HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-02; City Council; 16368; Appeal Of Pirineos Pointe0 3
CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# /&,%‘ii TITLE:
MTG. ?- / b-01
DEPT. PLN#
APPEAL OF PIRINEOS POINTE
SDP 00-l 6
DEPT. HD.
CITY Al-l-Y.
CITY MGR‘W, --3
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council direct the City Attorney to return with documents DENYING the appeal and UPHOLDING the Planning Commission’s approval of SDP 00-l 6.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On August 1, 2001, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the Pirineos
Pointe apartment project. The project consists of a 16 unit apartment project on a vacant, infill
parcel located on the north side of Pirineos Way between La Costa Avenue and the La Costa Resort
Golf Course. The property is designated for Residential High (RH) density (15 - 23 dulac)
development by the General Plan and is located in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. The
surrounding neighborhood is comprised entirely of multiple family condominium units. The 16 unit
apartment project proposes 14 three-bedroom market rate units and 2 three-bedroom affordable units to satisfy the projects inclusionary housing requirement. The density permitted on the .77 net
acre parcel using the Growth Management growth control point of 19 du/ac is 14.6 units; therefore
the project exceeds the density allowed by the growth control point by 1.4 dwelling units. The
integration of affordable units into the project is consistent with Housing Element goals. The Planning
Commission approved the project (3-2) based on findings that the project is subject to and consistent
with the General Plan, the Growth Management and lnclusionary Housing ordinances, and the RD-M
and Qualified Overlay zones.
The Planning Commission received two letters in support, six letters in opposition, and petitions with
212 signatures in opposition to the project from surrounding residents. Twenty-five persons spoke in opposition to the project during public testimony. Speakers expressed concerns over the following
issues:
Existing traffic safety and proposed additional traffic on already congested streets
Additional density above the growth control point
Opposition to rental apartment units that are not compatible with ownership units
Lack of on-street parking on Pirineos Way, a cul-de-sac street
Limited emergency evacuation routes
Inadequate onsite parking proposed for the project
Lack of open space and/or recreational opportunities in the neighborhood
Three story structures with three bedroom units
On August 10, 2001, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project was
filed. Following is a list of items identified as the subject of appeal and staffs response to each:
1. The Planning Commission erroneously accepted incorrect and misleading research
presented by the staff planner:
Response: Although the appellant has not been specific regarding the incorrect and
misleading research mentioned as a subject of their appeal, the following item is believed by
staff to be the issue. During public testimony, staff was questioned about whether other
apartment units exist on Pirineos Way or Navarra Drive. Staff responded that she believed
there were other apartment units on Navarra Drive based on a limited review of the assessor
parcel books which identify parcels that have condominium ownership units. However, the
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. /d; $ti’
distinction between ownership and non-ownership units is not an issue that staff would
consider in reviewing a multi-family project for conformance with City policies and standards.
There is no City policy or standard that can be used to distinguish mutli-family development
based on ownership.
2. The proposed affordable units do not satisfy the City’s lnclusionary Housing requirement
(15% of total units):
Response: Section 21.85050 of the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.85 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code) specifies that the required number of lower-income
inclusionary units shall be 15% of the total residential units to be provided both onsite and
offsite. Fractional units of .5 and above are rounded up to the next higher number and units
of .5 and below are rounded down. The project consists of a request for 14 market rate units
and two affordable units for a total of 16 units. Fifteen percent of the total (16 units) is 2.4
units; therefore, the project consists of 14 market rate units and 2 affordable units.
3. The City’s Master EIR is outdated and does not meet requirements of being updated and current:
Response: As stated in the Planning Commission staff report, the project is within the scope
of the City’s General Plan EIR (MEIR). In issuing a Negative Declaration for the project, the
Planning Director determined that based on an environmental impact assessment of the
project, no project-specific significant environmental impacts could be identified. The
Negative Declaration relied on the MEIR only to address cumulative air quality and circulation
impacts for which overriding considerations were made by Council due to regional impacts.
Although the City is currently reviewing the MEIR to determine its adequacy, a preliminary
analysis of its adequacy has not identified substantial changes to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified or any new available information which was not known or could
not have been known at the time the EIR was certified.
4. The Planning Department’s reliance on the City’s Growth Management Plan exceeds
accepted standards and is vague in establishing density precedence:
Response: The Planning Department relied on the Growth Management Ordinance to make
findings regarding the projects density because the project density exceeds the density
allowed by the growth control point. The Growth Management Ordinance limits projects to the
growth control point to ensure that the adopted quadrant dwelling unit caps are not
exceeded. However, the ordinance provides very clear administrative relief through allowing
projects to exceed the growth control point while remaining within the applicable General
Plan density range if specific findings are made. The findings applicable to the project are
that the additional 2 units would not exceed the dwelling unit cap imposed for the southeast
quadrant, and that the project would provide sufficient additional public facilities to satisfy any
additional demand that it generates. Staff testified during the public hearing that the dwelling
unit cap for the southeastern quadrant has not been exceeded and no deficiency in public
facilities resulting from the project were identified (see Finding number 1 of Planning
Commission Resolution 5008.) The Growth Management Ordinance does not require that a
precedence finding be made, i.e., that other projects in the area have exceeded the growth
control point. It is true that existing project densities on Pirineos Way are all well over the I ’
growth control point of 19 du/ac because they were developed prior to adoption of the Growth
Management Ordinance
2
PAGE 3 OFAGENDA BILL NO. /6! 36f
5. The Planning Department approved apartment type dwellings in an established condominium
community:
Response: There is an assumption by the appellant that apartment and condominium multi-
family units are not compatible because an apartment project would reduce existing quality of
life and property values in an established neighborhood. As discussed above, the City has
no policy for distinguishing between ownership and non-ownership multi-family units. Staffs
compatibility finding was based on multi-family units that are similar in design and density.
Staffs finding that the proposed infill lot is surrounded by existing multi-family apartment and
condominium projects should be corrected to state that the infill lot is surrounded by existing
multi-family condominiums; however, based on staffs research, about one-third of the
condominium units may be rental units because they are not owner-occupied. This correction
would not change the finding that the proposed units are compatible with the surrounding
community.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5007 and 5008
3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 18, 2001 and August 1, 2001
4. Planning Commission Minutes dated August I,2001
5. Appeal Form received August IO, 2001
6. Letter from Applicant dated August 13,200l
3
LA COSTA COUNTRY CLUB
SITE
@ woanl
PIRINEOS POINTE
SDP 00-16
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 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5007
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE A 16 UNIT
APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF PIRINEOS WAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: PIRINEOS POINTE
CASE NO.: SDP 00- 16
WHEREAS, Pirineos Pointe, LLC, “Developer” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Nothan Partners No. I, “Owner,”
described as
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 4548 in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, March 16,1976 as file No. 76-
076420 of official records.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of July, 2001 and on
the 1st day of August, 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:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby ADOPTS the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“ND” dated June 1, 2001, and “PII” dated May 13, 2001, attached hereto and
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findiws:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration, the environmental
impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
APPROVING the project; and
b. 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
C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EL4 Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted subject to the approval of SDP 00-16 and subject to all conditions
contained in Planning CornmisSion Resolution 5008.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of August, 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Heineman, and Trigas
NOES: Commissioners Compas and Nielsen
ABSENT: Commissioners Baker and L’Heureux
JB@JI#fSEGALJ,&hairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5007
City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Pirineos Way between La Costa Avenue and the La Costa Golf
Course in the RD-M zone.
Project Description: 16 unit three-story townhome apartment project on an .883 acre
infill parcel. The project includes 2 affordable housing apartment
units, and common recreation facility consisting of pool, spa, and
community recreation room.
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 Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4622.
DATED: JUNE 1,200l
CASE NO: SDP 00-l 6
CASE NAME: PIRTNEOS POINTE
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 1,200l
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 00- 16
DATE: 05-13-01
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Pirineos Pointe
2. APPLICANT: Darryl Clubb
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 7909 Silverton Avenue, Suite 213, San
Dieao. CA 92128 PH: 858-689-8911
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 12- 15-00
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 16 unit apartment project on an .883 acre infill parcel located on
Pirineos Way in the RD-M zone.
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
cl Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
q Water q Hazards q Cultural Resources
m Air Quality q Noise q Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
8
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
lxl
q
q
0
q
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.
Date ’ /
9
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
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 &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
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.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
a If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
l An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
4
b)
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)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
4
b)
cl
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a)
b)
cl
4
e)
0
g)
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-I - 5.1.15)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l :Pgs 5. l-l -
5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15; #2)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; #2)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#I :Pgs 5.1-l -
5.1-15; #2)
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; #3)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1)
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-l 1; #3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
0
q
q
q
cl
q
0. q q
q
0 q
q cl El
q
q
q
Potentially Less Than Significant Significanl
Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
q
q q
q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
0
q
q q q
q
q q
cl q q
Ix)
q
q
NO impact
lxl
lxl
lzl
El
lxl
lxl
lxl
Ix1
El
El
lxl
IXI
lxl
1x1
El
lxl
lzl
q
w
lxl 12
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
e)
f)
.!a
h)
0
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1)
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 recharges
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1)
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)
cl
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.
proposal result in:
Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
b) 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)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
g) 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)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Potentially
Stgnificant
Impact
q
cl
q
q
q q
lx
El
0
q
lxl
q
0,
q
q
0
q
q
q
El
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated q
cl
q
q
q q
q
0
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
Less Than
Stgnificanl
Impact
q
0
cl
q
q cl
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
u
q
q
q
q
q
q
X0
Impact
151
lxl
Ix1
lxl
lxl
Ia
q
lxl
IXI
lxl
q
lxl
El
lzl
IXI
(XI
El
Ix)
lxl
txJ /3
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
e)
VIII.
4
b)
c)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &5.13-l - 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 o future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ()
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterationsto the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
q
q
q
El
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
U cl q III q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q cl q q q
q
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
IXI
5
5
rxl4 /
7 Rev. 03128196
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
q
Potentially Significant
Unless Mttigation
Incorporated
El
q
Less Than Significanl
Impact
q
q
NO impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
cl
4
e>
f)
g)
XIII.
a)
b)
cl
XIV.
4
b)
c)
4
4
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-l - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l :Pgs 5.12.2-l -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l - 5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l :Pgs 5.8-
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 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 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
Significant
Impact
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q 0
q
q
q
cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated q q
q q El q
q
q
q
q
q
cl q
cl
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
cl
q
q q
0
q
cl
q
NO
Impact
izl
!xl
Ix)
151
lxl
[x1
Ix]
El
El
El
lzl
Ix1
Ix1
lxl
El
lxl
lxl
8
/5
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
LessThan No
Significant Impact Impact
lncoaorated
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? 0 q cl El
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, q cl cl ixl
either directly or indirectly?
9
/6
Rev. 03/28/96
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.
b) 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
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The infill site has been previously disturbed by grading and is surrounded by existing multi-
family development similar in size and scale to that proposed. The site consists of a generally
flat graded pad with an approximately 15’ descending slope along the northern property line.
The site contains no sensitive vegetation. The 16 unit project is consistent with the RH General
Plan designation allowing 15 - 23 dwelling units/acre, however, the proposed 20 dwelling
units/acre project density exceeds the Growth Management Control point of 19 du/acre by 1 unit.
This density increase would enable the provision of 2 affordable housing units proposed to be
integrated into the project. This is consistent with surrounding development which also exceeds
the density allowed by the Growth Management growth control point. Because the project
grading scheme proposes to lower the site to provide access to partially subterranean garages,
4,540 cubic yards of export will be necessary to develop the site. Exported soils will be
transported outside the City limits.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
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 form 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
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at 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 vg
11 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
2. “Geotechnical Investigation and Foundation Recommendations Proposed New Multi-unit
Development, Located on the North Side of Pirineos Way, APN 216-200-2400, City of
Carlsbad, California” dated November 10,2000, prepared by Engineering Design Group.
3. “Hydrology Study -Pirineos Pointe, Carlsbad, California” dated May 10, 2001, prepared
by Engineering Design Group.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
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. 5008
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 00-16 TO ALLOW A 16 UNIT
APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF PIRINEOS WAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: PIRINEOS POINTE
CASE NO.: SDP 00-16
WHEREAS, Pirineos Pointe, LLC, “Developer” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Nothan Partners No. I, “Owner,”
described as
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 4548 in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, March 16,1976 as file No. 76-
076420 of off&al records.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Plan as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “V” dated July 18,2001, on file in the Planning Department,
SDP 00-16 - PIRINEOS POINTE, as provided by Chapter 21,06/Section 21.53.120 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of July, 2001 and on
the 1st day of August, 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 all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Site Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission APPROVED SDP 00-16 - PIRINEOS POINTE, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
1. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental
settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will
not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which
the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or
traffic circulation, in that the project is consistent with the Residential High (RH)
density General Plan designation for the site and surrounding properties, and
although it exceeds the density permitted by the Growth Management growth
control point by 1.4 units, adequate public facilities will be provided to serve the
additional units in accordance with Growth Management standards and quadrant
dwelling unit cap will not be exceeded. The project is also consistent with Housing
Element goals for the provision of low income housing and with zoning standards
for development in the RD-M zone. The project would not adversely impact the site
or surrounding uses since it is proposed on an infill lot that is surrounded by
existing multi-family apartme’nt and condominium projects that are similar in
design and at densities similar to or higher than the proposed density. The project
is designed with a single driveway providing access to partially subterranean
garages within the development that will ensure safe ingress and egress from the
public street. The architectural design, in which units are two-story adjacent to
surrounding development and include well articulated building planes and roof
lines, aesthetically enhance the project and ensure compatibility with the
surrounding development.
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the apartment project proposes only 30.7% building coverage and building
setbacks exceed the minimum requirements at the majority of locations.
Additionally, a 6’ high earthstone retaining wall and 3:l landscaped slope will
replace and restabilize an existing 15’ high, 1 521 slope located along the northern
property line. The structures will remain at the approximate location of the existing
top of slope; therefore, additional building area is not created by the retaining wall.
3. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust
the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that the project provides 1andscap.e setbacks that exceed
the minimum requirement at most locations, includes common and private outdoor
recreational amenities within the developable area, and is similar in design and scale
with surrounding development.
4. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the street system serving the project includes
improved local streets and La Costa Avenue. The local streets are designed to
accommodate high density development in accordance with the General Plan. La
Costa Avenue is a secondary circulation arterial roadway that currently operates at
acceptable levels of service and can accommodate the additional 96 ADT generated
by the proposed project.
PC RESO NO. 5008 -2- 21
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
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 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 Encinitas Union/San
Dieguito High School Districts 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.
d. The Local Facilities Management fee for Zone 6 is required by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 21.90.050 and will be collected prior to issuance of
building permit.
That the project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for the density in
excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s public facility plans
will not be adversely impacted, in that although the project exceeds the permitted
density by 1.4 dwelling units, the infill parcel is served with adequate public
facilities to serve the additional density.
That 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.
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.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B).
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 issuance of
grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first.
PC RESO NO. 5008 22 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28’
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Site Development Plan.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Site Development Plan documents, as necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
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/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Site Development Plan, (b)
City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c)
Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions.
The Developer shall submit to the Planning Department a reproducible 24” x 36”,
mylar copy of the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision
making body.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide
school facilities.
a. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are
required as part of the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan and any
amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
213 PC RESO NO. 5008 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
The developer shall construct trash receptable and recycling areas enclosed by a six foot
high masonry wall with gates pursuant to City engineering standards and Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 2 1.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Planning Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to
the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
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 weeks, trash, and debris.
The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, or where a map is not
being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the
Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide and
deed restrict two dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households for the useful
life of the dwelling units, in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in
Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing
Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than 60 days prior to the
request to final the map. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding
on all future owners and successors in interest.
The Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the
project’s market rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the City and
the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule
for development.
Prior to issuance of the Site Development Plan, developer shall submit to the City a
Notice of Restriction to be filed in the Office of the County Recorder, subject to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in
interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Site Development Plan by Resolution No.
5008 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note
the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all
conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in
the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director as the authority to execute and record an
amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of
good cause by the Developer or successor in interest.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in ,
PC RESO NO. 5008 -5 24
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
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Planning.
16. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required
passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and
I recreational facilities
i 17. The Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all rental offices associated
with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be approved by
the Planning Department.
18. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 18 months from the date of project approval.
Engineering:
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.
Fees/Ameements
21. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation, the City’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
22. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation the City’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding
drainage across the adjacent property.
23. 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
24. Upon completion of grading, Developer shall file an “as-graded” geologic plan with the
City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading
operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based on
a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. The plan shall be
signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist, and shall be submitted on
a 24” x 36” mylar or similar drafting film format suitable for a permanent record.
25. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
PC F2ESO NO. 5008 -6- 25
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
conceptual grading plan, 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 a
building permit for the project.
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.
Dedications/Improvements
27. Developer shall execute and record a City standard Development Improvement
Agreement to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public
improvements shown on the Site Plan and the following improvements including, but not
limited to (paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, medians, grading, and
grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire hydrants,
street lights, retaining walls and reclaimed water), to City Standards to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
a. New l&inch RCP storm drain to serve project constructed from
project entryway to existing inlet at cul-de-sac east of project.
b. New Fire service lateral
c. New water service and meter
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the
project or development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said
agreement.
28. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall underground all existing overhead
utilities along or within the Project boundary, if any exist.
29. Developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, latest issue. Developer shall provide
improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the
“California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook” to reduce surface
pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such
improvements shall be 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
PC RESO NO. 5008 -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
containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
30. Prior to Building Permit or Grading Permit issuance, whichever occurs first, Developer
shall apply for and obtain approval of the City Engineer, for the design of the structural
section for the access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with City Standards
due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500.
The structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted together with
required R-value soil test information and approved by the City Engineer as part of the
building or grading plan review whichever occurs first.
Carlsbad Municipal Water District Conditions
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map, Developer shall meet with the Fire
Marshal to determine the fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations,
building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be
considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the
satisfaction of the District Engineer.
The Developer shall design and construct public facilities within public right-of-way or
within minimum 20-feet wide easements granted to the District or the City of Carlsbad.
At the discretion of the District Engineer, wider easements may be required for adequate
maintenance, access and/or joint utility purposes.
Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Dieno County Water
Authority capacity charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits.
The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at a location approved by
the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
The Developer shall design and construct public water facilities substantially as shown on
the Site Plan and Conceptual Grading Plan to the satisfaction of the District Engineer.
Proposed public facilities shall be reflected on public improvement plans.
The Developer shall construct sufficient numbers (meter bank) of potable water meters
(maximum 2-inch meters) required to serve the project. Master-meters for each structure
(larger than 2-inches) is not an acceptable provision.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be
issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer has
determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of
occupancy.
PC RESO NO. 5008 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
38. The Developer shall meet with and obtain approval from the Leucadia County Water
District regarding sewer infrastructure available or required to serve this project.
Fire:
39. Prior to building occupancy, private driveways which serve as required access for
emergency service vehicles shall be posted as tire lanes in accordance with the
requirements of Section 17.04.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
40. Fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required (use exception #2, CBC 1007.2.9.1.1 in
place of fire alarm system). Plans and/or specifications for fire alarm systems and
automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval
prior to construction.
Code Reminders:
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
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 project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning
Director prior to installation of such signs.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
PC RFSO NO. 5008 -9- 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
8 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of August, 2001, by the
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Heineman, and Trigas
NOES: Commissioners Compas and Nielsen
ABSENT: Commissioners Baker and L’Heureux
G COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5008 -lO-
\
27
The City of Carlsbad Planning Departmen EXH6lT 3
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 1 0
Application complete date: April 13, 2001
P.C. AGENDA OF: August 1,200l Project Planner: Anne Hysong
Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle
SUBJECT: SDP 00-16 - PIRINEOS POINTE - Request for approval of a Site Development
Plan to allow a 16 unit townhome style apartment project including 2 affordable
housing units located on Pirineos Way between La Costa Avenue and the La
Costa Resort Golf Course in the RD-M zone and Local Facilities Management
Zone 6.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution 5007 ADOPTING a
Negative Declaration and Planning Commission Resolution 5008 APPROVING SDP 00- 16.
II. BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the July 18,200l meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1, Planning Commission Resolution No. 5007 (Neg. Dec.)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5008 (SDP)
3. Staff Report dated July 18,200l with attachments
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
Application complete date: April 13, 2001
P.C. AGENDA OF: July l&2001 Project Planner: Anne Hysong
Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle
SUBJECT: SDP 00-16 - PIRINEOS POINTE - Request for approval of a Site Development
Plan to allow a 16 unit townhome style apartment project including 2 affordable
housing units located on Pirineos Way between La Costa Avenue and the La
Costa Resort Golf Course in the RD-M zone and Local Facilities Management
Zone 6.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution 5007 ADOPTING a
Negative Declaration and Planning Commission Resolution 5008 APPROVING SDP 00-16.
II. INTRODUCTION
The proposed project is a 16 unit three-story townhome style apartment complex on the only
remaining vacant lot located on Pirineos Way between the La Costa Resort Golf Course and La
Costa Avenue. The project consists of 4 three-story buildings, each containing 4 three-bedroom
units that range in size from 1,880 to 2,135 square feet, and a common recreation area consisting
of a clubhouse, exercise gym, lap pool and spa. Two units would be reserved as affordable
housing units to satisfy the project’s inclusionary housing requirement, and the applicant is
requesting approval to exceed the growth control point by 1.78 units. As designed and
conditioned, the project is consistent with the General Plan and relevant chapters of the Zoning
Ordinance.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting approval of a site development plan to allow a 16 unit apartment
project consisting of 14 market rate units and 2 affordable units on a .88 acre (.77 net acre) infill
parcel designated for Residential High (RH) density by the General Plan. The proposed project
density of 20.78 du/acre is within the RH density range of 15 - 23 du/acre; however, the project
exceeds the Growth Management growth control point (GCP) of 19 du/acre. The GCP would
allow 14.6 units; therefore, the 16 unit project is 1.4 units above the Growth Management
dwelling unit allowance. Planning Commission approval of the SDP is required pursuant to
Section 21.53.120 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires the processing of a site development
plan for multi-family projects with more than 4 units and for multi-family affordable projects of
any size.
The infill parcel is located on the north side of Pirineos Way in the southeast quadrant. The site
has been previously disturbed by grading and is surrounded by existing multi-family
g
31
SDP 00-16 - PIRINEOS POINTE
July 18,200l
Page 2
development similar in size and scale to that proposed. The site consists of a generally flat
graded pad that rises from street grade approximately 5’ with an approximately 15’ high
descending slope along the northern property line. The site contains no sensitive vegetation.
The proposed grading scheme would lower the site 5’ to 8’ to provide driveway access to
partially subterranean garages resulting in 4,540 cubic yards of export to develop the site.
Exported soils will be transported outside the City limits. The proposed pad elevations around
the perimeter of the site are the same or lower than existing elevations. A combination of a 6’
high earthstone wall and 3: 1 fill slope will replace the existing unstable l-l/2: 1 slope along the
northern boundary of the site. A single 24’ wide driveway will provide access to garages and
guest parking located in the interior of the project.
The townhome style apartment project consists of four three-story buildings with 4 units in each
building plus a single story clubhouse attached to one of the buildings. The buildings are a
maximum height of 34.5’, and each unit consists of a two-car garage on the lower level and two
floors of living space above the garage. The project will appear two-story along the perimeter
elevations with the lower level garages visible from the interior of the site. Each unit has an
interior entrance through the garage and an exterior entrance to the second level living area along
the outside perimeter. Since the exterior apartment entrances are around the outside perimeter of
the project, the “front” building elevations visible from the street and adjacent properties are
absent garage doors and include multiple building planes and enhanced window treatment. The
proposed architectural design also incorporates a one-story element (clubhouse) along the
Pirineos Way street frontage that serves to reduce the building mass at the street. All units have
a 40 square foot balcony deck and 14 of the units have 105 square foot private patios. The units
without private patios have immediate access to a common recreation area. The 14 market rate
units are 2,135 square feet with three bedrooms and two and one-half baths, and the two
affordable units are 1,880 square feet and 1,929 square feet with three bedrooms and two baths.
Recreational amenities include a 1,142 square foot clubhouse, lap pool and spa. The lap pool
and spa are located in the front of the project behind a 10’ fully landscaped front setback;
therefore a 5’ high masonry wall is proposed to enclose the pool area along the street. The wall
transitions down to 42” in height where it is within the front setback in accordance with City
standards. Pedestrian circulation is provided around the entire project and includes handicapped
accessibility to the recreation areas.
The project is subject to the following adopted land use plans and regulations:
A. General Plan
B. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 2 1 (Zoning Ordinance) including:
(1) Chapter 21.24 - Residential Density - Multiple Zone
(2) Section 21.53.120 - Affordable Housing/Multi-Family Residential Projects and
Chapter 2 1.06 - Qualified Overlay Zone;
(3) Chapter 21.85 - Inclusionary Housing
C. Growth Management
32
SDP 00- 16 - PIFUNEOS POINTE
July 18,200l
Page 3
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies in tables and project specific
discussions.
A. General Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan. The
following table indicates how the project complies with the elements of the General Plan which
are particularly relevant to this proposal.
ELEMENT
Land Use
GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
STANDARD PROVIDED
RH (15-23 Dwelling 20.78 du/acre
Units/Acre)
COMPLIANCE
Yes
Housing
Growth Control
Point (GCP) = 19
Dwelling Units/Acre
Ensure all projects
provide a range of
housing for all
economic income
groups. A minimum
of 15% of the total
units approved shall
be affordable to
lower income
households.
20.78 du/acre
2 units
The project exceeds
the growth control
point of 19 du/acre
however the findings
required by the City’s
Growth Management
Plan can be made to
exceed the GCP.
Yes
Bl. Chapter 21.24 - Residential Density Multiple Zone
The project is in conformance with the following zoning standards:
33
SDP 00-16 - PIRINEOS POINTE
July 18,200l
Page 4
RD-M ZONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
STANDARD REQUIRED PROPOSED
Use
Lot Coverage
Front Yard Setback
Street Side Yard Setback
SideYard Setback
Rear Yard
Single family/multi family units Multi-family apartments
60% 30.72%
10 Feet (with no garage doors Minimum 20 Feet with
facing street and full 10 Feet fully landscaped
landscaping)
10 Feet Not Applicable
5 Feet 5 Feet - 15 Feet
10 Feet 22 Feet
9 J 11
1 Building Height Maximum 35 Feet 34.5 Feet
B2. Affordable Housing/Multi-Family Residential Projects and Qualified Overlay
Zone
Multi-family apartment projects exceeding 4 units and affordable housing projects of 50 or fewer
units require Planning Commission approval of a site development plan based on findings that
the project is consistent with the underlying zoning and in conformance with the General Plan
policies and goals and in accordance with the provisions of the Qualified Overlay Zone (Chapter
21.06 of the Zoning Ordinance). Findings required by the Qualified Overlay Zone ensure that
the use is consistent with the General Plan and will not adversely impact the site or surrounding
uses, and that the site and street system are adequate to accommodate the use.
The 16 unit apartment project, including two integrated low income housing units, is consistent
with the Residential High (RH) density General Plan designation for the site and surrounding
properties. The project density of 20.78 du/acre exceeds the Growth Management growth
control point (19 du/acre), however, the necessary findings that the infill parcel is served with
adequate public facilities and that excess dwelling units are available in the quadrant can be
made. As indicated in Sections A and Bl of this report, the project is consistent with Housing
Element goals for the provision of low income housing and with zoning standards for
development in the RD-M zone. The project would not adversely impact the site or surrounding
uses since it is proposed on an infill lot that is surrounded by existing multi-family apartment and
condominium projects that are similar in design and at densities similar to or higher than the
proposed density. The project is designed with a single driveway providing access to partially
subterranean garages within the development that will ensure safe ingress and egress from the
public street. The architectural design, in which units are two-story adjacent to surrounding
development and include well articulated building planes and roof lines, aesthetically enhance
the project and ensure compatibility with the surrounding development.
The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the apartment project which proposes
only 30.7% building coverage and building setbacks exceed the minimum requirements at the
majority of locations. The project also includes common and private outdoor recreational
amenities within the developable area. A 6’ high earthstone retaining wall and 3:l landscaped
slope will replace and restabilize an existing 15’ high, 1 1/:1 slope located along the northern
property line. The structures will remain at the approximate location of the existing top of slope;
therefore, additional building area is not created by the retaining wall.
SDP 00-16 - PIRINEOS POINTE
July 18,200l
Page 5
The street system serving the project includes improved local streets and La Costa Avenue. The
local streets are designed to accommodate high density development in accordance with the
General Plan. La Costa Avenue is a secondary circulation arterial roadway that currently
operates at acceptable levels of service and can accommodate the additional 96 ADT generated
by the proposed project.
B3. Inclusionary Housing
The project is subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requiring that a minimum of 15%
of the total approved residential units in any development be restricted and affordable to lower
income households. In addition, 10 percent of those units must be three bedroom units. The
project complies with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as demonstrated below:
STANDARD REQUIRED PROVIDED
15% Inclusionary Units 2.4 2
Mix of Bedrooms 10% of Units - 3 bedrooms 2 three bedroom units
Affordable Housing Agreement Signed Agreement prior to Condition imposed to require
final map an affordable housing
agreement.
B. Growth Management
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 6 in the southeast
quadrant of the City. The impacts created by this development on public facilities and
compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows:
FACILITY IMPACTS COMPLIANCE
City Administration
Library
Waste Water Treatment
56 sq ft
30 sq ft
17 EDU
Yes
Yes
Yes
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
.ll acre
N/A
96 ADT
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection Svstem
Station No. 2
N/A
Encinitas Union/San Dieguito
Elementary School: 1.74
Junior High School: 1.76
High School: 1.76
17 EDU
3,740 GPD
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1 Water Yes
The project is 1.4 dwelling units above the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance of 14.6
units for the property as permitted by the Growth Management Ordinance growth control point.
35
SDP 00-16 - PIRINEOS POINTE
July 18,2001.
Page 6
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a
potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Based on the
findings of the initial study Part II, the project is 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.
MEIRs may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than 5 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 5 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. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was
not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. All feasible
mitigation measures identified in the MEIR which are appropriate to this project have been
incorporated into the project. The environmental analysis performed for the project revealed that
the site is currently served by existing infrastructure that can accommodate the additional project
demand; the site has been previously disturbed by grading; and the site is devoid of any
significant cultural or natural biological resources. An additional 96 ADT would be generated
by the project; however, this increase would not negatively impact the levels of service of
existing roadways serving the project. Based on the findings that no significant environmental
impacts would result from the project, the Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration on
June 1,200l. No comments were received during the public review period.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
AH:mh
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5007 (Neg Dee)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5008 (SDP)
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Statement
Reduced Exhibits
Full size Exhibits “A” - “V” dated July 18,200l
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: SDP 00-16
CASE NAME: Pirineos Pointe
APPLICANT: Pirineos Pointe LLC
REQUEST AND LOCATION: 16 Unit anartment proiect including 2 inclusionarv housing
units on the north side of Pirineos Wav between the La Costa Resort Golf Course and La Costa
Avenue in the southeast quadrant.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 4548 in the Citv of Carlsbad, Countv of San
Diego, State of California. filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
March 16, 1976 as file No. 76-076420 of official records.
APN: 216-200-24 Acres: .88 Acre Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 16 Units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RH
Density Allowed: 15 - 23/ GCP = 19 Density Proposed: 20.78
Existing Zone: RD-M Proposed Zone: Same
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Site
North
South
East
West
Zoning
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M
General Plan
RH
RH
RH
RH
RI-3
Current Land Use
Vacant
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Encinitas Union/San Dienuito Water District: CMWD Sewer District: Leucadia
County Water District
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 17 EDU
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
lxl Negative Declaration, issued June 1,200l
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
0 Other
37
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: SDP 00- 16 - PIRINEOS POINTE
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 6 GENERAL PLAN: RH
ZONING: RD-M
DEVELOPER’S NAME: PIRINEOS POINTE, LLC
ADDRESS: 7909 SILVERTON AVENUE, #2 13
PHONE NO.: (858) 689-8911 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 216-200-24
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 16 DU
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: UNKNOWN
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 56 square feet
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 30 square feet
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 17 EDU
Park: Demand in Acreage = .ll acre
Drainage: Demand in CFS = 1 cfs
Identify Drainage Basin = Batiauitos Watershed
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 128
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = No. 2
Open Space: Acreage Provided = Not applicable
Schools: Elementary School: 1.74
Junior High School: 1.76
High School: 1.76 Encinitas Union and
San Dieguito
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDU 16 EDU
Identify Sub Basin =
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD = 3,740
The project is 1.4 units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
38
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as “‘Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other 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 aartnershiD, 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 corooration, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
2.
Person B. DARRYL CLUBB corpm PIRINEOS POINTE, LLC
Tit]e-WW?G~~~~~~~ER Title A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CO.
Address7909 SILVERTON AVE. #213 Address SAME
SAN DI,EGO, CA 9‘2126 NOTE: NO OTHER INDIVIDUAL OWNS MORE THAN 10%
OWNER (Not the owner’s agent) INTEREST OTHER THAN B. DARRYL CLUBB
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
comoration or nartnership, 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.)
Person S I AVASH KHAJEZADE .
Title GENERAL PARTNER
Address 7’143 CAMI’NI’TO PENTOJA
SAN DI-EGO, CA 92122
w/Part NOTHAN PARTNERSHIP NO. I,
Title A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
Address SAME
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT “1”
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760)
OBj14/01 OB:58 el 858 459 0118 DESIGN LEAGUE
G/13/2801 18: 18 858689023U
. 3. NON-PROm d!ihmmON OR’TRUST
4. ~youhd~~thanS2HI~Of~~kdaith~yrn~erofCityElpff.
NOTE: AmcIlaLddid~sbeetsifn#msay,
-jzi %3w$giw //--/L/-- - Signature of ‘caddate
PhutorrypllanleofowQa matorQpeaun$01-applic&1
*I agent ifrppliosbleMatc
Pelt w typerrpmt of ovacs/~cint’s aguli
H:ADMNCOU~SCLOsUUE Cl-Al-MAthll fin8 P8gl 2 of 2 . - -...- --~ -.. _ -. _ _- .- .-. .--.. - . _ .,
11/16/00 ll:? el 619 459 0118 DESIGN LEAGUE
To: Mr. Darryl Clubb
From: Siavash Khajezade
partners owning more than 10% of the share:
Siavash Akhgarnia
5610 Calle Miramar
La Jolla CA 92037
Camille Eyvazzadeh
3 LSO n. Apollo Dr.
Bethlehem, PA 180 17
Mehdi Lahijani
8665 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hiils, CA 902 1 I
Siavasb Khajezade
7 143 Caminito Pantoja
San Diego, CA 92122
EXHIBIT “l’,’
j
1 63 O Es 2
i
i a P $1 !
P= Es tE : ,I &
t
PARCEL 2 PARCEL MAP 4546
r.. 9c -!s”r ?I $= g-j ;;
$1
- I
BPS+ dVW 133Wd Z 133tlVd 9
55
i 0 5. -c
.
!.I
I
45
------, m-
.
I
--
1
/
I 1
.j ____________ _ -..--- _ -__. _-. !I L : i I \ L i i I
-.--
L-
__---- m-
-llr---;-------Jj .--‘T‘...-.. -~_--_..__......- I i 7
I
!
;i
/]
j ’
!
i
I
I
i
__
ii _-
---
---__
1
46
-*---
-+l. _.-
‘:------- ----e-i
11
--
!
/
! -4;
!
,
I
.
i-is,
1
I
f
:j
I
L I t-P l I
1
4.Y
I it *n- YI D.,. inmu ‘I/j
%
.
I - “I ‘i B 52
..“- I .WlU I Y‘CI , .? i Y‘FI
I .
I .-. SK.
It
i
I ‘1 1* I
1
1 -L
.
--I
=E
75
_-_----
.
l-------n I
- III~AOP -I
.
-n----l I
n --*+
i wwm
Planning Commission Minutes August I,2001
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting:
PLANNING COMMISSION
6:00 P.M.
August 1,200l COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Page 1
EXkmrr 4
CALL TO ORDER
Planning Commission Chairperson Segall called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance was led by Commissioner Nielsen.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, Trigas
Absent: Commissioners L’Heureux and Baker
Staff Present: Gary Wayne, Planning Director Jane Mobaldi, City Attorney
Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst
Anne Hysong, Associate Planner
Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer
Mike Smith, Fire Marshall
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
Chairperson Segall directed everybody’s attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the
Commission would be following for tonight’s public hearing.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairperson Segall opened the public hearing and asked Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, to
introduce the first item.
1. SDP 00-16 - PIRINEOS POINTE - Request for approval of a Site Development Plan to allow a 16 unit townhome style apartment project including two affordable housing units
located on Pirineos Way between La Costa Avenue and the La Costa Resort Golf Course
in the RD-M Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
Mr. Wayne announced that the only item on the Agenda tonight is a request for a Site Development Plan to develop a 16-unit apartment complex located in the La Costa area in Zone 6. He introduced the project planner, Anne Hysong, to present the item, assisted by the project engineer, Jeremy Riddle. He stated that the Planning Commission’s action on this is final unless appealed to the City Council.
Chairperson Segall asked the applicant, Mr. Clubb, if he would like to proceed even though there are five Commissioners out of seven tonight?
Mr. Clubb replied he would like to proceed.
Planning Commission Minutes August I,2001 Page 2
Ms. Hysong announced there was an errata sheet correcting the projects ADT at all locations in the staff
report and resolutions plus three pieces of correspondence from the public. She announced that she
would be turning the presentation over to Jeremy Riddle after her presentation, and that the Fire Marshall,
Mike Smith, is present to answer any questions at the end of the presentation.
She stated that the project consists of a request for approval of the 16-unit apartment project located on the north side of Pirineos Way between La Costa Avenue and the La Costa Resort Golf Course. She
showed an aerial view of the site showing that it is the only remaining vacant parcel on Pirineos Way. She stated that the vacant site is surrounded by multi-family development to the west which is developed at
approximately 28.5 dwelling units per acre. She referred to the project which was developed to the east at
27.5 dwelling units per acre. She stated that the project to the south is also an existing multi-family
development, with a density of approximately 45 dwelling units per acre.
Ms. Hysong stated that the .88 acre infill site has been previously graded and receives its access from an
existing cul-de-sac street, Pirineos Way. The site is designated by the General Plan for residential high
density development, and its RD-M Zoning allows multi-family development. She stated that the project
features 16-3 bedroom townhome style apartments that range in size from 1,880 square feet to 2,135
square feet and two of the three bedroom units are affordable. She stated that each unit is served by
partially sub-terranian two-car garages. The project is three story, with the three-story element on the interior of the project. The project is two-story around on the perimeter of the site facing all adjacent sites
and the street.
She went on to say that each unit is served with private patios or balconies and the project provides common recreation amenities that include a recreation room, a pool and a spa. She stated that access to
the site is provided by a single driveway from Pirineos Way and on-site parking is provided along that
driveway. She stated that the project is subject to and consistent with the General Plan which allows 15 to
23 dwelling units per acre. The project density of 20.78 dwelling units per acre exceeds the Growth Control Point of 19 dwelling units per acre which requires findings. The Growth Management Growth
Control Point for the net acre site of .77 acres would allow 14.6 dwelling units per acre while 16 units are
being proposed. The project is 1.4 dwelling units above what the Growth Control Point would allow.
Ms. Hysong stated that the project is consistent with the RDM Zoning and the development standards that are required for multi-family development requires specific setbacks which the project meets or exceeds
and the project is below the maximum building height of 35 feet plus the coverage is also well below the 60% allowed in that it has 30.72% coverage. She stated that the project is also in compliance with the
lnclusionary Housing Ordinance and provides the two Affordable units on site. She stated that integration of Affordable Housing into market rate units is a City Housing goal.
Ms. Hysong stated that apartment projects over four units in Carlsbad require consistency with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone which is why they are processing a Site Development Plan. The findings
required by the Qualified Overlay Zone can be made in that the project is similar in design and density with the surrounding development so that it is very compatible with the area and the site is adequate to
accommodate the project. Landscape setbacks and amenities are provided and the street system is
adequate. She stated that the necessary Growth Management findings can be made to exceed the
Growth Control Point. The project is located in an existing neighborhood where adequate public facilities are already provided. She stated that the dwelling unit cap for the Southeast Quadrant would not be
exceeded as a result of this project.
Ms. Hysong turned the presentation over to Jeremy Riddle, the project engineer, to review the findings
regarding the adequacy of the street system serving this project.
Mr. Riddle stated that the Engineering staff reviewed the project as to how the existing street will serve the project and the additional traffic loads that would be resulting from the project. He stated that the street fronting the project, Pirineos Way, was constructed in 1971 at which time this area had not been annexed
into the City, therefore the street was designed and approved under the County standards. He stated that it was constructed as a cul-de-sac street with a 36 foot wide paved street curb-to-curb. This allows for
two-way traffic and parking on both sides of the street, sidewalks on both sides of the street and it has no
horizontal or vertical curves, with a mild grade of .6% with a curb, gutter and inlets to convey storm water.
55
Planning Commission Minutes August 1,200l Page 3
He stated that at the intersection of Vieja Castilla there are no apparent visual obstructions to prevent safe
traffic movements.
Mr. Riddle stated that this community is not subjected to through-traffic but it is served by a traffic signal at
La Costa Avenue. He stated that Pirineos Way, as it exists does not meet certain criteria of the current public road standards nor the proposed Livable Street Standards presented a few weeks ago, because
the standards apply to new streets, not existing streets. He stated that Pirineos Way, regardless, still provides the basic services that a street is required to do such as two-way traffic, street parking,
pedestrian sidewalks, curb, gutter etc.
He stated that when they review infill development they generally consider the infra-structure ready to
serve the project and generally do not make the developer upgrade the improvements to meet current
standards unless there is substantial evidence of a public safety issue. Mr. Riddle stated that in order to
verify that there was no public health and safety issue, they first visited the site and the surrounding
streets and made no observations of any design flaws on the streets. He stated they also reviewed the accident records reported over the last seven years and reported that Pirineos Way had no reported
accidents, Vieja Castilla Way had a total of four accidents and Navarra Drive had three accidents. He
pointed that none of these accidents are indicative of street design failure.
Mr. Riddle stated they additionally reviewed citizen and resident calls made over the last fourteen years of which Pirineos Way had a total of three calls, Vieja Castilla Way had five calls and Navarra Drive had a
total of two calls; all were either street maintenance related or requesting a signal at La Costa Avenue which was recently installed. None were regarding matters of street failure. He stated that Pirineos Way
currently handles 824 ADT and with the addition of this project it will handle 920 ADT. Carlsbad’s current
standards allow up to 500 ADT on a cul-de-sac. This limit is not based on the street’s ability to serve the
traffic, but rather limiting the number of units served by a single access point to provide adequate fire protection.
Mr. Riddle stated that since this layout was not designed to City standards, the project has been conditioned to include fire sprinklers to allow for the additional protection. He stated in summary that
Pirineos Way is operating safely with the current and existing ADT, and will with the proposed ADT as a
result of the project, and that there is no evidence of unsafe conditions. He stated the west leg of Navarra
Drive is an example which currently serves 180 units and others are serving more than 50 units or 500
ADT and none of these other cul-de-sacs have demonstrated evidence of failure. He stated that based on
this information they believe that the project will not compromise the capacity of the existing streets.
Chairperson Segall asked if Fire Marshal Smith would like to make comments as to fire safety and access
in this cul-de-sac.
Mr. Smith stated they have performed a normal review of this project for conformance with the building codes, fire codes etc. He stated that one of the items that did not come up in the review was the adequacy
of the streets. He stated that although it does not meet the current street standards there is not a
significant hazard presented by the three cul-de-sacs as the development as a whole is not subject to
extraordinary hazard such as wildland fire hazards. Close proximity to a rail or freeway would have raised
their concern, but this particular area is buffered on three sides by golf course and a very large street. Mr.
Smith stated that they do not see that the addition of these units is going to create or terribly exacerbate
the problem that might exist there.
Commissioner Heineman asked if fire response would be successful on this street?
The response from Chief Smith was “yes.”
Commissioner Compas asked staff to comment on a letter dated July 17th from Bobbi Trout.
Ms. Hysong stated that the Fire Marshal just answered item one and Mr. Riddle’s presentation answered
concerns regarding traffic: 1)parking 2)carbon monoxide from excessive cars and trucks, RV’s 3)race
track...going down Vieja Castilla (apparently speeding) 4)pollution from traffic; and the final item was
devaluation of homes if apartments are built, by IO-30 percent. She stated that all the parking is being
Planning Commission Minutes August 1,200l Page 4
proposed on-site; each unit with a two-car garage which is an amenity the applicant is proposing above the requirements; and guest parking in also on-site. She stated that the speeding on Vieja Castilla is a
traffic enforcement issue.
Mr. Riddle stated that Vieja Castilla is posted with a 25 mph speed limit, but it is serving as a collector
street which normally would be posted with a 30 mph speed limit. This was one of the requests made in
the past. The City Traffic Department did go out and reduce the speed. He stated that this is an issue resulting from inheriting the street from the County, as it is built to a 14.5% grade and today’s standards
do not exceed more than 12%, therefore the City would not have the developer fix anything like that.
Ms. Hysong stated regarding the carbon monoxide and air pollution issue that the project is consistent
with the General Plan and this issue is not considered to be a significant impact. She stated that through her research via the GIS Department, over a third of the surrounding condominium units are not owner
occupied, i.e., rental units do exist in the area.
Commissioner Trigas asked if the current standards do not fit what the conditions are that the current
owners are not required to remedy. Is it the streets or parking etc?
Mr. Riddle agreed it would not be imposed on the developer but the City would need to do that if it was
seen that there was a site visibility, water capacity issue, etc.
Chairperson Segall referred to the issue raised regarding this as being above the Growth Control Point
and asked for comment from the staff.
Ms. Hysong stated that under the Growth Management Ordinance the City adopted dwelling unit caps in
each quadrant of the City, and to avoid exceeding those caps, the density of each project is not supposed
to exceed a mid-point of every General Plan Density Range, called a Growth Control Point. She stated that in the RH high density designated area where the project is located, the growth control point is 19 dwelling units per acre. She stated that the General Plan allows some exceptions if in fact they can make
certain findings. She repeated the two findings mentioned in her presentation: 1) the infrastructure,
utilities etc. are adequate to serve this project; and 2) the dwelling unit cap will not be exceeded with this project.
Chairperson Segall stated he had a letter from Steve Relth, agent for Nothan Partners which stated that
some of the properties in the neighborhood have densities that far exceed the Growth Control Point and
asked staff to comment.
Ms. Hysong agreed and stated these projects were developed several years ago when densities were
much higher for the County as well as the City. She stated the project to the west, Flave La Costa, is about 28.5 dwelling units per acre, to the east the project is about 27.5 dwelling units per acre, and then
the one across the street is almost 45 dwelling units per acre. She pointed out that the current standard of
19 dwelling units per acre is obviously exceeded by the surrounding development.
Chairperson Segall gave the floor to Mr. Clubb, the applicant.
Mr. Clubb stated that he founded the limited liability company known as Pirineos and he has been in this
area for 50 years. He shared some of his background and introduced the project architect.
Mr. Ocheltree, Solana Beach, described how they reached the design based on the neighborhood and aesthetics of the project. He stated that the project site faces Pirineos Way with a visual focal point being
a recreational area and landscape buffer. He stated that there are no garage doors facing the street, it has
townhome style units, and there is a landscape buffer around the entire project.
Chairperson Segall asked the distance in the driveway, and if it is within the City standards?
Mr. Ocheltree stated it is within the City standards.
Planning Commission Minutes August 1,200l Page 5
Mr. Clubb stated that his project is 24 to 46% less dense than his neighbors. He pointed out that there would be less units than it was originally designed for. He stated that for over a year he has made every
effort to follow the rules and follow staffs recommendations. He pointed out that though he had the option to pay into a fund for lnclusionary Housing he chose to go with the onsite mediation for the lnclusionary
Housing Requirements as the City had need of this.
Commissioner Compas asked what the rental price would be and if approved when would they start
building?
Mr. Clubb stated it was $2,150 per month for the market rate units and the two lnclusionary Units are
approximately $1 ,100, which varies with the formula. He stated that they are ready to begin building as
the grading plan is in process so they would start as soon as possible.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the applicant tried to meet with the neighbors as requested.
Mr. Clubb stated he called Tracy to offer to meet and they declined, though he had an opportunity to talk to some of them.
Commissioner Trigas asked if his units were 2,100 sq ft and is it compatible to the neighbors regarding their condo units? She asked if the market rate is about $2,1 OO?
Mr. Clubb stated that the net rentable living space is 1,591 sq ft for the market rate units and 1,380 sq ft
and 1,365 sq ft for the two lnclusionary Housing units. He thought his units were quite a bit larger than his neighbor’s condos as he is building three bedroom units because there is a huge demand and they are
rare. He pointed out that Mira Belle at Aviara has three bedroom, two bath units at that project, which are approximately 1,350 sq ft and rent from $2,200 to $2,800 per month.
Chairperson Segall asked at $2,100 what would the income be for a family to be able to pay that amount? He pointed out that there is going to be a lot of construction and people could conceivably be boxed in
because there is one-way in/one-way out. He asked how the applicant planned to mitigate construction traffic issues so that people in the area would be able to get around and not have trucks in the street or
problems with access? He also asked how long do they expect construction to take?
Mr. Clubb replied it was his understanding that the income to pay $2,100 rent is about $80,000. He stated that he would try to encourage all of the workmen on the job to carpool as much as is possible and
feasible and to have them spread out and park down the street to lessen the impact. He stated that there will be some onsite spots for parking during construction. He also stated that they would put up barricades
etc. to direct traffic when they move equipment in and out etc. He stated that it is only 26,000 sq feet of building so the construction people would park on the site. He stated that construction should take about
seven months. Mr. Clubb introduced his attorney.
Wiley Jones, Attorney, 1933 Valley Road, Oceanside, CA 92056 indicated he had been a resident of
Carlsbad for ten years. He stated he represents the applicant. He stated that this property is zoned for
multi-residential use which is the intended use by the developer. He pointed out, as the letter filed with the
staff, that a third of the adjoining condominiums are rented out. He pointed out the parking additions, rules and regulations and their goals for this project to be high quality. He mentioned the Negative Declaration
which was issued on June 1, 2001 which puts to rest the issues of parking and traffic and stated there is no safety issue as the staff report has shown. He stated since they have complied with all the rules and regulations that the project should be approved as submitted. Mr. Jones compared the density issues and
pointed out that this project gives more of an open space and less of a visual impact on its neighbors. He
agreed with staffs findings that the street does not have a negative impact and is adequate for the proposed development of 16 units on this particular property.
Chairperson Segal opened public testimony.
Bunny Kacher, Apartment # 216, 2607 Pirineos Way, Carlsbad, CA 92009. Ms. Kacher stated she would
not share some of what she planned as it has already been established by the Growth Management etc.
She stated that Mr. Ocheltree said there would be no driveway coming on to Pirineos Way and now it is
Planning Commission Minutes August I,2001 Page 6
an error as there are already four exits onto this small cul-de-sac with almost 300 cars coming out of there
and now there is going to be another one. She stated that those who are here came because they are concerned about livable streets. She said that Mr. Clubb did call after the people had already met last week and they decided it would be more responsible to wait to come to this meeting and speak. She
stated that the Public Review, which is placed in the North County Times in the legal column, was not enough. She stated she got her notice on July 8th for a Hearing for July 18th and they did not have
enough time to get together, etc. She stated that she and her husband went to Ms. Hysong and Mr. Riddle at the Planning Department and they did not have the knowledge of how many condos, cars and families
were already in that community. She stated she called the Fire Marshall and he stated there is nothing to
be concerned about. If we had a fire or anything like that people could walk out of their homes, walk up a hill and if they had wheelchairs someone would just help them out. She also had a similar talk with the
Fire Chief.
Lettie Flower, 25798 Navarra Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009 stated that there is onsite management for the
surrounding condos that are rentals and that they would like to see ownership, lower density, onsite superintendent or management for noise etc. She stated they would like to see a stop sign at the corner of
Pirineos Way and Vieja Castilla Way as there have been near misses, and more guest parking rather than
just seven spaces.
Robert Bianchi, Unit #214, 2607 Pirineos Way, Carlsbad. He showed an overview of the area of a scale of
8.5 inches to l/10 of a mile and stated that from cul-de-sac to cul-de-sac is three-tenths of a mile total
length and Pirineos Way is one-tenth of a mile out to the outlet. Vieja Castilla Way is 1 3/4 tenths of a mile. He stated that there are currently 486 units in the area, which would project to 3,000 ADT presently
from this area and for 16 units it comes to 96 ADT. He pointed out where the concern is for fire hazards on the cul-de-sac. He shared his statistics and concerns for the neighborhood to be safe.
Norman Dolnick, 2607 Pirineos Way, Carlsbad stated he was concerned that Fire Marshal Smith viewed
the safety under normal conditions, but a fire is not a normal condition. He spoke of his previous fire experience there and of the traffic jam. He stated he has a three bedroom, which is 1,900 sq ft. He stated
he had no opportunity to respond to the Environmental Review as he did not get the message and he felt
they would have a lot to say about the environmental impact. He stated Mr. Clubb will exceed the variance
and the area is already high density, and he will just add to the high density. He was concerned that staff did not know how many people lived there. He felt better use could be made of the land without adding to
the overcrowding and traffic problems.
Eric Carstensen, Unit #212, 2564 Navarra Drive, Carlsbad. He stated he is for development in areas like
his but he is not for putting in two more units in this area as it is busy already. He stated he is president of his homeowners association and involved for 13 years. His units are one bedroom and they have two to
five people living in them. He compared it to the new apartments proposed with a potential for six cars each plus all the business traffic, cable trucks, phone trucks, moving vans, water trucks etc. He agreed
that the fire was very scary. He said there are two other plots left to be developed in the area. He pointed
out that he cannot surf in the winter for several days after it rains because of the runoff. He stated he is for
the project but wanted to apply some sanity to it.
Brett Weir, Unit #lo, 2630 Pirineos Way, Carlsbad. Mr. Weir expressed that the proposed project would
be overbuilding on these lots as 48 bedrooms on .77 acres of usable space is overkill. He stated there are no improved local streets in the immediate area and LaCosta and El Camino Real are speedways and
there are sewage and storm drain problems. He would approve a project that was 12 two-bedroom units, owner-owned condos but no apartment buildings in the area. He felt it was not conducive to compare it to Aviara as Aviara is ten miles away from the subject site.
Joann L. Hunt, 2567-A Navarra Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, expressed her opposition to the project
because of the magnitude and stated that in an emergency fire hazard there is no way to escape.
Takashi Kakazu, Unit 325, 2639 Pirineos Way. He shared that this was his first opportunity to speak in public since his move from Japan. He shared his concern that there is no way out other than back the way
you come from and you cannot evacuate in an emergency. He stated his main concern was for safety
59
Planning Commission Minutes August 1,200l Page 7
issues and that he has lived there for five years. He stated the golf course was on both the left and right of
the complexes.
Deborah Savicky, Unit 304, 2607 Pirineos Way, Carlsbad, CA 92009. She expressed that she has been
there since 1983 and has seen a lot of changes etc. She pointed out that though the buildings and streets
were done under the County, they do not meet the City’s standards today. She stated 27 years ago the City created a problem in having tandem parking spaces and they are living with that problem today. She
stated there is a street full of cars and more are proposed. She stated they need less density, not more and where are they going to park with three bedrooms with the possibility of six cars for each apartment.
She suggested that this land be a green space for an open area for the kids to play. She suggested that it
be developed like the eight unit for $550,000 each being developed on Navarra Drive.
Art East, Unit 105, 2607 Pirineos Way, Carlsbad, CA 92009, stated he was concerned that the owner could control the renters once the complex is completed. His main concern was the elderly people who
needed to live on one floor or have elevators. He shared that his wife cannot walk up stairs and they like familiarity and more renters will just additionally take the mix away of knowing the neighbors. He stated
that the elderly want to have family, non-transitory, one story condos, with ownership people rather than
stealing, drunkenness, yelling and noise. He pointed out that the three-bedroom apartments are no larger
than the two-bedroom condos. He suggested that his idea for the elderly community should be considered.
Tracy Wallace 2630 Pirineos Way, Carlsbad, CA, shared that the homeowners are looking for less density and that this is the owner’s property and he should be able to develop it. She stated they do not want to
increase the density on dead-end streets and that the 16 apartment rentals is not consistent with the
surrounding uses. She expressed her disagreement of the devaluation of their condos as a result of the
apartment complex being built in their area. She stated that they do not have a place for the children to play, though they do not have a lot of children in that area, but they are playing on a very, very steep
street and you have to watch out for elderly people, golfers, children and pets. She stated that the
proposed setbacks needs to be addressed. She pointed out that she did not know how an EIR that was
negative could have been approved and that as far as she knew no one in her community saw this. She
wanted to know if the new complex would be built at $200 per sq ft as the other homes currently being
done which creates a nice pride of ownership they currently have in that area.
RECESS
Chairperson Segall called a Recess at 7:40 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson Segall called the Meeting back to order at 7:49 p.m. with five Commissioners present,
Commissioners L’Heureux and Baker absent.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Segall continued with the public testimony.
Wendy Borisoff, 7512 Vieja Castilla Way, Flave LaCosta, owner-owned condominiums, Carlsbad, CA.
She presented a picture study and petitions from the homeowners against the apartment density issue,
not the building of, but the number of units. She shared statistics concerning the probable amount of
people and vehicles connected with the apartment complex and asked why has not a sun shade study been done as their triangle windows on the tops of their buildings will be blocked, no air circulation and no
natural light coming in. She went over the statistics for her complex regarding vehicles etc. She also
shared her experience with the Harmony Grove Fire. She stated she would like to see 10 or less units near the price of the one being done in that area at $508,000 each.
Linn Larsen, Unit 208, 2607 Pirineos Way, Carlsbad, CA. He mainly did not like the pool being out by the
street, which would just add to the noise and create a lot of noise just across the street. He stated that he
just reiterates what has already been said.
Planning Commission Minutes August I,2001 Page 8
Ruth Solorio, 2563 Navarra Dr., Cartsbad, CA. She asked how many of the Planning Commission have actually driven into her area? She shared that in the 70s this area was built up to have homes on the golf course, where many used them as vacation homes, and now there are nearly 500 units in a very small
area. She was concerned that there were more police reports put into this information from the City
because these owners have personally experienced violations of breaking in, noise, suspicious behavior,
where eventually it became known to be drug related. She shared that there have been trucks blocking
her way to get on to the next street. She shared her concern of an emergency evacuation during the
construction. She felt this was in violation of the Growth Management Plan and was hoping the Commission would use their power to change this situation. She stated that she also got over 100
signatures on petitions against this project.
Cathy Muller, 2607 Pirineos Way, Carlsbad, CA 92009. She pointed out that Growth Management policy came about as a result of over growth. She did not understand how, if 14 units were allowed, they can
now have 16 units. She felt they need a more affordable unit and lo-12 units would be ok but she did not
want a pool. She was concerned about the tenants being allowed to park on the streets. She shared information about her experience of buying and stated that the City should look at the statistics.
Jess Marinez, 2563-B Navarra Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009, stated he has been there since ‘84. He stated
that there were apartments in Sabrina Greens and that a Commission made a decision to allow those to be condominiums based on the market and timing. He stated that owners take better care and shared
concern about fire, exits and safety, and the parking on the streets. He stated that there are no open spaces as the golf course is private.
Christine Sherer, 2607 Pirineos Way, Carlsbad, CA 92009. She stated her concern was parking and
shared the statistics and that she did not like the City’s notice as she felt it deceptive regarding homestyle.
Kimberly Klos, 2564 Navarra Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009. She stated that she bought a year ago and
came from a renters culture and that owners care and renters do not, and that this is a small
neighborhood. She shared that there is a high turnover rate with renters and traffic problems. She hoped
that they would have homeowners instead.
Peter Rimmer, Unit 6, 2630 Pirineos Way, Orleans East Complex, Carlsbad. He shared his concern about density and safety issues. He pointed out the new shopping centers, homes and other projects being built
in that general area. He stated that this is going to create a huge traffic nightmare.
Bobbi Trout, 7512 Vieja Castilla #18, Carlsbad, CA, stated she has been there 25 years. She stated that there needs to be less than 12 units and that moving vans will create a traffic jam as there is no room for
friends to park and visit. She stated that less is better and that the City should allow only one building to a
lot.
Monique Ricardo, Unit 12, 7512 Vieja Castilla, Carlsbad, CA. She shared that she is a runner and has therefore experienced the lack of safety trying to get across streets in the area because of the already
dense traffic problems.
Joe Collins, Unit 116, 2564 Navarra Drive, Carlsbad. He stated that there are no facilities for children as the project is either going to have families with children or shared living, which will bring even more traffic
to the situation.
Lee Starr, 2630 Pirineos Way, Carlsbad. She has lived here for 14 years and was a teacher. She shared concern about the density study and the low income housing need, and the directions it is going and that
apartment complex is not a money maker for in five years they will most likely request it to be changed to condos. She also shared her concern about the safety in the driving conditions.
Jerry Blandford, 2607 Pirineos Way, Carlsbad. He stated they live in Carlsbad because of the motto, “Village by the Sea”, how people take pride in ownership, taking care of their places. He stated that he does not want to live next to an apartment, and homes will be devalued. He stated that he is a landlord
also.
Planning Commission Minutes August 1,200l Page 9
Alice Tillson, 2506 Navarro Drive, Carlsbad. She stated that she used one of these condos 20 years ago
as a vacation home, which is why they were previously built. She gave some statistics of the density of the area. She stated that a year ago 17 people lived upstairs and now there are 26 autos that belong to
those units plus two motorcycles and each unit has only one garage, which now there are 29.5 people
there etc. She shared that she has seen SWAT teams and renters with guns drawn and with three part-
time people working on-site it was difficult, and there has been a lot more police activity down there.
Chairperson Segall seeing no one else wishing to speak closed public testimony.
Mr. Clubb explained the procedures of the Growth Control Point and that it could have gone one way or
the other and that staff made their findings accordingly. He stated that he opened escrow on this land July 8, 2000 and he first went to the City and found out what the zoning, density and rules were and stated he
has as a land owner, a right to rely on the Zoning Ordinance which allows him to rely on the findings. He
pointed out that his lot is relatively flat and does have a slope which causes the density to be calculated
on .77 acres. He stated he paid a price for this land based on the Zoning Ordinance, and that after a year it would be a hardship if it reduces the number of units he might expect to build. He explained his need to
have the project approved as designed.
Mr. Clubb asked to read the letter from Robert Pinnegar and stated that he had contacted Mr. Pinnegar for
information regarding apartment living in San Diego County, to try to answer some of the people’s
questions regarding apartment dwellers.
He read the following: “Addressed to Chairman Segall, On behalf of the San Diego County Apartment
Association’s nearly 3,000 members who own or manage rental property throughout San Diego County, I
am writing that you ask to consider the need for rental housing in Carlsbad and the benefits of rental
housing to your community. According to the San Diego Association of Governments, our region will grow
by one million people over the next 20 years. The best-case projections forecast that we will also
experience a deficit of 100,000 housing units over the same period. This housing deficit is not an issue to deal with in our distant future, it is with us every day. For example, it is estimated that we added 44,200
new jobs to our economy during 2000, but we fell another 6,340 housing units short of our need during the
same period. In Carlsbad alone, the vacancy rate for rental housing is just under one percent that is half of the vacancy rate for the entire region. If we are to maintain our quality of life and keep our economy
strong, we must look at innovative approaches to residential land uses such as multi-family rental housing. With nearly 50 percent of the residents in our region renting their homes, rental housing is a
strategy that works. Residents of rental housing are contributing members to our society, and are no
different than that of single-family homeowners. People who choose to rent are just as likely to be
involved in their neighborhoods, they attend church, identify with their town and neighbors, participate in
the political process by voting and enjoy close social relationships with their neighbors. In addition to all of
this, you will have the added assurance of having an on-site supervisor in this rental community (as required by State law). Rental housing is the solution to our housing crunch. On behalf of the San Diego
County Apartment Association, I would urge you to take these factors into consideration when reviewing
this and other multi-family rental projects. Signed, Robert Pinnegar, Director of Public Affairs.”
Mr. Clubb continued that he has been doing some studying that rental is needed and not just ownership, that they are profitable and fill a need, no mortgage or down payment, shorter rental stays. He shared that
there may be one to two year leases as some are building and need a place until then. He stated that meeting with owners was not required, but it was suggested and he did attempt to do that.
He pointed out, regarding parking, that they were going to require people to park in their garages and not on the streets, as part of the rental agreement. He stated that moving vans would actually be able to pull
directly onto the site where there would be enough room for turn around and on-load and off-load.
Mr. Clubb stated that ownership should be kept strictly up to the owner/developer of the property. He stated that he could continue to own the property and still rent it out. He stated that the issue of devaluation is totally irrelevant and that the City government would not have an issue with that, other than
the permits etc. He shared how property is analyzed to come up with the value of the properties. He
explained about exceeding the density and some statistics regarding this issue and the old zoning codes
Planning Commission Minutes August I,2001 Page 10
compared to the new zoning codes. He pointed out that if there are changes to be made in this community
then it should be done in the proper manner and procedure, but not using his property to do so.
Mr. Clubb pointed out that his project increases the number of units by 12% on just one street and 3%
overall in the community, which is not a significant impact for this project. He stated that they are willing to
meet all the requirements and conditions which the City has put forth.
Chairperson Segall asked if Mr. Clubb was in agreement with the errata sheet, which is a minor issue on
ADT?
Mr. Clubb agreed with the errata sheet.
Commissioner Compas asked if Mr. Clubb decided, when looking at this piece of property, that
apartments would make him more profit than condos?
Mr. Clubb did not believe that was his primary motivation. He stated that there is a tremendous demand for three-bedroom apartments and he also did not want to take on the liability of condominium
development.
Commissioner Compas asked if he thought his apartment complex would not make the condominiums in
the area go down in value? He asked if Mr. Clubb was planning to own these apartments for a long time?
Mr. Clubb stated that the value of the condominiums would not be affected because of his apartments and
qualified that if the apartment complex turned into a Section 8 ghetto then that might have some impact.
He stated that initially he was planning on owning the apartments for up to ten years, but it is possible
they might sell it within two or three years, but by then the complex will be well established and
professionally managed.
Mr. Compas pointed out that many were concerned that these are three-bedroom units, therefore causing
possibly a lot more people and vehicles. He asked if Mr. Clubb thinks these people have a legitimate concern regarding this where it would be possible to even get more than one family in an apartment etc.
Mr. Clubb stated he followed the rules regarding number of units and parking and there is no restriction on
how many bedrooms that can be built. He stated that as owner he would put management instructions in
place saying that these apartments are not intended for multi-family on a per-unit basis. He pointed out
that three-bedroom units are typically used by a couple with one child or a couple that uses one of the
bedrooms as a home office or both. He stated that they were going to make sure they handle the parking
in an appropriate manner.
Mr. Compas asked if Mr. Clubb might rent his apartments for less than a year? He asked if the on-site person living there will monitor everything, and then what will be done if a family moves in and then they have a relative with another car come live with them?
Mr. Clubb stated they were going to typically push for one-year leases with six month extension options etc. He stated the on-site person is required by law to live on the premises. He also stated that a guest
could stay for about 30 days or so and then have to be registered with the office etc. if it becomes a
permanent situation.
Commissioner Trigas, regarding the construction process which may take about seven months, asked if most vehicles would be on-site and how would they work with the neighborhood area? She asked if they
would have to go to the City to request permission to work on a Saturday?
Mr. Clubb replied that they would possibly go from 7:30 a.m. to 500 p.m. on a five-day workweek, and
sometimes if conditions require, on Saturday.
Ms. Hysong stated that they could work from 7:00 a.m. or 7:30 a.m. to sunset but on Saturdays would have to get special permission, plus regarding traffic, they would have to get an approved traffic control
plan which explains how they can construct their project without obstructing traffic.
63
Planning Commission Minutes August I,2001 Page 11
Commissioner Trigas suggested working with the neighbors, and operating certain times of the day when
there would be a lot more traffic on the road. She asked how he would phase the actual building of this project step by step of each unit? She asked if they would be building the units all at the same time?
Commissioner Trigas asked how the neighbors could be assured that this seven month process would not
be a torture for them with all the traffic and dirt etc.?
Mr. Clubb explained that starting at 7:00 a.m. and leaving at 4:00 p.m., the construction traffic would be
cleared out of the area. He stated that they would start in the back and work clockwise, using the last area
as the initial staging area and eventually limiting the staging area where the pool will be located. He stated
about 2-3 months into the process the garages would be available for parking during construction. He shared that they would keep the water in the soil so there is no dust and keep the noise level during
reasonable hours.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Clubb to point out where the on-site manager would be located and which
apartments would be the affordable units?
Mr. Clubb pointed out the affordable units and presumed the manager would be put in one of the affordable units.
Chairperson Segall asked if the Commission decided to keep the project at the Growth Management Point and not the two units above, would you move forward with the project and if so which units would you
have to loose?
Mr. Clubb stated that at this point he is not willing to go there for it would be a major redesign to lose two units; he would not be able to make economic sense out of it. He stated he has two affordable units and it
takes the other 14 units to subsidize the two low-income units to make any sense out of it and if you cut two units out, the Affordable Units become non-economically feasible which is the whole problem with
lnclusionary Housing. It never seems to be economically feasible. He stated that he thought he pulled off
a minor miracle making this work. He stated that he is asking this board to approve it as is.
In response to public testimony, Ms. Hysong stated that regarding density exceeding the Growth Control Point and whether the findings could be made to require condominium units, this is a high density area
where there is no City policy, goal, objective or Ordinance that would require ownership of any multi- family unit. She stated that the Housing Ordinance has a policy that calls for diversity of housing which is
not just ownership units in the City; there will be ownership units as well as rental units.
She stated, regarding findings exceeding density for this project, that after going through the Zoning
Regulations the decisions they made that would allow the project to exceed density was based on the fact
that the project did meet all the development standards, is under the coverage allowance, is very
compatible with the neighborhood both density-wise and architectural design, and with 16 dwelling units an acre it appears to be very compatible and consistent with the area.
Ms. Hysong stated, regarding the Public Noticing for the project itself, not the Negative Declaration, that
City Ordinance requires the City to post a ten day public notice and send the notice by mail to everyone within a 600 foot radius. The notice for that ten day period is so that the public has the opportunity to be
informed of the hearing and then they have the opportunity to come here and speak as these people have all done. She stated, regarding the Negative Declaration, that two points were made-l) they did not have the opportunity to review the Negative Declaration and 2) the impacts were significant. She stated that
again, the City Ordinance requires that the City notice the Negative Declaration in the newspaper and
have a 20 day public review period for projects in this area, which was done, consistent with the City’s
Ordinance.
Ms. Mobaldi added that the City Ordinance is consistent with the Government Code and the Public Resources Code which set forth the noticing requirements for the California Environmental Quality Act
and for Public Hearings on Land Use issues.
651
Planning Commission Minutes August I,2001 Page 12
Ms. Hysong stated, regarding the Negative Declaration that was issued, that projects with environmental
impacts are reviewed against thresholds developed for a variety of different potential environmental
impacts. She stated that this project is a 16-unit apartment project that is being proposed in an in-fill area,
and staff did not identify any significant Environmental Impacts based on their review or comparison of the
project impacts against those thresholds. Staff determined that there were no significant impacts and a Negative Declaration was issued.
She stated, regarding some of the construction management issues, that there are City Codes requiring
special traffic control plans and construction restrictions that Mr. Clubb will have to adhere to and he will
complete that process during his grading and building plan reviews prior to the issuance of his building
permit. She stated that there will be Engineering and Building Inspectors at the site so when there are problems for the neighbors during the construction process the inspectors can address their concerns.
The construction impacts with regard to the Environmental Review are considered temporary and
therefore not significant.
Ms. Hysong stated, regarding not enough parking on the street, that it sounds like that is an existing
problem as a result of previous projects that were developed under some very old standards. She stated
that Mr. Clubb’s project is required to adhere to today’s standards which requires that each unit have two
parking spaces and he is proposing two garages per unit. Additionally he is providing the onsite
visitor/guest parking. She stated that some of the other projects may not have that guest parking on site.
She stated, regarding the ownership vs. renter issue, that the City has no policy requiring that a multi-
family project be ownership. She stated that testimony regarding the apartment units not being compatible
with the surrounding area was mostly because they were apartments, which she referred back to the ownership vs. renter issue.
Ms. Hysong stated, regarding the setbacks, that the project is in the RD-M Zone which requires minimal
setbacks. She stated that along the side property line, the minimum setback is five feet and there are
locations at that distance plus others where it widens out to a greater setback. She stated that along the front of the project the RD-M Zone requires a ten-foot landscaped setback if garages are not facing the
street. Ms. Hysong stated that Mr. Clubb has provided a ten-foot landscaped setback, however the
building setback is actually quite a lot greater than that due to the recreation area that sets in front. The
recreation room is one story, reducing the building mass along the street, and creates more of an open
feel.
Ms. Hysong stated, regarding the sun shade study for air circulation between the Flave LaCosta project
and Pirineos Point, that there is actually a 15 foot separation between buildings and at that location Pirineos Point would be a two-story building (in the rear of the site), and not a three-story building. A 15 foot building separation is considered adequate.
She stated, regarding the miscalculation of the Affordable Housing requirement, that the City’s Housing
Ordinance recently revised the way the City calculated the requirement. In this case Mr. Clubb’s requirement was 2.4 Affordable Units and if it is less than .5 it is rounded down. The theory being that all
those that are over .5 would round up, so in the end the City ends up with the same number of Affordable Units.
Ms. Hysong stated, regarding the Notice with respect to the townhome style apartments, that she
described the project that way because she thought it would give people a better picture of what the project would look like. She stated that normally with a townhome style apartment, you envision the garage at the lower level with a living space above that, so it was not intended to be deceiving, but an attempt to describe the type of apartment project it was.
She stated, regarding the density allowed on the site to be 12 units, that in fact staff has been through the
calculation and it is based on the Growth Control Point of 14.6 units which will be allowed on the site. She
stated, regarding the number of bedrooms, that whether the number of bedrooms generates more cars is not considered in the City’s standard. The standard requires two parking spaces per unit for two and three-bedroom units. It is not a standard the City has increased even with the very recent PD
requirements for condominiums. Ms. Hysong stated that condominiums and apartments have similar
Planning Commission Minutes August 1,200l Page 13
parking requirements except apartments are not generally required to have covered parking as in garages.
Ms. Hysong stated, regarding the kids having no recreation facilities, that she is not totally familiar with all
the other condominium and apartment projects, however this project is providing recreation facilities on-
site, including a swimming facility, spa and recreation room.
She stated, regarding the statistics staff quoted tonight about the accident and police reports, that they
were only looking at traffic issues, they were not looking at crime issues.
She further stated, regarding no parks in the area, that the South East Quadrant is, according to the
Growth Management Plan, currently adequate with respect to the numbers of parks that are provided and as the southeast area grows then the City will be constructing new parks to satisfy that demand. There is
no current requirement to build a park in this particular area.
Mr. Riddle stated, regarding the number of driveways that currently exist on Pirineos Way, and there
should be no more driveways added, that this particular lot as it exists right now is a legal defined lot and
the City has to permit access onto Pirineos Way unless they had legal access through someone else’s
property. He stated that the builder is limiting the driveway cutout to just one single access though there
are similar situations where areas like this often have two access points.
He stated, regarding construction activity and parking and how it relates to the workers, that one of the
ideas that are typically brought up during preconstruction meetings between the construction personnel and our City Inspectors is that a sign would an appropriate action especially with the community
involvement and the community concerns of traffic, dust etc. The community would actually be able to contact Mr. Clubb or the superintendent on-site to express themselves and have some immediate actions
take place.
Mr. Riddle stated, regarding the community as a whole that it is isolated and is projected to handle and
about 3,000 ADT on Vieja Castilla; that it is within the thresholds of a collector street which can handle up
to 10,000 ADT in theory, so it does not exceed the range.
He stated, regarding the storm water quality and the beaches being clean, that in February 2001 the City
had some changes adopted by the State of California at which time the City required Mr. Clubb to incorporate some modifications into his project that included addressing the heavy metals from the parked
cars on the parking areas and addressing storm water runoff quantity. He stated that the engineers have shown on their design plans in the exhibits they will be incorporating some underground vaults that will be
capturing and shaving off the peek storm runoffs from the project that actually make it in compliance with the new regulations.
Mr. Riddle stated, regarding existing sewer and storm drain problems, that this particular project is served
by Leucadia County Water District, not by the City of Carlsbad, and the City has not had any comments
from them that they have had problems or that they could not serve this project with respect to sewer. He stated that he did not know of any specific instances that were brought up to address on the storm drain
problems.
He stated, regarding the steep drive on Vieja Castilla as a safety concern, that that particular street does exceed the City’s current standards as well by a few percentages but it has been addressed as well by the
installation of the 25 mph speed limit signs. He pointed out that he did not see any collision reports from
police officers that actually indicated design failures of the street but those reported were alcohol related
and improper turns.
Mr. Riddle stated, regarding the golf cart crossing, that this is an existing condition that stands there today
as well, and he said he does not have any evidence that states that it is a current safety hazard for it is
signed and striped for the crossing and there has been no historical evidence over the last seven years that show that this is an existing safety hazard.
Planning Commission Minutes August 1,200l Page 14
He stated, regarding the illegal parking on the streets, that this project does not have impact to illegal
parking so it is an enforcement issue that needs to be brought up with the City’s Police Department, which
is currently being done.
Mr. Smith stated there were two issues brought up: 1) the ability of the residents to get out of the area
during a major event similar to the Harmony Grove Fire and 2) the ability of fire resources to get in to the
project to serve. He also agreed with their expressions regarding the Harmony Grove Fire experience that it was a very frightening evening.
He pointed out the following safety information: that the Harmony Grove Fire was the worst fire that the
City of Carlsbad has ever experienced but it was not the only time that fire has occurred. In 1970 it occurred, however there were no homes in the way. He stated that it will happen again with a buildup of
25 years of brush, but the vulnerability of the City will be much reduced because the City will have no more shake-shingle roofs, which caused the loss of 49 of those 54 homes. That is why the fire was so
devastating.
Mr. Smith stated that the project area, like many other areas near there, survived though they got a lot of smoke, irritation, fright, concern and trying to evacuate which happens time and time again, though it may
not be necessary. They are not blamed for wanting to leave. He stated that emergency evacuation is for
one purpose only which is to save lives, not to save buildings or contents, but lives.
He stated that most people want to drive their vehicles because it is easy to do and a good idea because you are less a victim if you are in your car, for you can move about and take care of yourself. But to save
your life you do not need the vehicle. He shared in 1991, the Oakland Hills fire, there were 3,000 homes burned and he cannot recall how many died. He stated that most of the residents tried to evacuate in their
vehicles and after the fire was put out, hundreds of vehicles were abandoned in the middle of the roadway because they could not move. They got out of their cars and they walked to safety, so it can be done.
Mr. Smith stated that it is not convenient and it creates a tremendous amount of frustration, but he
believes that in this particular area no one’s life is in danger to a wildfire. He stated that a wildfire is the
only natural hazard in that area other than an earthquake that could occur which could threaten anyone in that area. He stated that the City’s Emergency Plan has done a Hazard Analysis of the City and they are
working on a Hazard Mitigation Plan, and in that area, it is relatively safe as neighborhoods go.
He stated that there is an aerial view of this neighborhood in one of the Planning Conference Rooms
which he was looking at which shows a lot of pink, which means tile roofs, and within ten years, if there
are shake roofs in that area, they will be no more.
He stated, regarding the Fire Department’s ability to serve, it needs to be separated from the streets being
blocked by a tremendous amount of traffic due to emergency evacuation as it is unlikely that both would
occur at the same time. He stated that if there is a fire in one of the condominium buildings there is no
need for a mass rush to evacuate. He stated the City does not like 36 foot cul-de-sacs and they are going to try to fix that.
Commissioner Trigas asked if the golf course affords them an extra benefit as far as evacuation or safety?
She asked if this additional 16 units in any way makes it worse or impacts the existing condition any
differently than the way it is now?
Mr. Smith replied that as far as safety, it is a wonderful barrier to any kind of. a wildfire, which this
particular area is not vulnerable to, but the Box Canyon is. He said it is not to say we are not going to have emergencies there. He said he is not sure if they can exit their buildings to the golf course via stairs
or steps. He said the 3% increase is not a significant increase regarding providing fire protection.
Commissioner Compas asked if there are existing family apartment projects there or not, as it states in
Resolution 5008 on page two?
Ms. Hysong stated she believed there are apartment projects on Navarra Drive. In looking at the Assessor’s books where they identify condominiums, it appeared at least that there were lots that were
67
Planning Commission Minutes August I,2001 Page 15
developed that did not have condominium units on them. She stated that the finding could basically be
changed to say “surrounded by multi-family units” and still have the same meaning with respect to the
compatibility finding.
Mr. Wayne stated that Ms. Hysong went out and did research, and the facts that she looked at indicated to
her that she thought that there were apartments out there. He stated that if the public is saying there are not apartments, then the facts were not right in our Assessor books either, so we are only recording the
facts here and trying to report them to the Commission.
Ms. Hysong stated that Mr. Clubb has pointed out that on Gibralter Street, which is the next development
over, that there are apartment projects on that street - so in the general area there are apartments.
Commissioner Compas asked if the comments and concerns of the public tonight would cause staff to
have any doubts or concerns about what they are recommending? He also asked what, if after the project
is developed, the concerns become valid?
Ms. Hysong stated that there is nothing in any City Policy, Ordinance, or Regulation that dictates that
these units in the Residential High Density General Plan designation area be ownership units. She stated
that the apartment units, because they are basically developed with the same amenities as a condominium project, are very compatible with the area though they are not ownership but they look like,
feel like and seem like condominium units that are in fact rental units. She stated that she believes this
project is compatible with the existing development in the area and she feels comfortable with her recommendation.
She stated that Mr. Clubb is required to comply with the conditions of his project. She stated that staff
does not have recourse with respect to bringing back his project before the Planning Commission again as in a Conditional Use Permit, however if his project becomes an eyesore and not maintained, then the
community at large has the opportunity to address that with him.
Commissioner Compas asked if the issue of the stop sign at the corner has been addressed and does staff feel a need for one right now?
Mr. Riddle replied that in the past there was one call made requesting this at the intersection of Pirineos Way and Vieja Castilla Way and staff could have a work order to have one in place. He stated it would be
a good idea to install one, but it already is a slow down area.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that the appropriate procedure for a stop sign to be installed would be to bring that to the City Traffic Engineer and then it would go to the Traffic Commission, and they would make a
recommendation as to whether or not a sign is warranted.
Commissioner Compas asked if this were to be approved, would there be any way to put a requirement on it that the apartments have to be rented by a lease and the lease has to be at least six months?
Ms. Mobaldi stated that she did not believe the City could impose that condition as it is an exaction she
did not think that would be a requirement that you can legally impose. She stated that the zoning is allowing multi-family residential, including apartments, and there is no restriction as to length of leases etc.
Mr. Wayne replied that the Code allows any permit to be recalled if it is not being exercised according to the conditions of the permit. It would come back to this body at a public hearing, if the conditions of
approval are not being met, and therefore you could tailor make certain conditions if you had a certain
concern about how it was being operated within the requirements of law of which the Counselor just spoke.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that there was a case recently where the City of Santa Monica tried to impose a requirement that owners not rent to unrelated third parties and that was stricken by the court. They said that is a private responsibility of the owner to rent to who he wants to rent to, how long he wants to rent
etc. and the government cannot interfere with that.
Planning Commission Minutes August 1,200l Page 16
Chairperson Segall asked to follow up with Commissioner Compas’ stop sign issue. He asked Mr. Wayne
to enlighten him on the process relative to recommending anything to the Traffic Engineer on signs.
Mr. Wayne stated that they do not refer to other boards and commissions as that is really a private matter
and the public, if they see a need for it, should petition that body to request it and that can be done
relatively easily.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that it can be appealed if they do not like the decision.
Commissioner Compas stated that one of the speakers made a disparaging remark about the Planning
Department and he wanted to say as a long-term member of this Commission and having had many, many dealings with the Planning Department and watching how they operate and what they do and
comparing them with other cities, he did not think that remark was appropriate because our Planning
Department is one of the best in the State.
Chairperson Segal stated that he concurred.
Commissioner Heineman stated, as a follow up on the rental question in this neighborhood, that there is a letter, not knowing how reliable it is, it mentions that Orleans East is 30% tenant occupied, Sabrina
Greens is 44% tenant occupied and Flave LaCosta is 31% tenant occupied. He asked if there was any
reason to doubt those figures?
Chairperson Segall asked where that letter was from?
Commissioner Heineman stated it was from Steve Relth, agent for Nothan Partners.
Ms. Hysong stated she had the City’s GIS Department prepare an analysis of how many condos were in each project and then how many absentee owners there are. Making the assumption that if the owner is
absentee, he or she is renting the unit, the results were that in the project to the west, Flave LaCosta, half
of those units have absentee owners, in the four unit condominium project at the end of Pirineos Way,
one of those (25%) is absentee owner, in the project across the street which is Orleans East 41 of 94
condominiums have absentee owners, and in the other project to the east, 13 of the 30 condominiums
have absentee owners. She stated that these are based on the assessor records.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the applicant could have put four or five bedroom units in the complex and
it would not have mattered regarding density?
Ms. Hysong stated it would not matter with respect to density calculation or parking but density is based on the number of units.
Commissioner Trigas asked if regarding absentee owners, it could also be a vacation home or it is just vacant? She also asked what type of noise attenuation is being done in regards to the pool that is up in
the front?
Ms. Hysong stated that they are assuming if they are absentee owners, they are being rented. She
pointed out that there are buildings separating the adjacent units to the east and the west and the pool is
adjacent to the street and is in the semi-center of the site. She stated there is a five foot solid masonry
wall all around the pool.
Chairperson Segall asked if there are any parking restriction conditions that can be imposed in terms of
how they park vehicles, for the applicant is indicating that they would restrict people to park in the garage
and not out on the street. Is there anything from a condition standpoint to ensure that that occurs? He
asked if you could prevent anyone from parking on the street if they so desired?
Ms. Hysong stated staff could impose that condition, that they use their garage for parking rather than storage. She said you could impose the condition to prevent parking on the street but it would be very
difficult to implement.
69
Planning Commission Minutes August 1,200l Page 17
Chairperson Segall pointed out in terms of the issue that was raised that there are two Affordable Housing
units and one the applicant is intending to have for the onsite manager. He asked if that was an appropriate use for that purpose?
Ms. Hysong stated that may have been a misstatement on Mr. Clubb’s part as the manager would have to qualify through the Housing Office to occupy that unit. So if the manager met the criteria with respect to
income, then he might qualify for that unit.
Chairperson Segall asked if that then takes away from the purpose of the Affordable unit by having a
requirement that someone that qualifies for that lives onsite then you only have one Affordable unit in essence for the public?
Ms. Hysong replied possibly and that her guess is that because the Housing Office has a set procedure for who occupies Affordable Housing, there is a waiting list and it would probably be very difficult to have
a manager qualify and then be able to move in in a timely fashion to occupy that unit.
Mr. Wayne stated that Ms. Hysong is correct and in addition he stated that the way the Housing Element
was written that that is a Housing Unit and you are providing housing for somebody, which is the same thing when we had this long discussion regarding second dwelling units being servants quarters -
providing housing units for those people that provide services in the City. He pointed out that Mr. Clubb is
not going to be able to put a manager in there as it is going to be bound and restricted by an Affordable
Housing Agreement which will set the terms and income limits, based upon the number of bedrooms and household size which that unit is targeted for.
He also stated, regarding street parking on public streets, that he did not think they could restrict that.
Ms. Mobaldi agreed that you could not condition someone not to park on a public street.
Chairperson Segall stated that as it is 9:55 p.m. there needs to be a motion to extend for a period of time.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman and duly seconded, to extend this meeting
until this item is completed.
VOTE:
AYES:
5-o-o Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Nielsen and Trigas
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
None
None
Ms. Mobaldi stated there was one other item with regard to one of the conditions imposed which is not a
subject of discussion but the park in lieu fee, that it is a Code Reminder and also Finding 5b on page 3 of Resolution 5008. That was just a reiteration of a requirement for a payment of a park in lieu fee. She
believes that it was inadvertently included and only applies when a tentative map is being processed simultaneously.
Ms. Hysong asked that that be included in the motion, then staff would delete Finding 58 of Resolution
5008 and Code Reminder 41 of Resolution 5008.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Compas stated that the project looks very good to him, taken by itself. He thinks it is well
designed and he likes the way they have gone about putting it together. He stated that he also feels that
apartment projects are needed in San Diego County, but he also has been very much impressed by the public testimony tonight; that the people who have spoken are obviously united in strong opposition to this
Planning Commission Minutes August 1,200l Page 18
project and he, to a degree, shares their concern about putting this project in this location and that is
where he is at the moment.
Commissioner Heineman stated that he thinks the Commission is running into the same concerns they
run into every time they consider an infill project. He feels the project is consistent with the neighborhood,
in fact he thinks it may enhance it, but his only caveat is that he does not believe that they can assume that the three-bedroom apartments will be always occupied by families of three as his experience as manager of a complex is that unless you are extremely vigilant, those three bedroom apartments can end
up being occupied by three different college students making a living by cleaning swimming pools and with a lot of friends and with a total in each apartment of four and five cars. He thinks that the owner and
his manager are going to have to exercise extreme caution to prevent such a thing, as it can happen.
Commissioner Nielson stated that he shares Commissioner Compas’ comments except he has a problem
with going over the Growth Point when we are putting three-bedroom units with the parking requirements
we have, and he just cannot support the bonus units based on the fact these are three-bedrooms
because, as he has stated, the next one could come in with four bedrooms or five bedrooms with the same parking and he thinks this will severely impact the neighborhood. He stated that his comments are
that it is difficult for him to support the density bonus with three bedroom units with two-car parking.
Commissioner Trigas pointed out that it is possible that the Commission may need a Minute Motion regarding talking about a City Policy which would be a City Council effort. She stated that her concern is
that this Commission is dealing with certain rules, property rights and the appropriate zoning for what the applicant’s project is. She stated that she does not feel that the Commission can determine a different
policy by saying now we are going to count bedrooms in density which is something if we as a
Commission feel should be considered, then maybe we need to address this to the City Council, but she stated that she personally does not feel she has the authority to use that as a criteria. Commissioner
Trigas stated that if the applicant has followed all the requirements, which of course they have for this
project, they are allowed 14 units without any changes if you went with the Growth Control Point.
Ms. Hysong confirmed it is the density range that is allowed so there is no stipulation that you have to approve a project at the Growth Control Point but it would be 14 if you round down.
Commissioner Trigas stated that what she is struggling with is the Commission is trying to put this new development on an infill lot, with all of the problems that she is hearing the neighbors complain about; that
has been of wurse none of the developer’s cause for he is coming into a situation where the neighbors
have a lot of concerns. She stated that she does not feel comfortable denying him what the findings have
been..
Commissioner Trigas stated that the problems obviously should be addressed perhaps by the neighbors however that is a separate issue. She stated that this project has gone along with all the correct
procedures with no variances or anything out of the ordinary and her concern is that any concerns during the seven month building period be addressed as a good neighbor. She stated that her previous concern about the noise attenuation at the pool has been satisfied. Commissioner Trigas stated that she must
approve this project.
Chairperson Segall thanked everyone for staying around and providing input on this important issue. He shared that diversity in housing in Carlsbad is a real major concern. He pointed out that not too long ago
the Commission approved an apartment complex that has now been denied by the Coastal Commission and it would meet a lot of the needs the City has in diversity in housing. He stated that he has a concern that this project does meet some of those needs and the City does need that kind of a mix in this
community.
Chairperson Segall stated that he thinks this is a quality project on which a lot of time and effort appears to have been spent, and he believes it does match closely the community. He stated that he does have a
concern for density for he does think this is a densely packed neighborhood, however it is zoned to allow this kind of a project there. He stated that he has a concern about going over the Growth Control Point, however he thinks the findings can be made for that. He stated that he thinks the owner purchased this
Planning Commission Minutes August I,2001 Page 19
property and followed the law to develop it, and he is going to have a hard time denying him to build this kind of a project.
Chairperson Segall stated that he thinks Commissioner Heineman had a good point, every time we have
an infill project in Carlsbad where we are coming in with something that is slightly different from the exact mix of the community we do have concerns, but beyond that he thinks this is a good project and he is
willing to support it.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that he cannot support this project going over the Growth Control Point because of the three bedroom units, as he thinks it is impacting the neighborhood unfairly, so he cannot
support it.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 5007 adopting a Negative Declaration and Planning Commission Resolution 5008 approving SDP 00-16 and in addition the Errata
Sheet with all the additions including to delete Finding 5B of Resolution 5008 and to delete Code Reminder 41 of Resolution 5008.
VOTE:
AYES:
3-2-O
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners, Heineman, and Trigas
NOES: ABSTAIN:
Commissioners Compas and Nielsen
None
Chairperson Segall closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that he has a problem with the fact that when we consider density we do not consider numbers of bedrooms with parking because we have more infill down there and we are setting a
president.
>APPEAL FORI@
I (We) appeal the decision of the cm m mmm EXAtWKIHT.B-
to the Cadsbad Gity&m&.
Date of Decision you are appealing: JtUXBr 1, ZOOl km EJ& RRlNX6 FowlE SISOO-16
Subiect of Armeal:
BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer’s Decision, please say so. If a project has
multiple elements, (such as a Generai plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please
list them all. lf $0~ only want to appeal a part of the whole action. please state that here.
Reasonls) for Ameal: l Please Notm l Fdhwe to opsdfy a remon may rwult In denial of
tha appeal, md you will be limitmd to the grounds statmd hem when presenting your oppcaL
glE SPECIFIC How did the dedsion maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent wlth state or local
laws, plans, or policy? :
Fm33s!EpElJtnmED Eim l3Fri1-5,
2530-~#30
AODRESS SIrset Name & Numbs
i3m.m 10, 2an -,-92009
DATE cltu, mh zip-*
1200 Carl&ad Village Drive - Cartsbad. California 92008-l 989 l (819) 434-2808
.3-O?; 7:liAM;carlsbad city clerk
z-FWl:DEBORWSWICKY PHG+E No. : 7609425189
;760 720 6917 # 21 3
Rug. 10 2001 01:43PM P3
.I.) ThcPlalming-on~ac#pabd,~Ead,lesesrcbtllatwrrr .
itl-d~tUid~~aSpesclntedbyCityplpjmerti~
Commissim~onO1 AugustOl.
2.)ThcPlaanifg~onappoved~~ofnew~lllsi~~
uoitsthat&aotmeetCityofCarlshdIbushg~Red~eut~
guiddins. Per guid&es~ tk rcquimd number of lower-~ i&&nary
unitssMlbehfbetlr(lS”%)prcentofthetotal~i~~. Currc5tpropwcd
dclhpcnt cites wily tweb! and one half(l2.5%) pmxnt ofthc toal
rcsidcntiPluoiIs.
3.) Per City of C&bad rqplation~ the Master En- Imp& Report
(MElR)istobefeb4owodandd’evay~ve(5)~ TbenmRcitdaad
felieduponbyt&cplaming~increatinglheir~tothepl~g
commission is scvm ad one half(71/2) years old, outdated and does not meet
rcquiFemsntsofbcingupdattdandcumat.
5.) ThePIzumingDepartmeaSapprovcdm~~pl~inaxnorcthPm~-
six (26) year old esWIishcd coudotium commupity imp8othkg the quay of
life resulting in the immediate p0ten.W for dimhtion in value of sunounding
=bWW.
PagB3of3
;*3-0 1 ; 7:llAM;carlsbad CltY cle’rk
3 FRoJl:DEBoRmsw1cxY
;7eicl 720 8917 # 31 3
PHOPE ta. : 760 942 Sl69 Rug. 10 2681 01:42Prl P2
l.)TbCPlnrmingCommission~Vedtheproposed~~by~
uroneousreseachrcs&sandpaqoscdfictsppexlltcdasfactbytbc
CM!bdP1aamingDcpartnientob hearing m 01 August 01.
2)mPlanning-sppavedoew’inc~oIlaryhousioglmi~tilatQ
not meet mandated City ofCarhbd Hous& aad ReBerelapmcnt guhtkii~~~.
3.)ThcPlan&4gcoIIlmissMmrtmprovadadclitiomaluni~bssddmtheCall~
Phmingl3epprcment’suseofauoutthdMasterEn~nmentalbnpact
Report (MEiR)inviola!ionofthe rc4pkmathattheME.lRbcupdsted
v five (5) Y-.
S.)Tk planning Department approved apaltmcnt tJpc dwellings io an
estabhshedcondonliniulncoanmrmity,
PageZof3
75
08/13/28Ell 16: 51 8586890234 COAST CONTRACTING PAGE 02
EXHIBIT 6
PIRINEOS POINTE, LLC
16 UMT LUXURY APARTMENT PROJECT
PIRINEOS WAY, LA COSTA
w -.-.4094234 213 49949~
Allgust 13,Zool
city Council The City of Carl&ad 1200 Carl&ad Village Drive Curfsbud, CA 92008
Re: SDP0016 / Plan&g Commission Pkaring Date: August 1,200l
Dear ?lonoable Members of the City Council:
This corrqondence is in response to that certain “Appeal” as filed on behalf of various concerned
citizens as represented by Tracey Wallace, dated August IO, 2001. Please be advised that Pirineos Pointe,
LLC, the applicant of the referenced Site Development Permit, became the owner of record, in fee title, as of August 10,2OOl. As the Managing Member of Pintos Pointe, LLC, I have fill authority to act on its behalf
As the applicant of SDP-00 16 and owner of the subject property, we object to the style, form 4
content ofthe appeal and believe that the appeal should be rejected, either in whole or in pert, by the City
councilfarthereaeous stuted below:
1. The Appchnt has requested a ninety- (90) day period for “the preparation of their appal”. There is no valid reason offered or otherwise in existence to warrant
granting such a request If there were any basis in fact for their position (which there otdudy is none), it would necessarily have to be already known, No additional
time beyond that required by City statute should be allowed. This project has been in various stages of planning and design coutinuously with full effort since it was first placed in escrow to purchase in July of 2000. The Appellunt is seek@ to
Ruther stretch out the approval process aud discourage the project’s development.
There is no legitimate reasonfor this appeal, ifnccq~&& not to be heard as soon as
possible.
2. Appellant item marked no. “1.)” under -Subject of Appeal” and its corrqonding
%euson for AppeaY lacks four&ion and pm for it’s proper consideration to
be heard, Appellant claims there was “false information” but they fail to state what was false. By failing to give the owner adequate notice of the grounds upon which they base their appeal the owner would be deprived of due Process if their appeal is
acceptai because one can only speculate as to their grounds for appeal. Surely, if faise infomation exists, as they allege, it would be a simple matter (as well as a required one) to rdk to it m in their “Reason to Appeal”. Since they ftiled to do so, I request that this item be specifically excluded.
08/13/2881 16: 51 8586898234 COAST CONTRACTING PAGE 83
City Council The City of Carl&ad
August 13,200I Page 2
3.
4.
5.
6.
Appellant item marked no. “2.)” that deals with inclusionary housing was discussed in detail by City StaiYPlanner, Ann Ifysong at the Planning Commission hsating. The conclusion that “ 12.50/$’ does not meet the “150/d’ requirement is simply a
feeble and mislaadiag attempt by the Appellant to &her discredit City StaE The
truth is that the inclusionary guidelines provide for ?oundii” as was tastifled to at
the hearing. (For example, 15% of 16 units = 2.4 units, is properly rounded down to
2 units; had the calculation been based on 17 units, then 15% of 17 units = 2.6 units,
properly rounded up to 3 units,) The Appellant’s argumem concerning the 12.5% calculation is therefore academic. This obviously lacks any validity and should not
be u&dered by City Council as a valid “Reason for Appeal P. Therefore, I request
that this item be specifically excluded,
Appellant item marked no. “3,),, challenges the City of Carlsbad, its Planning
Commission and Planning Staff in it use of the Master Environmental Impact Report.
Facts symrunding the use of an alleged “7.5 years old report” are certainly known by
The City Council, the Planning Commission and SmfF. The proper and legal use of
tbis MEIR should never be allowed as a Fool by the Appellant just because they are misinformed. Therefore, I fiuther request that this item be specifically excluded.
Appellant item no, “4.)” also challenges the City of Carl&ad, its Planning Commission and Planning SMT The “Reason fbr Appeal” lacks foundation and
m. The reasons stated are vague and ambiguous. Nothing in their statement can be legitimatety used as a valid “Reason for Appeal”. The&ore, I ask that this
item be specifIcally excluded.
Appellant item no. “5.)” is completely imlevant. The City of Carl&ad, City
Ctil, the Planning Commission and Staff cannot and should not make decisions based on the manner in which ritlc to private prope~y is held. That decision rest solely with the property owner under State and Federal law, Furthermom, the imposition of any requirement to build condominiums would incorrectly force the
owner M file a subdivision map. Requirhg such would effectively constitute the
prohibition of the building of an allowed use under City Zoning and other guidelines for an existing single lot development Therefore, I also request that this item be specifically excluded.
In conclusion, the Appellant failed to follow the stated requirement on the Appeal Form where it is
shown in large bold print to m SPECIFIC. The lack of Specifics and inadeqtmte notice ofthe grounds upon which Appellant bases their appeal woukl deprive the owner of due pro~ss. We obviously can not
respod to unknown allegations.
08/13/2001 16: 51 8586890234 COAST CONTRACTING PAGE 04
City Coun&l The city of C&bad
AuJgust 13,2001
page3
On hehalf oftbe owner of the pquty, Phineoa Pointe, LLC, and based on the above information and M supported by your tkrchcr inquiries with the City Planning Department and the City Attorney’s Office, I respect&lly request that each of the above items be specifically excluded and tberefore rejected 88
ins&cient and improper to warrant a MLid appeal. If it is fouad that all items are to be excluded, then I ask that a rejection of she Appellant’s “Appeal Form” be issued as soon as possible, and that this aaion would constitute a de&al of the Appeal
based on its lack of merit.
As a long time resident ofNorth County, I have had my Architect de&n this project with “pride of Chvnctxhip” in mind and quality fares which will enhance the life style of its residences as well. as
eahawe the neighborhood. The City Staff has meticukwsly studied this project and the project was then
care!Wy reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. I utge you to reject this appeal and permit
us to proceed a~ quickly as possible.
cc: City A#orney, City of Cadsbad
him Hysong, Assistant Planner w’/o 49v4 * Jeremy Riddle, City Engineering Deputment J. Wiley Jones, Esq.
TbolIlM Jossclyl& EEq.
Enclosure: Copy of Appellant’s Appeal Form
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN 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, September 18, 2001, to consider
an appeal of a Planning Commission approval of a Site Development Plan to
allow a 16 unit townhome style apartment project, including 2 affordable housing
units located on Pirineos Way between La Costa Avenue and the La Costa
Resort Golf Course in the RD-M Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 6,
and more particularly described as:
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 4548 in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, March 16, 1976 as
File No. 76-076420 of official records.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend
the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after Friday,
September 14,200l. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the
Planning Department at (760) 6024622.
.
If you challenge the Site Development Plan in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described
in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City
Clerk’s Office at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: SDP 00-16
CASE NAME: PIRINEOS POINTE
PUBLISH: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 7,200l
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF CARLSBAD
P
* SITE
INEOS PO
SDP 00-16.
@ womm
INTE
L. : : CITY OF CARLSBAD
1635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
(760) 602-2401
REC’D FROM ~k&ak+/ t..LMU/?CG DATE zj, “/I) -01
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
06/ 34/D -4,$j?J : I : I I : I i I
0% ti 323-5;”
I : i I I I : i
gE!EIPT f’&? 72455
Prmted on recycled paper.
NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY TOTAL
CASH REGISTER
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the decision of the - m m FVJWS -- KMQG M
to the Cartsbad GiQ+mmik
Date of Decision you are appealing: RB-EV 1, 2101 WE EVE, E'JRIMXFcxIME~6
Subiect of Ameal:
BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer’s Decision, please say so. If a project has
multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please
list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here.
Reason(s) for Apcmal: l Please Note l Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of
the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal.
BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local
laws, plans, or policy?
KEm3s!Em l!flPam lIJsr ln!clm 1-5.
/'iIUX.M.-
NAME (please print)
2630-w#30
ADDRESS: Street Name 8 Number
J-!LKxm 10, 2001 c74lwzm,-9200!3
DATE Citv, State, Zip Code
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Cartsbad. California 92008-T 989 - (619) 434-2808
FROM : DEBORW SfWICK'f * PHONE NO. : 760 942 5189 kg. 10 2001 01: 42PM P2
Subicct of Ameak
I f We challenge the entire action of the Planning Commission on SDP 00-16.
I / We request ninety (90) days fkom today’s date of 10 August 01 to prepare my I our
appeal. This appeal is based on the following facts:
1.) The Planning Commission approved the proposed development by accepting
erroneous research results and proposed facts presented as fkt by the
Carl&ad Planning Department at commission hearing on 01 August OX.
2.) The P1aunin.g Commission approved new inclusionary housing tits that do
not meet mandated City of Car&ad Housing and Redevelopment guidelines.
3.) The Planning Commission approved additional units based on the CarMad
Pkming Department’s use of an outdated Master Environmental Impact
Report (M?ZR) in violation of the requirement that the MEIR be updated
evay five (5) years.
4.) The Planning Department’s reliance on Growth Management Plan that
exceeds mpted standards and is vague in establishing density p&ence.
5.) The Planning Department approved apartment type dwellings in 8~1
established condomiuium community.
Page2of3
FROM : DEBORFHSWICKY % PHONE NO. : 760 942 5189 Rug. 18 2881 81:43PM P3
Reasons for Atmeal:
1.) The Planning Commission exronemsly acc@ed, as fact, research that was
inco~ and materially misleading as presented by city planner at Planning
Commission meeting on 0 1 August 01.
2.) The Planning Commission approved construction of new inclusionary housing
units that do not meet City of Carl&ad Housing and Redevelopment mandated
guidelines. Per guidelines, the required number of lower-income inclusionary
units shall be fifteen (15%) percent of the total residential units. Current proposed
development cites only twelve and one half (12.5%) percent of the total
residential units.
3.) Per City of Carlsbad regulations, the Master Environmental .Impact Report
(MEXR) is to be reviewed and renewed every five (5) years. The MElR cited and
relied upon by the Planning Department in creating their report to the planning
commission is seven and one half (7U2) years old, outdated and does not meet
rquirements of being updated and current.
4.) The Planning Department’s interpretatior and employment of the Genera2 Grow&
Management Plan is vague and exceeds accepted standards in its language
per&in& to den& and establishing guidelines for density precedence.
5.) The Planning Departmeat approved an apartment complex in a more than twcnty-
six (26) year old established condominium community impacting the quality of
life resulting in the immediate potential for diminution in value of surrounding
real Property.
Page3of3
. .
THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE FOR PIRINEOS POINT (SDP
00-16) WAS MAILED TO THE
FOLLOWING ON&d’&, k&&u!& 7/ wo/
JANICE BREITENFELD
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
LA COSTA HOTEL&SPA CORP SABRINA PROPERTIES INC SABRINA PROPERTIES INC 2100 COSTA DEL MAR RD 411 N CENTRAL AVE 600 411 N CENTRAL AVE 600 CARLSBAD CA 92009-6823 GLENDALE CA 91203-2021 GLENDALE CA 91203-2021
TRINIDAD MEADOW VISTA HOLDINGS L 1031 REAL ESTATE SERVIC 24541 VANESSA DR 219 MEADOW VISTA WAY 1317 CALLE SCOTT MISSION VIEJO 92691-4672 ENCINITAS CA 92024-4321 ENCINITAS CA 92024-5532
DONALD D KING MILTON F CALLER0 BRIAN S YUI 1710 ARBUTUS ST 2544 NAVARRA DR 2 124 5TH ST
GOLDEN CO 80401-3532 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7055 ENCINITAS CA 92024
LUONG & TUYET QUYEN MARLES E MORAN JOHN H & RUTH HONOUR
2544 NAVARRA DR 4 2544 NAVARRA DR 5 2544 NAVARRA DR 6
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7055 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7055 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7056
JOHN E BOND DOROTHY M BOWMER TRAILER P EVERGREEN
2544 NAVARRA DR 7 2544 NAVARRA DR 8 1346 SUMMIT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7056 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7056 CARDIFF BY TH 92007-2430
GERARD G SARNATADO BETH A FITZGERALD EDWARD G & SANDRA BURR
2544 NAVARRA DR 10 2544 NAVARRA DR 11 4936 YERBA SANTA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7056 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7056 SAN DIEGO CA 92115-1038
CASEY W CONNORS MASSOUD KHARRAZIAN SCOTT R OLSEN
2544 NAVARRA DR 13 1565 BURGUNDY RD 2544 NAVARRA DR 15
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7057 ENCINITAS CA 92024-1206 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7057
GISELE M ZEFFARO RICHARD B & STACEY TAFT WILLIAM & HOLLY HUMMEL 2544 NAVARRA DR 16 35 COLLINWOOD RD 2544 NAVARRA DR 18 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7057 MAPLEWOOD NJ 07040-1035 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7057
EVANS MICHAEL C ANGELOS MILAN1 M SOMMERVILLE 2544 NAVARRA DR 19 1927 S CLAREMONT AVE 7500 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7057 FRESNO CA 93727-6238 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7354
MYRTLE M DELILLY ANNAMARIE BEZZERIDES GRACE T WONG 4940 S VERDUN AVE 7500 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY 2572 ChLIFORNIA ST 1 LOS ANGELES C 90043-1519 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7354 SAN FRANCISCO 94115-2629
. ’
TIM & RISTIN HABER ALLYSON GREENWOOD DANIEL M MOLINA
7500 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY 7500 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY 7500 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009-7354 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7354 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7355
JAMES M ALES1 BARBARA J GIVENS OCTAVIO PINA
7500 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY 7500 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY 7500 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009-7355 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7355 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7355
CHRIS 6r ANFAL MCCRAY DARLENE F TIGHE KAZUO KAWAMATA 14 SEAPORT 7205 PLAZA DE LA COSTA 7512 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY LAGUNA NIGUEL 92677-5904 CARLSBAD CA 92009-6258 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7356
AARON M DRESSIN DIANNE E FARRIS JAMES T HOMME
7512 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY 7512 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY 7512 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7356 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7356 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7356
LOUIS V MANAKAS BOBBI E TROUT PAULA GREEN
940 S PEARWOOD LN 7512 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY 7512 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY
ANAHEIM CA 92806-4610 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7357 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7357
JOHN J MCALOON SAITAMA NISSAN USA CORP BORISOFF TR
19505 N MONTAGUE LOOP 1200 W 7TH ST MS2 PO BOX 2243
EAGLE RIVER A 99577-8718 LOS ANGELES C 90017 DEL MAR CA 92014-1543
MARY J SCHOVAERS ERIC WARD MARAMOR INC
2533 NAVARRA DR 1A 2533 NAVARRA DR A2 557 CANYON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7039 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7039 SOLANA BEACH 92075-1338
DECANDIA GALNICK MARIANNE HOKE
2533 NAVARRA DR A4 2533 NAVARRA DR Bl 2533 NAVARRA DR 2B
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7040 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7041 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7041 .
ELLIOT B CANTER GARY & SHARON BLOOM JENNIE BERKAU
2533 NAVARRA DR B3 2533 NAVARRA DR 4B 2535 NAVARRA DR A5
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7041 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7042 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7044
DAVID SCOTT GARRETT TR LOUISE E SCHRIEK
2535 NAVARRA DR 6A 522 N WILCOX 2535 NAVARRA DR 8A
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7044 LOS ANGELES C 90004-1111 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7045
. .
HOWARD M SPIEGEL
2535 NAVARRA DR B5 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7046
JEROME & BEVERLY KLIPP 2535 NAVARRA DR B6 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7046
LINDA LEE 2535 NAVARRA DR B7
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7047
KENNETH W HINTZ 2535 NAVARRA DR 8B
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7047
MURRAY DAVISON
2537 NAVARRA DR 9A
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7050
BEVERLY J GEISTER 2537 NAVARRA DR A10 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7049
JOHN CAMACHO 2537 NAVARRA DR 11A
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7049
RICHARD L DOSS
100 SUMMER HILL LN
FAIRVIEW TX 75069-4167
COMOUCHE TR
2537 NAVARRA DR 9B
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7052
JAMES R GOODE 2537 NAVARRA DR BlO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7051
WILLIAM C THOMSON
2537 NAVARRA DR 11B
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7051
RAY & DOLLY DOSS
3917 DAVILA DR
DALLAS TX 75220-3716
MT&DYLANGRANT 2551 NAVARRA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7053
COLETTE E WENGENROTH 2549 NAVARRA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7053
SANIBER CEMALOVIC 2547 NAVARRA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7053
SHARON ANTHONY
2545 NAVARRA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7053
WILLIAM SEWELL
1625 SAINT JAMES CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1966
EDWARD C & DONNA ECKERT
2541 NAVARRA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7005
JOHN D & DIANNA BEACH 7515 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7351
TIFFANY REID 2539 NAVARRA DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-7005
KONG SHEN 7517 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009-7351
CRAIG NEVIN 7511 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7351
SHIELDS 7509 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009-7351
BRUCE I HIRSCH 7507 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009-7351
KIRKLAND SINGER 7505 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009-7351
DANNY FITZPATRICK
2520 NAVARRA DR A CARLSBAD CA 92009-7032
COLETTE B HOLMES 2520 NAVARRA DR B CARLSBAD CA 92009-7032
JYH Y TSAI 1160 ROSALIND RD SAN MARINO CA 91108-1128
ZION YOHANNES PO BOX 881056 SAN DIEGO CA 92168-1056
RITA S SEAMANS 2520 NAVARRA DR E
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7032
TSUTOMU OYAMA MARTIN & MARY CARVER PATRICK A HYSELL 2411 SAINT LOUIS DR 220 LYON ST NW 800 2528 NAVARRA DR B
HONOLULU HI 96816-2030 GRAND RAPIDS 49503-2210 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7035
MARIA C ORTIZ PHYLLIS N STEWART JANET S ADAMS 2528 NAVARRA DR C 2532 NAVARRA DR B 1602 YORK AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009-7035 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7037 SAN MATE0 CA 94401-2042
FRANK S & PATRICIA TUCK TORELL BARBARA J FELTON 2530 NAVARRA DR B PO BOX 7098 2524 NAVARRA DR B CARLSBAD CA 92009-7036 NEWPORT BEACH 92658-7098 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7034
STRAUSS H S MADDOX DON & JEANNE FRIEDMAN 177 CAMINO ARROYO N 2522 NAVARRA DR B 3219 S GREGG CT PALM DESERT C 92260-0378 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7033 DENVER CO 80210-6942
DRAGON T PLATINUM PHILIP & JOAN LAISNEY GEORGE W LESLIE
5030 CHAMPION BLVD 6-26 2638 PIRINEOS WAY 2640 PIRINEOS WAY
BOCA RATON FL 33496-2473 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7331 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7331
JAIME A & SCOTT BIONDI CHRISTINA SHERER VELMA L ELLIOTT 2642 PIRINEOS WAY 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 305 1015 BRADFORD PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-7331 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7336 REDLANDS CA 92373-6154
ZEFERINO TRINIDAD AN MAC VACATION HOME IN SHANNON ANGLEA 5222 SOUTHRIDGE AVE 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 103 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 104 LOS ANGELES C 90043-1527 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7333 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7333
ARTHUR & CORRINE EAST CATHERINE M MULLER WESLEY T & AUDREY ADAMS 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 105 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 106 2229 LINDA FLORA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7333 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7333 LOS ANGELES C 90077-1410
JANET F SHELTON RITEA FAMILY MELINDA B OWEN 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 108 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 109 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 110 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7333 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7333 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7333
MARTIN S JOHNSON
8510 SUGARMAN DR
CARDIFF BY TH 92007
MILES M MURRAY JOSEPH P & JOAN PFINGST
2607 PIRINEOS WAY 112 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 113 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7333 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7333
‘, ,’
DARIN DUNFORD THOMPSON JANET K PAPAJOHN 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 114 1257 E HERMOSA DR 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 116
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7333 TEMPE AZ 85282-5506 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7333
VELMA L ELLIOTT BRIAN WI KAZIMIERZ BACZYNSKI
1015 BRADFORD PL 124 5TH ST 3655 MISSION AVE
REDLANDS CA 92373-6154 ENCINITAS CA 92024-3269 OCEANSIDE CA 92054-1415
GERALD A BLANDFORD STEVEN ARMSTRONG MARIAN A tic DOUGLAS WEIS 15557 WINDING CREEK DR 2606 CINDERELLA PL PO BOX 171 DUMFRIES VA 22026-3065 LEMON GROVE C 91945-3049 ROSLYN WA 98941-0171
CHRISTOPHER J SJOBERG LINN LARSEN NASSOUR TR 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 207 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 208 7828 QUEBRADA CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7334 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7334 CARLSBAD CA 92009-8341
GAYLORD K GREER DONALD L & GAY DURWARD CATHERINE A BIRCH
2607 PIRINEOS WAY 210 28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 212
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7334 RANCH0 PALOS 90275-2919 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7334
REZA T YAZDI ROBERT L BIANCHI JOHN A LEBEAULT 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 213 250 BALDWIN AVE 808 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 215
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7334 SAN MATE0 CA 94401-3924 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7334
BUNNY T KACHER NATHAN SCHLEIFER ART PICHIERRI
2607 PIRINEOS WAY 216 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 302 185 SAXPMU RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7334 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7336 OCEANSIDE CA 92054
DONALD A SAVICKY CHRISTINE SHERER MARLA L FORSTER 256 PALMYRA DR 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 305 2607 PIRINEOS WAY 309
SAN BERNARDIN 92404-1626 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7336 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7336
JACQUES GUILPAIN DAVID M BERG VELMA L ELLIOTT 10601 TIERRASANTA BLVD 7048 CAMINO DEGRAZIA 23 1015 BRADFORD PL SAN DIEGO CA 92124-2616 SAN DIEGO CA 92111-7817 REDLANDS CA 92373-6154
WILLIAM A TAYLOR HAROLD M LEWIS MILORAD M TERZIC PO BOX 4160 2639 PIRINEOS WAY 133 6433 LA GARZA CT CARLSBAD CA 92018-4160 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7347 CARLSBAD CA 92009
KIMBERLY K ROBESON BELITA E PLOSSIGNAC MARY K BARNHILL 2639 PIRINEOS WAY 134 6398 DEL CERRO BLVD 8 2639 PIRINEOS WAY 137 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7347 SAN DIEGO CA 92120-4700 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7347
MARIAN P OLEKSON VELMA L ELLIOTT ELIZABETH NEWBY-FRASER
2639 PIRINEOS WAY 232 1015 BRADFORD PL 2639 PIRINEOS WAY 233
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7348 REDLANDS CA 92373-6154 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7348
KAKAZU ROLF B VICKNCR YAGER MARGARET C 2639 PIRINEOS WAY 235 2639 PIRINEOS WAY 234 2639 PIRINEOS WAY 237
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7348 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7348 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7348
MILLAR GABRIEL T TOLLENAAR FREDERICK L CLAYTON
2639 PIRINEOS WAY 236 PO BOX 9000 2639 PIRINEOS WAY 336
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7348 CARLSBAD CA 92018-9000 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7348
VELMA L ELLIOTT VELMA L ELLIOTT GALDINO DONJUAN
1015 BRADFORD PL 1015 BRADFORD PL 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 118
REDLANDS CA 92373-6154 REDLANDS CA 92373-6154 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7338
KAZIMIERZ BACZYNSKI ARNOLD TAN ELIZABETH M JENKINS
36.55 MISSION AVE 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 120 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 123
OCEANSIDE CA 92054-1415 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7338 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7338
ANTHONY J FINIZIO CLARENCE BLATNIK LOUIS V SCHOOLER
2625 PIRINEOS WAY 122 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 124 629 W CIRCLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7338 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7338 SOLANA BEACH 92075-1113
DORENE M CARPMAIL
2625 PIRINEOS WAY 127
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7339
JOHN BLACK 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 129 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7339
JEAN M COTTEN 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 219 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7339
JOSHUA & NIKKI BRANNIN STEVEN R TATREAU 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 126 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 128 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7338 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7339
SHAMIEH ARNIBAH VANST 118 VILLAGE RUN W 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 217 ENCINITAS CA 92024-3053 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7339
ROBERT B HORNSTEIN TRACEY M WALLACE 350 N EL CAMINO REAL 36 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 221 ENCINITAS CA 92024-2822 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7339
GENEVIEVE T REY DAVID M BERG SUE M KAYE 10601 TIERRASANTA BLVD 7048 CAMINO DEGRAZIA 23 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 222
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-2616 SAN DIEGO CA 92111-7817 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7339
EMILLE A VERNEX TODD WILSON JOHN H GIOVANAZZI 6398 DEL CERRO BLVD 8 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 225 6320 MARINA PACIFICA DR SAN DIEGO CA 92120-4700 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7340 LONG BEACH CA 90803-3821
BRUCE R GEDDES ROBIN A SCHELL LILIN
2625 PIRINEOS WAY 226 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 228 PMB 164
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7340 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7340 10601 TIERRAS 92124
WE1 HE ZEFERINO TRINIDAD AMY C HO 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 230 5222 SOUTHRIDGE AVE 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 319 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7340 LOS ANGELES C 90043-1527 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7341
HERBERT R EDELSTEIN ROSEMARIE T SMITH KATHERINE M MOYNAHAN 546 S BROAD ST 4AA 2479 OCEAN ST 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 320 MERIDEN CT 06450-6694 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2234 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7530
MAREK SZCZOTKA GERALD H & EDITH SMITH BARBARAA FRANKLIN 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 323 11005 RETRATO CT 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 324 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7341 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-2708 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7341
MARIANNA MAJCHROWSKI DEBOER STEVEN Z REMINGTON 83 SIMPKINS DR P 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 329 2625 PIRINEOS WAY 330 BRISTOL CT 06010-2651 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7341 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7341
CHARLES 2564 NAVARRA DR 101 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7068
ROBERT MAZE
2564 NAVARRA DR 104 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7068
NEIL P CLARK
2564 NAVARRA DR 107 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7068
NANCY L ROEGER COLE LINIAK
2564 NAVARRA DR 102 2564 NAVARRA DR 103 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7068 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7068
RICK P IMBER DAVID A & SANDY BAYLESS
2564 NAVARRA DR 105 13681 FREEPORT RD CARLSBAD CA 92009-7068 SAN DIEGO CA 92129-3210
DONALD R CONNORS MARK A OVENDEN
634 SHENANDOAH AVE 2564 NAVARRA DR 109 SAN MARCOS CA 92078-7922 CARLSBAD CA 92009-8344
SHERWOOD E ANDERSON GAEL E C DONNA NEATHERY GERALD F LOUBEK
1008 SANTA FLORENCIA 2564 NAVARRA DR 111 2564 NAVARRA DR 112
SOLANA BEACH 92075-1516 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7069 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7069
GEORGE J & JEAN LARKINS CARMEN 0 FAURE PAULINA L BRUBAKER
1103 VIA CARILLO 7708 GARBOSO PL 2564 NAVARRA DR 115 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5182 CARLSBAD CA 92009-8325 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7070
JOSEPH J & MARY COLLINS CYRIL B LOCK SANDRA L SMITH 2564 NAVARRA DR 116 2564 NAVARRA DR 117 PO BOX 1673 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7070 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7070 LA JOLLA CA 92038-1673
PATRICK B LEWIS SAN DIEGO BEACH PROPERT THOMAS E JOHNSON
2564 NAVARRA DR 202 PO BOX 1771 3269 CAMINO CORONADO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7071 LA JOLLA CA 92038-1771 CARLSBAD CA 92009-9312
RONALD & NEVADEAN CLAY JANET L LIRETTE 3284 DONLEY ST 961 HEATHER DR 2564 NAVARRA DR 207 SAN DIEGO CA 92117-6132 VISTA CA 92084-5562 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7071
BROWN TR HANNELORE LONZELLO CARRIE A JOYCE 13362 FAIRMONT WAY PO BOX 9175 2564 NAVARRA DR 210 SANTA ANA CA 92705-1832 SAN DIEGO CA 92169-0175 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7072
JOHN T & CAROL SNOW ERIC J CARSTENSEN ALFRED DAUBER PO BOX 31 2564 NAVARRA DR 212 2564 NAVARRA DR 213 DEL MAR CA 92014-0031 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7072 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7072
JOHN M & HILDA ENGELMAN
2379 W 236TH ST
TORRANCE CA 90501-5713
KIMBERLY KLOS
2564 NAVARRA DR 217 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7073
YONI T CARICATO
3044 SOUTHWIND LN
VISTA CA 92084-1251
CRYSTENA CHASE LACY TR 2564 NAVARRA DR 215 79325 DESERT STREAM DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7073 LA QUINTA CA 92253-4233
STEPHEN C DENNY KENDRA A HALL 2630 PIRINEOS WAY 1 2630 PIRINEOS WAY 2 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7343 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7343
CLYDE J & MYRA FRAZIER SHARON D LANE
3325 PIRAGUA ST 2630 PIRINEOS WAY 5
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7842 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7343
PETER RIMMER SITTNER MARYANNA MORRIS
2630 PIRINEOS WAY 6 2808 LUCIERNAGA ST 2630 PIRINEOS WAY 8 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7360 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5926 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7344
STEVEN M FLYNN LEE STARR MICHAEL L WALTMAN 2922 SOMBROSA ST 2630 PIRINEOS WAY 10 2630 PIRINEOS WAY 11
CARLSBAD CA 92009-9245 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7344 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7344
CATHERINE T BRADLEY DAVID & EVA FORREST HOMA VAKILI 2630 PIRINEOS WAY 12 2630 PIRINEOS WAY 13 2630 PIRINEOS WAY 14 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7344 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7344 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7344
ROMA W MURDAUGH DEBRA A BENFATTI LAWRENCE G & JAN HEARN 2630 PIRINEOS WAY 15 2630 PIRINEOS WAY 16 8525 E REMUDA DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-7344 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7361 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255-1502
BARBARA L MILLER MARC A PRESTERA LISA MARTINETTI 1590 RAMONA DR 2630 PIRINEOS WAY 19 2630 PIRINEOS WAY 20 CAMARILLO CA 93010-8474 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7361 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7361
ROYAL STEPHEN C TOMACELLI GRACE Y TOKI PO BOX 231909 654 CORTE LOREN 1600 ARDMORE AVE 325 ENCINITAS CA 92023-1909 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-7316 HERMOSA BEACH 90254-3011
KATHLEEN MOELLER MARILYN J PETERS SISLER VERONICA A 1706 CHERRYTREE LN 2630 PIRINEOS WAY 25 2630 PIRINEOS WAY 26 MOUNTAIN VIEW 94040-3602 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7345 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7362
NANCY L STARLING SUSAN BRICKNER DONALD G & JULIE NEWMAN
7720 EL CAMINO REAL B44 PO BOX 7556 2520 LUCIERNAGA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-8508 TAHOE CITY CA 96145-7556 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5819
TRACEY M WALLACE PATRICK D MCKIM ALICE L RODIN
2630 PIRINEOS WAY 30 2556 NAVARRA DR A 2556 NAVARRA DR B
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7362 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7060 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7060
MICHAEL C & LINDA SMITH THOMAS P TIERNEY WALTER F STEWART 6021 E SWEETWATER AVE 3230 WILDFLOWER DR 2556 NAVARRA DR E E SCOTTSDALE AZ 85254-4456 ENCINITAS CA 92024-7045 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7060
CHARLES M NAKAMURA BERNARD E STACEY ROBERT D & KATZ JACOBS 2556 NAVARRA DR F 2556 NAVARRA DR G 2732 OBELISCO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-7061 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7061 CARLSBAD CA 92009-6526
WILLIAM J FLYNN ZINK MYRA KEITH M SWINEHART 2556 NAVARRA DR I 2556 NAVARRA DR J 2552 NAVARRA DR B CARLSBAD CA 92009-7061 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7061 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7058
RALP S WENTWORTH WILLIAM G YANCEY NIZAM 2552 NAVARRA DR C 2558 NAVARRA DR B 2558 NAVARRA DR C CARLSBAD CA 92009-7058 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7062 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7062
DONALD B & HELEN JURY RICHARD S CLEMENT HITTELMAN SELMA 2552 NAVARRA DR E E 11151 VALESIDE CRES 2558 NAVARRA DR E E CARLSBAD CA 92009-7058 CARMEL IN 46032-9159 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7062
SUSAN A BOYER DAYTON G DICKEY MEACHAM
2558 NAVARRA DR F 2552 NAVARRA DR A 2558 NAVARRA DR A CARLSBAD CA 92009-7062 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7058 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7062
SHOTLAND JOHN L STEVENS NANCY STANLEY 2552 NAVARRA DR D 2558 NAVARRA DR D PO BOX 131554 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7058 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7062 CARLSBAD CA 92013-1554
EARL PENNINGTON FRED OTT ROBERT A WITT
2583 NAVARRA DR B 2583 NAVARRA DR C 12441 PROMONTORY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7090 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7090 LOS ANGELES C 90049-6800
ADRIAN S GRAFF-RADFORD JACK W & ARLENE BOGGESS JAMES W & KAREN MEADOR
7 JENNIFER CT 2581 NAVARRA DR B 2581 NAVARRA DR C
RANCH0 MIRAGE 92270-1627 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7088 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7089
VICTORIA E HEZA BARRY A FENNELL BRADLEY A APPEL 2579 NAVARRA DR A 2579 NAVARRA DR B 2579 NAVARRA DR C CARLSBAD CA 92009-7086 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7086 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7086
BRUCE A HIGHSTRETE CHARLES R WILMOT ROBERT J & MARY HANNA 6852 PRESIDENTE DR 2577 NAVARRA DR C 2465 GARFIELD ST HUNTINGTON BE 92648-3063 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7085 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2214
JANICE A CHIAPELONE PMB 137 PORTLAND OR 97229-7835
ALLEN M EC ISABEL ABRAMS 2216 SCHILLER AVE
WILMETTE IL 60091-2328
DONNA T JOHNSON
2573 NAVARRA DR C
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7080
SANDRA LOWE 2569 NAVARRA DR D CARLSBAD CA 92009-7078
DAVID T & CINDY OLDROYD
2569 NAVARRA DR A
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7077
GARRY GRACE 2565 NAVARRA DR A CARLSBAD CA 92009-7074
RUTH B SOLORIO 2563 NAVARRA DR D CARLSBAD CA 92009-7065
LAURIE A VOGLER-HALLER
2563 NAVARRA DR A
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7065
OCWEN FEDERAL BANK 2561 NAVARRA DR A CARLSBAD CA 92009-7063
LEONARD SILVER 2616 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009-7324
JEANNE M DAUMEN TOM R BLANKENHORN 2575 NAVARRA DR C 2575 NAVARRA DR B CARLSBAD CA 92009-7082 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7082
BARBARA & ROBERT MARTIN PAMELA J PREY
2573 NAVARRA DR A 2573 NAVARRA DR B
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7080 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7080
JAMES & KAZ HAYASHI JILL CHESLEY 2573 NAVARRA DR D 2423 LA COSTA AVE B
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7081 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7313
PATRICIA E RUSSELL LEE T & HELENE WATRIN 2569 NAVARRA DR C 13137 BASSETT ST CARLSBAD CA 92009-7078 NORTH HOLLYWO 91605-4726
NOOSHEEN ALAVERDI JOANN L HUTN 2567 NAVARRA DR B 2567 NAVARRA DR A
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7075 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7075
SCOLARI GEORGE & JOAN GERSON 2565 NAVARRA DR B 3 FARM RD CARLSBAD CA 92009-7074 SHOREHAM NY 11786-1551
DEXTER Y LOUIE JESS P MARINEZ 2563 NAVARRA DR C 2563 NAVARRA DR B
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7065 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7065
ACRIVIDES KALLIOPI P ARCHIE T MARVEL 2561 NAVARRA DR C 2561 NAVARRA DR B CARLSBAD CA 92009-7063 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7063
ROBERT T ALVAREZ ATTILA H & PATTI FELSEN 3227 SWEETWATER DR A 2612 LA COSTA AVE MAINEVILLE OH 45039-8754 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7324
EUGENE W COLER MARK & ANDREA KORFF 2622 LA COSTA AVE 34522 N SCOTTSDALE RD 1 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7324 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85262-1269
MICHAEL NORTHCUTT PACIFICA CRISEL CORP 2636 LA COSTA AVE 1147 LARK SONG LN PO BOX 12188
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7324 ENCINITAS CA 92024-6826 LA JOLLA CA 92039-2188
ANN D ALLEN RUSSELL A CHIASSON ALBERT H RUSHALL 7505 JEREZ CT A 7505 JEREZ CT B 2526 RUETTE NICOLE CARLSBAD CA 92009-7435 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7435 LA JOLLA CA 92037-2008
MATTHEW MARSHALL DEBRA S GIRAUDI LAWRENCE K FULTON
7505 JEREZ CT D 7505 JEREZ CT E E 7525 JEREZ CT L CARLSBAD CA 92009-7435 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7435 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7446
DIANA HEMMERICH EILEEN H NORMAN CAROL A COX 7525 JEREZ CT K 7525 JEREZ CT J 7525 JEREZ CT I CARLSBAD CA 92009-7446 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7445 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7445
LAMONT PROPERTIES MICHAEL S STRINGFELLOW JERRY R BUSH PO BOX 738 7525 JEREZ CT G 7525 JEREZ CT F GREAT FALLS M 59403-0738 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7445 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7445
JOSEPH G GRATES JOHN & LUISA HELM BRENT W & DAWN RAWSON 7525 JEREZ CT E E 7525 JEREZ CT D 7525 JEREZ CT C
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7444 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7444 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7444
MARK A BURBRINK STEVEN B MACNABB STILLWELL 7525 JEREZ CT B 7525 JEREZ CT A 3444 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-7444 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7444 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2030
CAROL C CARRASCO 7526 JEREZ CT F CARLSBAD CA 92009
CANDACE S ADAMS 7527 JEREZ CT C CARLSBAD CA 92009-7449
HARLOW 7523 JEREZ CT D
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7442
MARGARET WONG MARIO RODRIGUEZ 6704 PARK RIDGE BLVD 7527 JEREZ CT D SAN DIEGO CA 92120-3240 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7449
DAVID ESTRADA ROBERT A POPPLETON 7527 JEREZ CT B 7527 JEREZ CT A CARLSBAD CA 92009-7448 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7448
HARLOW HARLOW 7523 JEREZ CT D 7523 JEREZ CT D CARLSBAD CA 92009-7442 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7442
I ‘..
HARLOW HARLOW HARLOW 7523 JEREZ CT D 7523 JEREZ CT D 7523 JEREZ CT D CARLSBAD CA 92009-7442 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7442 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7442
HARLOW KRISTIE D TAYLOR BARRY SHEPARD 7523 JEREZ CT D 7513 JEREZ CT B 7513 JEREZ CT A CARLSBAD CA 92009-7442 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7437 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7437
ALEKSANDR OSTASHCHENKO JOAN B HOCH GEORGE MARHOEFER 7511 JEREZ CT C 7511 JEREZ CT B PO BOX 218 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7436 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7436 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0218
KURT & CYNTHIA BEVACQUA VIVIAN M & JOAN DUNNING SCOTT T MCCARTHY 2536 LA COSTA AVE 7537 MULHOLLAND DR 2552 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009-7321 LOS ANGELES C 90046-1238 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7321
JEANNE V MOBIL10 STEPHEN C HUMMEL JOHN H & MARY NORTHROP PO BOX 232183 2562 LA COSTA AVE 7549 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY ENCINITAS CA 92023-2183 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7321 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7351
BRUCE & SHERI SACHS CARLOS ROYAL PATRICK E FRANCIS MCGURK
7548 VIEJO CASTILLA WAY PO BOX 231909 2528 NAVARRA DR.
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7353 ENCINITAS CA 92023-1909 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANNE HYSONG PLANNING
DARRYL CLUBB
STE 213
7909 SILVERTON AV
SAN DIEGO CA 92126
. 2 .
-SW3 VILLAGE DRIVE
ZALIFORNIA 92008-1989
I
* . . . . . . . me . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .,
B. DARRYL CLUBB
MANAGING MEMBER
PIRINEOS POINTE, LLC
7909 SILVERTON AVE #213
SAN DIEGO, CA 92126
df tlksrlsbtJh
SBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
ZALIFORNIA 92008-1989
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . l - . . . .
TRACEY M. WALLACE "
2630 PIRINEOS WAY #;O
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
PETITION
To the Carlsbad City Council
We join our neighbors to request that the Carlsbad City Council over turn
the Planning Commission approval of the 16-unit rental apartment project.
This project exceeds the (14) fourteen unit density standard set by the
Planning Dept. for this less than one acre lot. Our neighborhood is over
dense by city standards and this project will add to present traffic noise
and connestion and diminish the quality of life in our community.
N . I Address
Subwdta
“y Rmt
Solacui
n-r l-w m-a-o\
CcxJncr L
fb?ce+In %*
PETITION
To the Carlsbad City Council
r&;y;wit;eiquest that tt6&rl&ad Ci&Coun&ver turn
approval of the 16-unit rental apartment project.
This projec exceeds the (14) fourteen unit density standard set by the
Planning Dept. for this less than one acre lot. Our neighborhood is over
dense by city standards and this project will add to present traffic noise
and congestion and diminish the quality of life in our community.
Name Address
PETITION
To the Carlsbad City Council
We join our neighbors to request that the Carlsbad City Council over turn
the Planning Commission approval of the 16-unit rental apartment project.
This project exceeds the (14) fourteen unit density standard set by the
Planning Dept. for this less than one acre lot. Our neighborhood is over
dense by city standards and this project will add to present traffic noise
and congestion and diminish the quality of life in our community.
Name Address
PETITION
To the Carlsbad City Council
We join our neighbors to request that the Carlsbad City Council over turn
the Planning Commission approval of the 16-unit rental apartment project.
This project exceeds the (14) fourteen unit density standard set by the
Planning Dept. for this less than one acre lot. Our neighborhood is over
dense by city standards and this project will add to present traffic noise
and congestion and diminish the quality of life in our community.
Name Address ’
PETITION
To the Carlsbad City Council
We join our neighbors to request that the Carl&ad City Council over turn
the Planning Commission approval of the 16-unit rental apartment project.
This project exceeds the (14) fourteen unit density standard set by the
Planning Dept. for this less than one acre lot. Our neighborhood is over
dense by city standards and this project will add to present traffic noise
and congestion and diminish the quality of life in our community.
PETITION
To the Carlsbad City Council
We join our neighbors to request that the Carlsbad City Council over turn
the Planning Commission approval of the 16-unit rental apartment project.
This project exceeds the (14) fourteen unit density standard set by the
Planning Dept. for this less than one acre lot. Our neighborhood is over
dense by city standards and this project will add to present traffic noise
and congestion and diminish the quality of life in our community.
. ‘.
PETITION
To the Carlsbad City Council
We join our neighbors to request that the Carlsbad City Council over turn
the Planning Commission approval of the 16-unit rental apartment project.
This project exceeds the (14) fourteen unit density standard set by the
Planning Dept. for this less than one acre lot. Our neighborhood is over
dense by city standards and this project will add to present traffic noise
and congestion and diminish the quality of life in our community.
Name Address
(,A/21 (judr;r+ 290 W&Q&Q VL ka+
VMA??aQ .De %!.7$-
, ,Y’, ,, .i--+-“y-’
PETITION
To the Carlsbad City Council
we join our neighbors to request that the Carlsbad City Council over turn
the Planning Commission approval of the l&unit rental apartment project.
This project exceeds the (14) fourteen unit density standard set by the
Planning Dept. for this less than one acre lot. Our neighborhood is over
dense by city standards and this project will add to present traffic noise
ality of life in our community.
PETITION
To the Carlsbad City Council
We join our neighbors to request that the Carlsbad City Council over turn
the Planning Commission approval of the 16-unit rental apartment project.
This project exceeds the (14) fourteen unit density standard set by the
Planning Dept. for this less than one acre lot. Our neighborhood is over
dense by city standards and this project will add to present traffic noise
and congestion and diminish the quality of life in our community.
Name Address
PETITION
To the Carlsbad City Council
We join our neighbors to request that the Carlsbad City Council over turn
the Planning Commission approval of the 16-unit rental apartment project.
This project exceeds the (14) fourteen unit density standard set by the
Planning Dept. for this less than one acre lot. Our neighborhood is over
dense by city standards and this project will add to present traffic noise
and congestion and diminish the quality of life in our community.
Address
PETITION
To the Carlsbad City Council
We join our neighbors to request that the Carlsbad City Council over turn
the Planning Commission approval of the 16unit rental apartment project.
This project exceeds the (14) fourteen unit density standard set by the
Planning Dept. for this less than one acre lot. Our neighborhood is over
dense by city standards and this project will add to present traffic noise
and congestion and diminish the quality of life in our community.
Name Address
& */@a z&f’/ /vi&-# La,&&&/ c q?
PETITION
To the Carlsbad City Council
We join our neighbors to request that the Carlsbad City Council over turn
the Planning Commission approval of the IB-unit rental apartment project
This project exceeds the (14) fourteen unit density standard set by the
Planning Dept. for this less than one acre lot. Our neighborhood is over
dense by city standards and this project will add to present traffic noise
and congestion and diminish the quality of life in our community.
Name Address
PETITION
To the Carlsbad City Council
We join our neighbors to request that the Carlsbad City Council over turn
the Planning Commission approval of the IB-unit rental apartment project.
This project exceeds the (14) fourteen unit density standard set by the
Planning Dept. for this less than one acre lot. Our neighborhood is over
dense by city standards and this project will add to present traffic noise
and congestion and diminish the quality of life in our community.
Name Address
PETITION
To the Carlsbad City Council
We join our neighbors to request that the Carlsbad City Council over turn
the Planning Commission approval of the 16-unit rental apartment project
This project exceeds the (14) fourteen unit density standard set by the
Planning Dept. for this less than one acre lot Our neighborhood is over
dense by city standards and this project will add to present traffic noise
and congestion and diminish the quality of life in our community.
PETITION
To the Carlsbad City Council
We join our neighbors to request that the Carlsbad City Council over turn
the Planning Commission approval of the 16.unit rental apartment project
This project exceeds the (14) fourteen unit density standard set by the
Planning Dept. for this less than one acre lot. Our neighborhood is over
dense by city standards and this project will add to present traffic noise
and congestion and diminish the lity of life in our community.
PETITION
To the Carlsbad City Council
We join our neighbors to request that the Carlsbad City Council over turn
the Planning Commission approval of the 16-unit rental apartment project.
This project exceeds the (14) fourteen unit density standard set by the
Planning Dept. for this less than one acre lot. Our neighborhood is over
dense by city standards and this project will add to present traffic noise
and congestion and diminish the quality of life in our community.
Lindsay Management Services
A Division of Corporate Management Consultants, Inc.
FLAK LA COSTA HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
1, c owner of 7500 / 7512 Viejo Castilla
Way, Unit Number i 8 am against the proposed Apartment Project on
Pirineos Way.
I am concerned with the density of the proposed project and the excess number of
vehicles that this large a project will bring to the area.
There is not one apartment complex located on Viejo Castilla Way, Pirineos Way, or on
Navarra. We are private homes, condos, and town homes.
My vote is AGAINST the Apartment Project of 16 plus units.
Sincerely,
Board of Directors
Flave La Costa Homeowners’ Association
Member of
North County: (760) 436-l 144
From San Diego : (800) 479-4849
San Diego: (619) 299-2290
FAX (760) 436-2566
From North County: (800) 698-8834
FAX: (619) 299-5103 7720 El Camino Real, Suite 2A, 591 Camino de la Reina, Suite 1218
Carlsbad. CA 92009-8510 San Diego. CA 92108
COMMUNJN ASSOCIATIONS INSTITUTE I
Lindsay Management Services
A Division of Corporate Management Consultants, Inc.
FLAVE LA COSTA HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
, owner of 7500 / 7512 Viejo Castilla
, & against the proposed Apartment Project on
I am concerned with the density of the proposed project and the excess number of
vehicles that this large a project will bring to the area.
There is not one apartment complex located on Viejo Castilla Way, Pirineos Way, or on
Navarra. We are private homes, condos, -and town homes.
My vote is AGAINST the Apartment Project of 16 plus units.
Sincerely,
Board of Directors
Flave La Costa Homeowners’ Association
Member of
North County: (760) 436-1144 San Diego: (619) 299-2290
From San Diego : (800) 479-4849 From North County: (800) 698-8834
FAX (760) 436-2566 FAX: (619) 299-5103
7720 El Camino Real, Suite ZA, 591 Camino de la Reina, Suite 1218
Cartsbad. CA 92009-85 lo San Diego, CA 92108 I COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATIONS INSTITUTE I
Lindsay Management Services
A Division of Corporate Management Consultants, Inc.
FLAVE LA COSTA HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
1, LBcliZi I/. d&em owner of 7500 I 7512 Viejo Castilla
Way, Unit Number 3, / 7 , am against ;he proposed Apartment Project on
Pirineos Way.
I am concerned with the density of the proposed project and the excess number of
vehicles that this large a project will bring to the area.
There is not one apartment complex lo&ted on viejo Castilla Way, Pirineos Way, or on
Navarra. We are private homes, condos,. and town homes.
My vote is AGAINST the Apartment Project of 16 plus units.
6 ~.Fy&&&&
Sincerely,
Board of Directors
Flave La Costa Homeowners’ Association
Member of
North County: (760) 436-l 144
From San
San Diego: (619) 299-2290
Diego : (800) 479-4849
FAX (760) 436.2566 From North County: (800) 698-8834
FAX: (619) 299.5103 7720 El Camino Real, Suite 2A.
Cartsbad. CA 92009.85 lo
591 Camino de la Reina. Suite 1218
San Diego, CA 92108 I COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS INSTITUTE I
Lindsay Management Services
A Division of Corporate Management Consultants, Inc.
Member
FLAK LA COSTA HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION
City of Carisbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
1, zL7~fJ pQ-A\#- owner of 7500 / 7512 Viejo Castilla
Way, Unit Number Z 0 , am against ;he proposed Apartment Project on
Pirineos Way.
I am concerned with the density of the proposed project and the excess number of
vehicles that this large a project will bring to the area.
There is not one apartment complex located on Viejo Castilla Way, Pirineos Way, or on
Navarra. We are private homes, condos; and town homes.
My vote is AGAINST the Apartment Project of 16 plus units.
Sincerely,
Board of Directors
Flave La Costa Homeowners’ Association
3550-Rrs-resident-7-1601
North County: (760) 436- 1144
From San Diego : (800) San Diego: (619) 299-2290 479-4849
FAX (760) 436-2566 From North County: (800) 698-8834
FAX: (619) 299-5103 7720 El Camino Real, Suite 2A,
Carlsbad. CA 92009-8510
591 Camino de la Reina, Suite 1218
San CA 92108 Dieso. I COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS INSTJTUTE I
Lindsay Management Services
A Division of Corporate Management Consultants, Inc.
FLAVE LA COSTA HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION
City of Carisbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
1, “%mmF F -7,zfiM -r r rd owner of 7500
Way, Unit Number I ’ am against \he proposed A , Pirineos Way.
I am concerned with the density of the proposed project and the excess number of
vehicles that this large a project will bring to the area.
There is not one apartment complex located on Viejo Castilla Way, Pirineos Way, or on
Navarra. We are private homes, condos, -and town homes.
My vote is AGAINST the Apartment Project of 16 plus
Sincerely,
Board of Directors
Flave La Costa Homeowners’ Association
3550-lka-rasident-7-16-01
Member of
North County: (760) 436-l 144
From San Diego : San Diego: (619) 299-2290 (800) 479-4849
FAX (760) 436-2566 From North County: (800) 698-8834
FAX: (619) 299-5103 7720 El Camino Real, Suite 2A.
Carlsbad, CA 92009-8510
591 Caminq de la Reina, Suite 1218
San Diego. CA 92108
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS
INSTITUTE
h
PIRINEOS POINTE, LLC
16 UNIT LUXURY APARTMENT PROJECT
PIRINOES WAY, LA COSTA
7909 SILVERTON AVENLJE. SUITE 213 PHONE: 858 689-8911
SAN DIEGO, CA 92126 FAX: 858 689-0234
September 18,200l
City Council
The City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: SDP-0016 / Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 1,200l
Appeal Hearing Date: September 18,200 1
Honorable Members of the City Council:
As the project developer and Managing Member of Pirineos Pointe, LLC, its ownership entity, I
am directing this letter to you in response to that certain “Appeal” as filed on August 10,200l.
We, the applicant of SDP-0016, object to the style, form and content of the following items of
appeal as listed in the Appeal Form under “Subject of Appeal” and “Reason for Appeal”:
1. Appellant item marked no. “ 1” lacks foundation and “SPECIFICS” for its proper
consideration to be heard. Appellant claims there was “false information” but they fail to
state what was false. By failing to give the applicant and Planning Staff adequate notice and
detail of the grounds upon which they base their appeal the respondent parties would be
deprived of due process if this item of appeal is heard because one can only speculate as to the
grounds for including this as a legitimate item of appeal. Surely, if false information exists, as
they allege, it would be a simple matter (as well as a required one) to refer to it saecificallv on
the appeal form. Since they failed to do so, I request that this item be excluded from the
appeal hearing proceedings.
2. Appellant item marked no. “4” challenges the City’s Planning Staff and the Planning Commission’s methods of determining “Density Precedence”. Their appeal lacks foundation
and “SPECIFICS”. The reasons stated are vague and ambiguous. Again, one can only
speculate as to the grounds for including this as a legitimate item of appeal. They failed to
state & the City Planning Department misinterpreted the guidelines. Since they failed to do so, I request that this item be excluded from the appeal hearing proceedings,
3. Appellant item no. “5” is completely irrelevant The City of Carlsbad, its staff, departments,
commissions and councils cannot and should not make decisions based on the manner in
which title to private property is held. That decision rests solely with the property owner
under State and Federal law. Furthermore, the imposition of any requirement to build condominiums would incorrectly force the owner to file a subdivision map. Requiring such
would effectively constitute the prohibition of the building of an allowed use under City
zoning and other guideline for an existing single lot project. Due to the general inappropriateness of this item of appeal, I request that it also be excluded from the appeal
hearing proceedings.
City Council
City of Carlsbad
September 18, 2001
Page 2
In conclusion, the Appellant failed in the above detailed items of their appeal to follow
the stated requirements on the City’s Appeal Form where it is clearly indicated in large bold
print to “BE SPECIFIC”. The lack of specifics and inadequate notice of the grounds upon
which Appellant bases their appeal would deprive the owner of due process. Obviously, it is
impossible to respond to the unknown elements of the allegations.
I ask that the City Council grant this request to eliminate the above three items of appeal
and proceed only on the remaining two items, no. “2”, the issue of inclusionary housing and
no. “3”, the issue of the City’s use of the MUIR.
Sincerely Yours,
B. Darryl Clubb, Managing Member
Pirineos Pointe, LLC
CC: City Attorney
J. Wiley Jones, Esq.