties so long as there
is no physical damage to their property. Regarding this project, the water issue will be addressed during the
grading operation with the soils report.
Commissioner Baker asked if this project will contribute to existing ground water problems.
Mr. Hammann replied that without having extensive geological information, he cannot answer the question.
Typically, there will be irrigation water run-off but as far as a ground water increase, he cannot adequately
answer the question. He added that there could be some things that the soils engineer might recommend
to minimize any ground water problems from this project, which might include sub-drains, trench-drains,
French-drains, etc., that would discharge some surface waters to the streets to help minimize the problem.
Staff could recommend to the soils engineer that they look into some of those recommendations.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Hammann to address the drainage problem from the standpoint of four
houses versus five houses.
Mr. Hammann replied that it would depend on how the lots are configured and what types of landscaping
are used and that the grading of the extra lot (the elimination of the panhandle lot) will not make a significant
difference on the surface drainage. The difference in surface drainage would be negligible by reducing the
project from five lots to four.
Commissioner Trigas asked Mr. Hammann if grading the ridge down (on the panhandle lot) is necessary if
the project is reduced from five lots to four.
Mr. Hammann replied that the applicant was trying to say that the thing that controls the grading is how far
the house is going to be set back from the street, the street elevation, and how steep the driveway has to
be. The driveway could be so steep that is would require a 4-wheel drive vehicle to negotiate the grade.
He then pointed out that with the lot in the middle, at a higher elevation, there would have to be stairway
access up to that portion of the property in order to use it. That lot could conceivably be considered as
open space and have a gazebo placed on it, but it would not be usable as property associated with this type
of development.
Commissioner Trigas asked Mr. Hammann if he is saying that with the five lots there will not be a problem
with the differences in elevation.
Mr. Hammann replied that the panhandle driveway is over 100 feet long enabling an individual to gain
greater elevation than if it were only 20 feet. That panhandle actually helps the development of this property
with its longer driveway.
5-L
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,200l Page 17
Commissioner Trigas stated that she is troubled by the frontages and asked if there is a requirement that
the house not take up as much room on such a lot as a house would on a lot with a 100 foot frontage.
Ms. Landers replied that the side yard setbacks accommodate that along with the lot coverage
requirements. Ms. Landers reiterated that, for example, if the frontage is 75 feet, the side yard setback will
be 7.5 feet, which is 10% of the frontage footage. Ms. Landers added that a ten foot side yard setback is
the maximum in Carlsbad.
Commissioner Trigas asked if she is correct in her understanding that there will be no two-story portions of
a house on a frontage.
Ms. Landers replied that the Commissioner is incorrect.
Commissioner Trigas then asked if the single-story feature will be visible from the front of the structure.
Ms. Landers replied that a single-story element is desirable, as part of the street frontage, to visually bring
the eye down to a more pedestrian scale. There are a variety of ways this can be accomplished; having a
garage at one side of the house without a second-story can be a single-story element; sometimes a living
room or a bedroom is brought out to one side as a single-story element; part of the structure could be
brought forward so the front half is single-story and the back half is two-story. She added that the whole
idea is to bring the scale down. All of the houses in this proposed project, will have some type of single-
story element in an effort to reduce the building mass, visually, at the street level and reduce the building
mass at the corners to eliminate the appearance of a box.
Commissioner Trigas asked if it is true that by reducing the project to four houses, it would not change the
frontage of any of the houses.
Ms. Landers responded that the lot frontage of the houses will not change regardless of whether there are
four houses or five. As far as the house frontages, Staff is not aware of those figures, as yet. The designs
have not been submitted, to date, so it isn’t possible to determine the mass of the buildings at this time.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that the elevations of the lots don’t have to be changed if the project consisted
of four lots instead of five and asked Mr. Hammann if he was alluding to the fact that there would be a
steeper grade if the panhandle lot were eliminated.
Mr. Hammann replied that what he was trying to say is that the four lots would not change, significantly,
because of their relationship to the street. However, if the panhandle lot was removed, but the ridge left in
place, what would be left (divided between the other four houses) would not be very usable from an
elevation standpoint and small amount of land that would be added to the other lots.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the city would actually allow that ridge to be leveled and still be in
compliance.
Mr. Hammann replied that Mr. Westman and Mr. Riddle were working with the applicant on this. The
applicant alluded to the fact that by cutting that ridge down, the export is increased by 4,000 to 5,000 cubic
yards of soil. Regarding compliance with grading regulations, the city is always looking for ways to reduce
grading to minimize the impacts to the neighborhood. He added that if there is absolutely no other way,
they would allow the grading.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the applicant could remove the same amount of earth if they left the lot the
way it is. Mr. Hammann replied affirmatively.
Commissioner Baker asked if a house could be bigger if the lots were made larger.
Ms. Landers replied that that is theoretically correct, but lot coverage is still limited to 40% of the lot size.
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,200l Page 18
Commissioner Baker asked that if the project is reduced to four lots and the lots are larger in square
footage, can the houses be larger than originally intended.
Ms. Landers replied that that is correct as long as they don’t exceed 40% lot coverage.
Commissioner Baker stated that the question arises that if you reduce the project to four lots, the lots
become larger as well as the houses, and in the long run, has anything been accomplished?
Ms. Landers agreed with Commissioner Baker.
Commissioner Trigas asked Ms. Landers if it is true that if there are only four lots, the city loses its ability to
implement architectural features such as the single-story element.
Ms. Landers replied that Commissioner Trigas is correct and pointed out that four lots would be considered
a minor subdivision and would not be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The applicant would do a
parcel map with the Engineering Department and then the property owner(s) could pull building permits for
the homes. There would be no review other than compliance with code.
Commissioner Trigas asked if there is any review possible for a minor subdivision.
Ms. Landers replied that if the project is in the Beach Overlay Zone, perhaps there would be a possibility for
review by the Commission, but not in a standard R-l subdivision. In addition, Ms. Landers stated that she
is not aware that a Planning Commission review of a minor subdivision has ever been done.
Chairperson Segall stated that the Commission’s options are to either approve the project with the five lots
and retain its power of review, or approve the four lots and lose its power of review.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne interjected the fact that there is still a certain amount of discretion
and it is built (almost entirely) in the codes. The project would still have to comply with the codes and the
applicant would not be able to do anything he chooses at any time. He added that there is still a Hillside
ordinance, a grading ordinance and other like things that would come into play and would impact both a
minor subdivision as well as a major subdivision such as this one. However, with a minor subdivision, there
is much less discretion, and the only finding that has to be made is, “does it meet the zoning?”
Ms. Landers reminded Mr. Wayne that there is no hillside involved in this project and therefore a Hillside
ordinance would not be applicable.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the new condition, read into the record by Mr. Gallagher, can be changed to
read Planning Commission instead of Planning Director.
Ms. Landers replied that making that kind of change would be setting a precedent that hasn’t been done
before for this type of development. She went on to point out that the City Council, in doing their in-fill
ordinance policy, chose not to look at single-family homes because they do not wish to step into the arena
of controlling the architecture of a single-family home. Also, that has typically been the Planning
Department’s position. She added that there has always been a lot of flexibility with regard to the
architectural styles for single-family homes due to the fact that what one person likes, another person
doesn’t like. There is probably a lot more diversity in Carlsbad’s single-family neighborhoods which may be
good or bad, but, it is diversity which the council has chosen to follow. Ms. Landers further stated that there
have been a few instances where they have gone in and placed a Q overlay on the zoning, for a project.
Perhaps if this project was subdivided to R-l -7,500, and staff felt that because the development was along
a ridge line or it was particularly visible, a Q would be attached to the project so that the architecture would
come back to the Commission for review. She also stated that she is not aware of something like that
happening on a project of this size.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if there is any reason why they can’t condition it in the manner he suggested.
58
PLANNING COMMlSSlON January3,2001 Page 19
Assistant City Attorney, Jane Mobaldi interjected and stated that the applicant has made a concession by
agreeing to the condition in question, because technically there is no authority for site development plan
approval for this project. However, in consideration of the Commission’s decision, he would be willing to
make that concession.
MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4859, recommending approval of a Negative
Declaration and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4860, recommending
approval of Carlsbad Tract CT 00-09, based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein, including the additional condition as submitted by
Staff and read into the record by the applicant.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Compas stated that contrary to his earlier thoughts regarding panhandle lots, he now feels
that to reduce this project to four lots instead of the proposed five lots would not be the best use of this land.
In addition, changing the number of lots will not affect the size of the frontages. Regarding drainage, the
difference between four and five lots, is inconsequential. If the architectural diversity can be made to be
compatible with the existing neighborhood, then the project should be approved as proposed.
Commissioner L’Heureux stated that what is being proposed is probably the very best that can be expected
for this property. The underground water situation is something that needs to be addressed. She added
that it is possible that this is artesian water could be a good thing and clearly is not something the developer
should be held responsible for. In the future, she stated, maybe the city can work out a capital improvement
project for that. Commissioner L’Heureux expressed her approval of the project.
Commissioner Heineman stated that he had previously felt that there might be some benefit in dropping the
number of lots from five to four, but from what has been discussed at this meeting, there is no discernable
benefit to make that reduction in addition to the fact that it reduces the Commission’s oversight. That being
the case, and drawing from personal experience, the Commissioner stated that he does approve of this
project.
Commissioner Baker stated that she has no issue with the four lots versus five. There has been enough
testimony to conclude that there would be no significant gain in reducing the number of lots nor are there
any significant impacts by allowing the project to remain at five lots. Commissioner Baker suggested that
the developer should be extraordinarily sensitive to the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Baker further
stated that the problem with in-fill lots is that they don’t look quite right, at the beginning, and strongly
encourages the developer to be sensitive to the neighbors and try to design something with single story
design elements and landscaping that would fill in and go a long way in making it a part of the
neighborhood. Although she will follow Ms. Mobaldi’s advice, Commissioner Baker stated that she is
somewhat uncomfortable and has some reservations about handing this project off. However, she
concluded by stating that she will give her approval at this time.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that he is having a great deal of difficulty making the findings for the proposed
five lot project as well as the architectural compatibility with the neighborhood. He also stated that even
though the Planning Director will have the opportunity to review the project, if approved, the public will never
again have the same opportunity. Therefore, he stated that he cannot support the project.
Commissioner Trigas stated that she really had envisioned the reduction to four lots. However, her concern
was more for the frontage and the view and since the frontages are not going to change, regardless of the
number of lots, she will support the project. Commissioner Trigas strongly emphasized that this project will
have single-story features that clearly are single-story features and are not just superficial. Commissioner
Trigas also stated that she wants more than just different colors, different stone, etc., and the houses
(exterior design) be designed in such a way that there is no visible indication that any of these houses are in
5-9
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,200l Page 20
a tract and are not individual custom homes, which is also a saleable feature. Also, Commissioner Trigas
expressed her appreciation to all of the principles of this project, for having agreed on the myriad of details
and agreements and further stated that she feels assured that this project will be a good neighbor to the rest
of the neighborhood. Commissioner Trigas also stated that she is in agreement with Commissioner Baker
regarding handing off the project. However, she continued, she also feels that this project is a good one
and that she can support it.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Wayne how the Planning Director is made aware, other than the Minutes of
the meeting, of how concerned the Commission is that this project be done properly.
Mr. Wayne replied the following: the applicant comes back in with architecture and elevations and the staff
planner reviews those submissions based upon the guidelines that are presented in the conditions, plus the
further guidance provided by the testimony of the Commissioners. That planner then will make a
recommendation to the Planning Director. Ms. Landers, who has taken part in these discussions, will be
reviewing those documents as well. Then the elevations will be sent to the Assistant Planning Director and
finally to the Planning Director.
Chairperson Segall interjected and stated that the audio tapes from this meeting will also be available.
Commissioner Baker asked if there is any way that a Planning Commissioner would be able to check on the
progress and compliance of the project or will it really be out of the Commission’s hands.
Mr. Wayne replied that, essentially, the Commission is now finished with this project. However, he added,
there is a second part to this; if in the judgement of the planner, based upon the guidance and the
conditions and the further guidance provided by the testimony, that it does not comply, then the
recommendation by the Planning Director is to deny it and it could end up back before the Commission if
the applicant appealed the Planning Director’s decision.
Chairperson Segall stated that it appears to him that there is compatibility with the neighborhood except for
the panhandle lot. However, what is proposed is the best that can be done for the property and the project.
As indicated in earlier discussion, Chairperson Segall agreed that it appears that there will be more control
over the project by leaving it designated as a major subdivision. He added that if Mr. Jacobs had not
decided to develop the property and had simply sold the lots to individuals, those buyers could have built
anything they wanted as long as they adhered to the codes and ordinances of the city. In conclusion
Chairperson Segall stated that the city has a much better opportunity to make this as compatible as
possible, under the circumstances, for the community and therefore he supports the proposed project.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
6-1-O
Segall, Trigas, Baker, Heineman, L’Heureux, Compas
Nielsen
None
Chairperson Segall called for a five minute recess at 8:47 p.m.
Chairperson Segall called the Regular Meeting back to order at 8:56 p.m., with all Commissioners present.
March 12, 2001
Honorable Mayor Bud Lewis
and Carlsbad City Council Members
CITY OF CARLSBAD-Office of the City Hall
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
sent via: U.S. Mail
All Receive-Agenda Item #c~
For the Information of tk
cITYcouNclL
Asst.&&c~
RE: Subject Prop&v: Jacobs Property, 3465 Ridqecrest Drive, Carlsbad, CA
The Honorable Bud Lewis:
Pursuant to the information I have received that on the March 20, 2001 agenda for the Jacobs
property referenced above, I understand you will not be in full council on that night.
I respectfully request that the Jacobs property hearing be continued until the first Council
Meeting in April. We have been advised that the agenda is not full at this time.
Sincerely,
MSK DEVELOPMENT GROUP
fld ,~G&$%’
J.A. Gallagher
President
JAG:jef
cc: Ray Patchett, Carlsbad City Manager
.iI 12 \\ t.tlitl:t F.ltcilu;t-. ~‘:~ri-l~:~~l. (’ \ ‘JY!OOII t Tf10\ ‘J:( I -?T:\Ii I.‘!,\ I Tf,O\ ‘)Yi I -:?“t 1 1 ,
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 8l2011 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 7, 2001
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at San Marcos , California
7th this day March, 2001 of A
NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising
.ry ,& /pr’ ,, , i k <Ql i’ q&g
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearing
%%LE: CT 0049 ,SE hMME:CliAflLES JACOSS PROPEflTY
R OF GARLSSAD CLERKS OPFlCE
cHARLEsJAcoSSPROPEm cmpm I
Bgal69417. March 7,20!31
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 20,200l to
consider a demolition of an existing single-family residence and subdivision of an existing
1.38 acre property into 5 lots generally located between Ridgecrest Drive and Seacrest Drive
in Local Facilities Impact Zone 1 and more particularly described as:
Lot 25 of Seacrest Estates Unit No. 1, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 3906, filed in the
office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 10, 1958.
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 March 16,200l. If you
have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-
4614.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map, if approved, is
established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the
Tentative Tract Map 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 00-09
CASE NAME: CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY
PUBLISH: MARCH 7,200l
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE *
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 l (760) 434-2808 @
9’ 0..
5’.
:, ’
CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY
CT 00-09
of Carlsbad
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, November 15, 2000,
to consider a demolition of an existing single-family residence and subdivision of an existing
1.38 acre property into 5 lots generally located between Ridgecrest Drive and Seacrest Drive in
Local Facilities Impact Zone 1 and more particularly described as:
Lot 25 of Seacrest Estates Unit No. 1, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 3906, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, June IO,1958
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 November 9, 2000. If you have
any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map, if approved, is
established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Tentative
Tract Map 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 00-09
CASE NAME: CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY
PUBLISH: NOVEMBER 2.2000
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 . (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached arc the materials necessary for you to notice
CT 00-09 - Charles Jacobs Property
for a public hearing before the City Councfl.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of First Available Hearing
Thank you.
Assistant City Man--
February 21, 2001
Date
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5100~
City Clerk 1 .Ibl
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
CHRISTER WESTMAN
2/21/2001 r!i &I, AVERY@’ Address Labels
CALIF DEPT OF FISH 8, GAME
STE 50
330 GOLDENSHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Laser 5160@
MILAGROS FERNANDEZ H M & KIM HEMBREE LADOUCEUR
3444 SEACREST DR 3441 SEACREST DR 3460 CHARTER OAK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2037 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2039 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2007
TED R & ELAINE BRAY LOUIS A & GERI DEAN BILL & SUZAN STANG
3470 CHARTER OAK DR 3480 CHARTER OAK DR 3490 CHARTER OAK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2007 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2007 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2007
JACK L & VALARIE FORMAN SONDRA T CURTIN NORDQUIST
3510 CHARTER OAK DR 3499 SEACREST DR 3495 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2009 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2039 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2039
ROBERT L STIER GEORGE S & HOLLY MOYER RICHARD D & CARY FELD
3471 SEACREST DR 3461 SEACREST DR 3481 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2039 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2039 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2039
KNOX T WILLIAMS ANTOINETTE T CUSENZA ALBERT R & LYNDA HUERTA
3491 SEACREST DR 3474 SEACREST DR 3460 HILLCREST CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2039 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2037 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2019
ALBERTA A RICHARDSON ALBERTON CHARLOTTE L THATCHER
4140 OCEANSIDE BLVD 159 3480 HILLCREST CIR 3490 SEACREST DR
OCEANSIDE CA. 92056-6005 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2019 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2040
PAGE MATTHEW S REABOLD MILLER
3494 SEACREST DR 3537 RIDGECREST DR 3531 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2040 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2034 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2034
BONAGURA DAN MACMURRAY JOHN S STUHMER
3521 RIDGECREST DR 3511 RIDGECREST DR 3505 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2034 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2034 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2034
DEMY TR ROBERT N & LYNN SHERMAN GILBERT
3495 RIDGECREST DR 3455 CHARTER OAK DR 3465 CHARTER OAK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2031 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2008 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2008
KEVIN E MCCANN MCCANN 1990 GREG HEWITT
3475 CHARTER OAK DR 3485 CHARTER OAK DR 34 95 CHARTER OAK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2008 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2008 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2008
PACIFIC DAVID A
3505 CHARTER OAK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2010
G & J WRENCH
3531 CHARTER OAK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2010
WILLIAM T BECKETT
3580 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2033
MARIO P & ROSE TALONE
3550 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2033
ANTHONY R & SUE FARROW
3520 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2033
DONALD W TICKNOR
3496 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2032
ENRIQUE R LAS0 MARGARET R VEIGEL
3515 CHARTER OAK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2010
3521 CHARTER OAK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2010
PFAFFLIN KENNETH W MILLER
4020 PARK DR 3590 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2619 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2033
WILLIAM V & ROSA DALY ROBERTA R WHITLOCK
PO BOX 260 3560 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0260 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2033
DONALD H & ORA GELLHORN SCOTT C & MELINA ASBILL
3540 RIDGECREST DR 3530 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2033 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2033
SUSAN N MACDONALD ALLAN H SALM
3510 RIDGECREST DR 3500 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2033 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2033
*** 46 Printed ***
KEVIN & ANNA KELSO CAM CAMPBELL LOIS A SHANAHAN
3350 RIDGECREST DR 3360 RIDGECREST DR 3366 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2027 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2029 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2029
BROWNE VANDERBURG TR STILLWELL-
3424 RIDGECREST DR PO BOX 745 3444 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2030 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0745 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2030
WILLIAM C SCHNEIDER DONALD E WATTERSON JAMES J DAGOSTINO
3448 CAMDEN CIR 3450 CAMDEN CIR 3456 CAMDEN CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2006 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2006 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2006
RICHARD A SHAFFER NICHOLAS C BANCHE GLENN BRINEGAR
3460 RIDGECREST DR 3464 RIDGECREST DR 3484 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2032 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2032 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2032
THOMAS J & LYNN CONROY WALTER J & ETTA PARIS1 CHARLES H MITCHELL
3334 SEACREST DR 3344 SEACREST DR 3354 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2035 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2035 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2035
RONALD J KAYE ROBERT P & MARY EDIE HENRY & BELVA LABORD
3364 SEACREST DR 3400 SEACREST DR 3424 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2035 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2037 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2037
IRWIN & CYNTHIA OKUMURA LINDA S TOBIAS BRUCE G EDWARDS
3434 SEACREST DR 3485 RIDGECREST DR 3445 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2037 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2031 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2031
COWAN A B GEORGE WESTMORELAND
3425 RIDGECREST DR 3375 RIDGECREST DR 3365 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2031 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2028 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2028
JAMES W & AIL BEALL BONDS NANCY P HILMA M HILL
3355 RIDGECREST DR 3345 RIDGECREST DR 3445 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2028 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2028 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2031
SURVIVORS T HIRSCHBERG STANLEY D HENDRICKSON BARRY P COOPER
3355 SEACREST DR 3365 SEACREST DR PO BOX 2566
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2036 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2036 CARLSBAD CA 92018
DONALD K DEWHURST BANDEMER OTTO H&CATHERI MELVIN G & CAROL GRAZDA 3425 SEACREST DR 3435 SEACREST DR 3445 CHARTER OAK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2038 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2038 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2008
*** 33 Printed ***
GREGORY R JOHNSON JAMES P VANHOLLEBEKE SCOTT J & SHERI FERRELL
3321 CELINDA DR 3331 CELINDA DR 3341 CELINDA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073
ZAHN TR TROST TR RICHARD A-KURTZ
3351 CELINDA DR 3361 CELINDA DR 3371 CELINDA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073
FRANK J & RITA STASIO BROKER RUSSELL D NIELSEN
3381 CELINDA DR 3391 CELINDA DR 3401 CELINDA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2075
CHIN-JEW EILEEN & LOUIS LOW FREDERICK I TIMM
3411 CELINDA DR PO BOX 2506 3431 CELINDA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2075 CARLSBAD CA 92018-2506 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2075
JOHN B &c CHERYL OSBORNE JAMES N HOLT KARL L SHIPLEY
3441 CELINDA DR 3451 CELINDA DR 3432 CELINDA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2075 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2075 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2074
GREGORY S FLORES RENUKA R SETH1 WARREN T FROMMELT
3422 CELINDA DR 3412 CELINDA DR 3402 CELINDA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2074 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2074 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2074
DORIAN L VALLES JEROME D BERNSTEIN STEVEN A BEULIGMANN
3390 CELINDA DR 2301 DANA CT 2311 DANA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2072 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2076 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2076
RONALD E & ANN LOVICK RICHARD S BERGER BRYAN T BJORNDAL
2321 DANA CT 2331 DANA CT 2332 DANA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2076 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2076 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2076
THOMAS C & MARY BOOKER JOSEPH F & MARY KOENIGS ALLAN
2322 DANA CT 2312 DANA CT 2300 DANA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2076 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2076 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2076
*** 27 Printed ***
JOHN K STEVENS
3312 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2011
ELDEAN M BRATTON
2105 LINDA LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2043
FRED J SILBERBERGER
3371 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2012
ROBERT C FRAZEE
3341 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2012
KIRBY F KOETZ
3322 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2011
DIANE D HILTON
4280 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-4223
W&P CORP DENNY L & ANNA COOPER
4246 LAKEWOOD DR 2104 LINDA LN
LAKEWOOD CA 90712-3839 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2043
DEBORAH E CROOT BURNS
2095 LINDA LN 2085 LINDA LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2042 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2042
ERICH & JULIE LAUER PATRICIA A COLE
3365 DONNA DR 3351 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2012 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2012
JEFFREY 0 SCHNEIDER RICHARD E PERRY
3331 DONNA DR 3321 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2012 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2012
CARL & EVELINE SCHLACK BILLIE D FRAZEE
3332 DONNA DR 3341 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2011 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2012
TERRY A FRANCOISE MICHAEL J BECKMANN
3362 DONNA DR 3372 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2011 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2011
*** 18 Printed ***
WILCOX CHRISTIAN G BREAULT ROBERT M GILL
PO BOX 60520 5214 ELIOT PL 3311 CELINDA DR
LOS ANGELES C 90060 CARLSBAD CA 92008-3850 CARLSBAD CA 92008-20?3
MARK & MARGARET MOREL KEITH A CANNON MOWERY
2301 SHAWN CT 2300 SHAWN CT 3282 CELINDA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2078 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2078 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2071
KEVIN & A KELSON COLWELL
3281 CELINDA DR 3301 CELINDA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2070 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073
*** 8 Printed ***
ROBERT H SANBORN CHARLES R FOX ALICE A PARSONS
2080 GAYLE WAY 3384 DONNA DR 3390 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2016 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2011 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2011
POPE IDA M NEIL C & GEORGI GEHRKE JOSEPH J & RAMONA LEON
3410 DONNA DR 3420 DONNA DR 3430 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2013 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2013 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2013
*** 6 Printed ***
. KEVIN & ANNA KELSO CAM CAMPBELL LOIS A SHANAH.AN
3350 RIDGECREST DR 3360 RIDGECREST DR 3366 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2027 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2029 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2029
BROWNE VANDERBURG TR STILLWELL
3424 RIDGECREST DR PO BOX 745 3444 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2030 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0745 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2030
WILLIAM C SCHNEIDER DONALD E WATTERSON JAMES J DAGOSTINO
3448 CAMDEN CIR 3450 CAMDEN CIR 3456 CAMDEN CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2006 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2006 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2006
RICHARD A SHAFFER NICHOLAS C BANCHE GLENN BRINEGAR
3460 RIDGECREST DR 3464 RIDGECREST DR 3484 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2032 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2032 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2032
THOMAS J & LYNN CONROY WALTER J & ETTA PARIS1 CHARLES H MITCHELL
3334 SEACREST DR 3344 SEACREST DR 3354 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2035 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2035 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2035
RONALD J KAYE ROBERT P & MARY EDIE HENRY & BELVA LABORD
3364 SEACREST DR 3400 SEACREST DR 3424 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2035 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2037 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2037
IRWIN & CYNTHIA OKUMURA LINDA S TOBIAS BRUCE G EDWARDS
3434 SEACREST DR 3485 RIDGECREST DR 3445 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2037 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2031 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2031
COWAN A B GEORGE WESTMORELAND
3425 RIDGECREST DR 3375 RIDGECREST DR 3365 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2031 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2028 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2028
JAMES W & AIL BEALL BONDS NANCY P HILMA M HILL
3355 RIDGECREST DR 3345 RIDGECREST DR 3445 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2028 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2028 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2031
SURVIVORS T HIRSCHBERG STANLEY D HENDRICKSON BARRY P COOPER
3355 SEACREST DR 3365 SEACREST DR PO BOX 2566
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2036 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2036 CARLSBAD CA 92018
,DONALD K DEWHURST BANDEMER OTTO H&CATHERI MELVIN G & CAROL GRA2.a
3425 SEACREST DR 3435 SEACREST DR 3445 CHARTER OAK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2038 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2038 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2008
*** 33 Printed ***
GREGORY R JOHNSON JAMES P VANHOLLEBEKE SCOTT J & SHERI FERRELL 3321 CELINDA DR 3331 CELINDA DR 3341 CELINDA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073
ZAHN TR TROST TR RICHARD A KURTZ
3351 CELINDA DR 3361 CELINDA DR 3371 CELINDA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073
FRANK J & RITA STASIO BROKER RUSSELL D NIELSEN 3381 CELINDA DR 3391 CELINDA DR 3401 CELINDA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2075
CHIN-JEW ' EILEEN & LOUIS LOW FREDERICK I TIMM 3411 CELINDA DR PO BOX 2506 3431 CELINDA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2075 CARLSBAD CA 92018-2506 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2075
JOHN B & CHERYL OSBORNE JAMES N HOLT KARL L SHIPLEY
3441 CELINDA DR 3451 CELINDA DR 3432 CELINDA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2075 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2075 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2074
GREGORY S FLORES RENUKA R SETH1 WARREN T FROMMELT 3422 CELINDA DR 3412 CELINDA DR 3402 CELINDA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2074 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2074 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2074
DORIAN L VALLES JEROME D BERNSTEIN STEVEN A BEULIGMANN 3390 CELINDA DR 2301 DANA CT 2311 DANA CT CARLSBAD CA 92008-2072 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2076 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2076
RONALD E & ANN LOVICK RICHARD S BERGER BRYAN T BJORNDAL
2321 DANA CT 2331 DANA CT 2332 DANA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2076 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2076 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2076
THOMAS C & MARY BOOKER JOSEPH F & MARY KOENIGS ALLAN 2322 DANA CT 2312 DANA CT 2300 DANA CT CARLSBAD CA 92008-2076 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2076 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2076
***,27 Printed ***
WILCOX
PO BOX 60520 LOS ANGELES C 90060
MARK & MARGARET MOREL 2301 SHAWN CT CARLSBAD CA 92008-2078
KEVIN & A KELSON
3281 CELINDA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2070
CHRISTIAN G BREAULT ROBERT M GILL 5214 ELIOT PL 3311 CELINDA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-3850 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073
KEITH A CANNON MOWERY - 2300 SHAWN CT 3282 CELINDA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2078 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2071
COLWELL
3301 CELINDA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2073
*** 8 Printed ***
JOHN K STEVENS W&P CORP DENNY L & ANNA COOPER ' 3312 DONNA DR 4246 LAKEWOOD DR 2104 LINDA LN CARLSBAD CA 92008-2011 LAKEWOOD CA 90712-3839 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2043
ELDEAN M BRATTON DEBORAH E CROOT BURNS 2105 LINDA LN 2095 LINDA LN 2085 LINDA LN CARLSBAD CA 92008-2043 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2042 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2042
FRED J SILBERBERGER ERICH & JULIE LAUER PATRICIA A COLE 3371 DONNA DR 3365 DONNA DR 3351 DONNA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2012 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2012 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2012
ROBERT C FRAZEE JEFFREY 0 SCHNEIDER RICHARD E PERRY 3341 DONNA DR 3331 DONNA DR 3321 DONNA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2012 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2012 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2012
KIRBY F KOETZ CARL & EVELINE SCHLACK BILLIE D FRAZEE 3322 DONNA DR 3332 DONNA DR 3341 DONNA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2011 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2011 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2012
DIANE D HILTON TERRY A FRANCOISE MICHAEL J BECKMANN
4280 HIGHLAND DR 3362 DONNA DR 3372 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-4223 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2011 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2011
*** 18 Printed ***
ROBERT H SANBORN CHARLES R FOX ALICE A PARSONS ' 2080 GAYLE WAY 3384 DONNA DR 3390 DONNA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2016 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2011 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2011
POPE IDA M NEIL C & GEORGI GEHRKE JOSEPH J & RAMONA LEON 3410 DONNA DR 3420 DONNA DR 3430 DONNA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2013 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2013 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2013
*** 6 Printed ***
,
MILAGROS FERNANDEZ H M & KIM HEMBREE * 3444 SEACREST DR 3441 SEACREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2037 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2039
TED R & ELAINE BRAY LOUIS A & GERI DEAN 3470 CHARTER OAK DR 3480 CHARTER OAK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2007 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2007
JACK L & VALARIE FORMAN SONDRA T CURTIN 3510 CHARTER OAK DR 3499 SEACREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2009 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2039
ROBERT L STIER GEORGE S & HOLLY MOYER 3471 SEACREST DR 3461 SEACREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2039 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2039
LADOUCEUR 3460 CHARTER CARLSBAD CA
BILL & SUZAN 3490 CHARTER CARLSBAD CA
NORDQUIST
OAK DR
92008-2007
STANG OAK DR 92008-2007
3495 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2039
RICHARD D & CARY FELD 3481 SEACREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2039
KNOX T WILLIAMS ANTOINETTE T CUSENZA ALBERT R & LYNDA HUERTA 3491 SEACREST DR 3474 SEACREST DR 3460 HILLCREST CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2039 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2037 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2019
ALBERTA A RICHARDSON ALBERTON CHARLOTTE L THATCHER 4140 OCEANSIDE BLVD 159 3480 HILLCREST CIR 3490 SEACREST DR OCEANSIDE CA 92056-6005 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2019 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2040
PAGE MATTHEW S REABOLD MILLER
3494 SEACREST DR 3537 RIDGECREST DR 3531 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2040 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2034 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2034
BONAGURA DAN MACMURRAY JOHN S STUHMER 3521 RIDGECREST DR 3511 RIDGECREST DR 3505 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2034 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2034 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2034
DEMY TR ROBERT N & LYNN SHERMAN GILBERT 3495 RIDGECREST DR 3455 CHARTER OAK DR 3465 CHARTER OAK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2031 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2008 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2008
KEVIN E MCCANN MCCANN 1990 GREG HEWITT 3475 CHARTER OAK DR 3485 CHARTER OAK DR 3495 CHARTER OAK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2008 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2008 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2008
PACIFIC DAVID A
3505 CHARTER OAK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2010
G & J WRENCH
3531 CHARTER OAK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2010
WILLIAM T BECKETT 3580 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2033
MARIO P & ROSE TALONE 3550 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2033
ENRIQUE R LAS0 MARGARET R VEIGEL 3515 CHARTER OAK DR 3521 CHARTER OAK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2010 CARLSBAD CA 92006-2cilC
PFAFFLIN KENNETH W MILLER 4020 PARK DR 3590 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2619 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2033
WILLIAM V & ROSA DALY ROBERTA R WHITLOCK PO BOX 260 3560 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92018-0260 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2033
DONALD H & ORA GELLHORN SCOTT C & MELINA ASBILL 3540 RIDGECREST DR 3530 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2033 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2033
ANTHONY R & SUE FARROW SUSAN N MACDONALD ALLAN H SALM 3520 RIDGECREST DR 3510 RIDGECREST DR 3500 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2033 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2033 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2033
DONALD W TICKNOR 3496 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2032
*** 46 Printed ***
A notice has been mailed to
all property owners/occupants