HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-10; City Council; 16880; Calavera Hills Village E-1 CT 01-03/CP 01-01CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# 16,880 TITLE:
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-I MTG. 9-10-02 CT 01-OWCP 01-01
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
I
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2002-268 ADOPTING the Negative
Declaration, and APPROVING the Tentative Tract Map, and Condominium Permit for the Calavera
Hills Village E-I multifamily condominium development.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On August 7, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended
adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of the Tentative Tract Map, and Condominium
Permit for the Calavera Hills Village E-I multifamily condominium development with a 6 - 0 vote
(Baker absent). The proposed project entails 117 condominium units on a 9.34-acre site. The
currently vacant site would be graded in accordance with the Master Tentative Map for Calavera
Hills Phase II, approved by the City Council on January 15, 2002. The site is located at the
southwest corner of College Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive with the Calavera Hills
Community Park located to the west, across Glasgow Drive. To the south of the project site is the
existing residential neighborhood known as the Cape.
The proposed condominium units would be contained in 29 two-story buildings and would range in
size from 1,350 to 1,550 square feet. The architecture would follow a Mediterranean theme with
stucco walls and tile roofs, incorporating strong relief and a variety of building materials. The
condominium site would be served by a private loop road and accessed by two openings onto
existing Glasgow Street to the west. Three recreation areas are proposed with the project,
containing a swimming pool, cabana, putting greens, turf areas, and picnic facilities.
The only public comment received during the hearing was pertaining to increased landscaping along
the southern property line, adjacent to the existing Cape development. The applicant stated that
there will be a six-foot high solid wall on top of a slope, however they would be willing to augment the
proposed landscaping in that area to address any privacy concerns.
The proposed development is consistent with the City's General Plan, Calavera Hills Master Plan,
Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Growth Management Program, and
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the Calavera Hills Village E-I multifamily condominium development.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The potential environmental impacts associated with the creation and grading of the Village E-I site,
as well as the future extension of College Boulevard, were reviewed through the Environmental
Impact Report for the Calavera Hills Phase II Master Tentative Map (EIR 98-02), certified on January
15, 2002. Therefore the project specific environmental review dealt only with those facets of the
project not included in the Phase II Master Tentative Map proposal.
The proposed Calavera Hills Village E-I multifamily condominium project, as designed and
conditioned, would not create any significant adverse environmental impacts. Therefore the Planning
Director issued a Negative Declaration on July 3, 2002, in accordance with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the
City of Carlsbad. No comments were received during the 20-day public review period.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 16.880
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impacts to the City are negligible since all development fees will be collected at time of
grading and building permit issuance. All public facilities necessary to serve the development will be
in place prior to, or concurrent with, development.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2002-268
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5256, 5257, and 5258
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 7, 2002
5. Excerpts of Draft Planning Commission Minutes, dated August 7,2002.
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2o02-268
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR THE CALAVERA HILLS
DECLARATION AND APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT.
COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE, IN
CASE NO.: CT 01-03/CP 01-01
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on August 7, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider a Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, and Condominium Permit; and
VILLAGE E-I MULTIFAMILY CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT,
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-I
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 10th day of
SEPTEMBER , 2002, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Negative
Declaration and Site Development Plan, and at the time received recommendations, objections,
protests, comments of all persons interested in or opposed to CT 01-03/CP 01-01; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct
2. That the City Council approves City Council Resolution No. 2002-268
and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5256, 5257, and 5258, on file with the City Clerk and made a part
hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
3. That the application for a Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit
for a 117 unit multifamily condominium development on property generally located southwest of
the intersection of College Boulevard and south of Carlsbad Village Drive, is approved as shown
in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5256, 5257, and 5258.
....
. . ..
. . ..
....
....
11 .... 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 10th day of SEPTEMBER , 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council MemberBgaard
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Page 2 of 2 of Resolution No.
2002-268 -2-
EXHIBIT 2
CALAVERA HILLS
VILLAGE E-I
CT 01-03/CP 01-01
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
S
1c
11
12
12
14
15
1C
1;
1t
15
2(
21
2;
2:
2r
2:
2(
2;
28
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5256
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW
THE SUBDIVISION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 117 UNIT
MENT WITHIN VILLAGE E-1 OF THE CALAVERA HILLS
MASTER PLAN LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND COLLEGE
BOULEVARD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 7.
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1
CASE NO.: CT 01-03/CP 01-01
WHEREAS, Calavera Hills 11, LLC, “Developer” and McMilllin Companies
LLC and Tamarack Properties, Inc., “Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of
Carlsbad regarding property described as
MULTIFAMILY AIR-SPACE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOP-
Parcel A of Parcel Map 16233, filed in the Ofice of the County
Recorder on September 21, 1990, in the City of Carlshad,
County of San Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of August, 2002, 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
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
15
1E
15
2c
21
22
2:
2f
25
2c
2;
22
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing. the Plannins
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Nesative Declararion
according to Exhibit "ND" dated July 3, 2002. and "PII" dated June 24. 2002.
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findines:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration and the
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
The Negative Declaration has been ,prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of August 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Baker
ABSTAIN: None -
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5256 -2-
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation:
Project Description:
Southwest comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and College
Boulevard in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California.
Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit to allow the
subdivision and construction of a 117 unit multifamily air-space
condominium development within Village E-1 of the Calavera
Hills Master Plan.
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 Michael Grim in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4623.
DATED: JULY 3,2002
CASE NO: CT 01-03/CP 01-01
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 3,2002
*
MICHAEL J. HOLZWLER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 - (760) 6024600 FAX (760) 602-8559 W.ci.carIsbad.ca.us 8
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASENO:CT01-03/CP01-01
DATE: June 24.2002
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Calavera Hills Villaee E-I
2. APPLICANT: Calavera Hills II. LLC
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2727 Hoover Ave. National Ciw. CA
91950 (619) 336-3138
4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUB-: Mav 29.2002
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Tentative Tract Mau and ‘Condominium Permit to allow the
subdivision and construction of a 117 unit multifamilv air-suace condominium develoument
within Villaee E-I of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. on MOUW eenerallv located at the
~
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.
0 Land Use and Planning IXI TransportatiodCirculation UPublic Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources =Aesthetics
0 water 0 Cultural Resources
IXI Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
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 Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable
standards and @) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
2 Rev. 03/28/96 IO
ENVIRONMENTAL WACTS
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 FIR),
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except ‘Yo Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an infomation source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced infomation
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 mor 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/% I1
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparin: an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
An EJR must be prepared if “F‘otentially Significant Impact’’ is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances:-(1) the potentially significanr 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 ER, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EN-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.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.& impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangcment of an
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
established community (including a low-income or
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed offkial regional or local
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped arca
or extension of major infrasrmcture)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
4
Potentially Significant
impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0 o
113
Significant Less Than
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Impact No
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
Ixl
[XI
[XI
[XI
Rev. 03/28/96 /a
lssues (and Supporting Information Sources) Potrntially
Significant
Impact
a) Faultrupnue? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) o 0 b) Seismic ground Shaking? (#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
e) Landslides ormudilows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 0
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
conditions fiom excavation, grading, or fd? (#l:Pgs
g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) n
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15) 'U
N. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
E) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e& temperature, dissolved
oxygen orturbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
such BS flooding? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
body?(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or confibute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
1 ~ 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
- 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ixi
0
Sigrufkant
Potcnt1ally
Unless Mitigauon
Incorpomed 0 0
0
0
17
0
0
0
Significant Impact
LessThan x0
impact
CISI
nIxi Dm OISI
nEl om om
nu
om
OIX] nm
5 Rev. 03/28/96 I3
Issues (and SuppOmng Information Sources). Sigmicant Significant Significant Impact
Porcntially Potentially LessThan No
Impact Mingation lncorpomed
Unless Impact
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULAnON. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle nips or t&ic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
e) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
d) Insuffxient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedes& or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.722)
g) Raii, waterborne or air naffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22)
VILBIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats in impacts to:
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage es)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.424)
c) Locally designated ~hlral communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.41 - 5.424)
e) Wildlife drspeml or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
animals, and birds? (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
ineffkient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 1 - 5.13-9)
resource that would be of fume 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)
proposal?
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#l:PgS 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
(XI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0 o
0
0
0
cl
0
0
0
[XI
[XI
[x1
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
0 0 o(XI
0 0 o[XI
0 0
0 0
0 0
o[XI
6 Rev. 03/28/96
l.4
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources),
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
healthhazards?(#l:Pgs5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5)
grass, or uees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 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
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) services in any of the following mas:
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 ofpublic facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
XII.UTILlTIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water mamenf or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
r) Solid waste disposal?(#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
5.12.3-7)
Potentially Potentially LessThan No Sigrufifant Significant Significant Impact
lmpPEt Unless Mitination Impact
0 0 OB
0 0 0151
0 0 om 0 0 0' 0151 0 0151 0 0 0151 0 0 0151
0 0 om
0 0 0151 0 0 0151
0 0 om 0 0 0151 0 0 ON 0 0151
Xm. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-51 0 0151 ~~ ~
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 -5.11-51 0 0 0151 ~~ c) Create light orglare?(#l:Pgs5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0 0 0151
XN. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
1 nl 0 0 om ~"I b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 10) 0 0 om
0 OB
I Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic culm1 values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
XV.RECREATIONAL.. Would the proposal:
a)
m.
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
habitat of a fsh or wildlife species, cause a fish or
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining lwels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or aaimal community,
reduce the number or resmct the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
incrcmental effects of a project are considerable when
probable future projects)?
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial advme effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially
Siguifimt
lmpan
0
0
0
0
Potmtialty LessThan KO
Significant Significant lmpacr
Mitigation Unless Impact
om
0 om
0 om
0 om
The following site-specific technical studies were used in the analysis and design of this project
and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsb4
California, 92008. (760) 602-4600.
1. UDdate of Geotechnical Rmort. Calavera Hills Villaee E-1 . Citv of Carlsbad. California,
dated August 28,2000, Geosoils, Inc.
2. Tentative MaD Drainage Studv for Calavera Hills E-1. Citv of Carlsbad. California, dated
May 28,2002, Hunsaker and Associates.
3. Noise Technical Rmort for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11 Village E-1. CitV of
Carlsbad. California, dated December 13,2001, Recon.
8 Rev. 03/28/96
/L
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The Calavera Hills Village E-1 project involves the subdivision and construction of a 1 17 unir
multifamily airspace condominium development within Village E-1 ofthe Calavera Hills Master
Plan. The 9.34 acre site was originally created with a Minor Subdivision (MS 832, recorded
September 21, 1990) and was remapped through the Calavera Hills Phase I1 Master Plan
Amendment and Master Tentative Map @P 15O(H)/CT 00-02). The site will be graded in
accordance with the Phase 11 map. The potential environmental impacts associated with the
grading of Village E-1 were reviewed through the Environmental Impact Report for the Phase Il
Master Plan Amendments (EIR 98-02, certified January 15, 2002). The Environmental Impact
Report for Calavera Hills Phase II also reviewed the impacts associated with the development of
Village E-1 with up to 117 multifamily condominium units. This environmental document also
reviewed the potential environmental impacts associated with the future extension of College
Boulevard, which will provide frontage but not access to Village E-1. Since the grading of
Village E-1 cannot proceed until the Master Tentative Map has been recorded andor the
associated grading permit has been issued, the following environmental analysis deals only with
the development of Village E-1 with the proposed multifamily air-space condominium project.
The 9.34 acre condominium site is bound by the future extension of College Boulevard to the
east, the existing single family development known as The Cape to the south, existing Glasgow
Drive and the Calavera Hills Community Park to the west, and Carlsbad Village Drive and future
single-family development in Village K to the north. The proposed multifamily residential use is
compatible with all of the existing and future surrounding residential land uses.
Calavera Hills Village E-1 is designated Residential Medium High (RMH) in the City’s General
Plan, allowing up to 15 dwelling units per developable acre with a Growth Management Control
Point of 11.5 dwelling per acre. The proposed density is 12.5 dwelling units per acre, which lies
within the allowable General Plan range but over the Growth Management Control Point. The
Calavera Hills Phase II Master Plan Amendment included an amendment to the Zone 7 Local
Facilities Management Plan, which allows for Village E-1 to exceed the Growth Management
Control Point due to lesser densities elsewhere in the Master Plan and the provision of adequate
facilities to serve the units proposed within Village E-1. The project site is zoned Planned
Community (P-C) and, according to the Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP 150(H)), the site is to be
developed in accordance with the Residential Density - Multiple (RD-M) Zone, except as
modified in the Master Plan.
The proposed development would consist of 29 residential buildings, private streets and
driveways, three common recreation facilities, and 60 surface guest parking spaces. The
residential buildings would consist of 14 six-plex buildings and 11 three-plex in a motor court
style development, all units possessing a private two-car garage. The buildings would measure
34 feet in height and the condominium units would range in size from 1,350 square feet to 1,550
square feet. The total building coverage for the project would be 26 percent (or 2.46 acres).
The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and meets all development standards of the
Master Plan and the RD-M zoning designation.
The proposed development would necessitate approximately 18,630 cubic yards of cut, 15,760
cubic yards of fill, with 2,870 cubic yards of export subsequent to the mass grading associated
with the Calavera Hills Phase 11 Map (CT 00-02) for Village E-1. The site development would
also include several retaining walls, with a maximum height of six feet. All grading operations
would be required to conform to the recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical report, as
well as the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance. In addition, an all-weather access road would
9 Rev. 03/28/96
f7
be provided throughout construction and Fire marshal approval would be required prior to
storage of hazardous materials on site.
The residential project would take access off of existing Glasgow Drive to the west and would
generate 936 average daily traffic trips, which can be accommodated by the collector street and
the adjoining major arterial roadways of Carlsbad Village Drive and College Boulevard. The
project would be required to comply with the City’s national pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit through the implementation of Best Management Practices, thus
reducing the amount of pollutants entering the public storm drain system. AI1 facilities need to
serve the 117 condominium units would be provided prior to occupancy, in association with the
Phase Jl Master Tentative Map (CT 00-02) grading and improvement plans as well as the
proposed air-space condominium tentative map (CT 01-03). In addition, the Carlsbad Unified
School District has stated that there are adequate school facilities to serve the proposed
condominium project.
Due to the project’s proximity to College Boulevard, the master plan requires that a site-specific
noise study be conducted. That noise study indicates that noise attenuation walls are needed
along the project’s ffontage with College Boulevard, Carlsbad Village Drive, and a portion of
Glasgow Drive. These walls would range in size ffom three (3) feet to 11 feet high and would be
incorporated into the project design. The project architecture incorporates strong relief and a
variety of materials and colors, thus not creating any negative aesthetic visual impacts hm
public views. Given the above analysis, the previous environmental documentation and the site-
specific technical reports, the proposed Calavera Hills Village E-1 condominium project would
not create any significant adverse environmental impacts as designed and conditioned.
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 %on-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,ofproject approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
10 Rev. 03/28/96 lB
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially significant hpact”. 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 Corrsiderations” for
air quality impacts. Ths “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects
covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. Thls project is within the scope of that MER
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 firom 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 hll 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,
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 ofFinal 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 MER 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 MER to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MER 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 MER 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 MER remains adequate to
review later projects.
11 Rev. 03/28/96 /9
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 ImDact ReDort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11, Bridee and Thorouehfare District No. 4 & Detention
Basins Final Environmental ImDact Re~ort (EIR 98-02), dated November 2001, Recon.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
ao
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. 5257
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 01-03 TO
SPACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS WITHIN CALAVERA HILLS
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CARSLBAD VILLAGE
DRIVE AND COLLEGE BOULEVARD IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 7.
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1
CASE NO.: CT 01-03
WHEREAS, Calavera Hills 11, LLC, “Developer” and McMillin Companies,
LLC and Tamarack Properties, Inc., “Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City
of Carlsbad regarding property described as
SUBDIVIDE 9.34 ACRES INTO 117 MULTIFAMILY AIR-
VILLAGE E-1 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT
Parcel A of Parcel Map 16233, filed in the Ofice of the County
Recorder on September 21, 1990, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map as shown on Exhibits ”A“ - “EE” dated August 7, 2002, on file in the Planning
Department CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1 - CT 01-03 provided by Chapter 20.12 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of August 2002, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Tentative Tract Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
JI
I
I_ 1
L
4
t
5
1(
11
1;
1:
1'
If
1t
1:
I2
15
2(
21
2;
2:
2r
2:
2t
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL Of CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1 - CT
01-03 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as
conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any
applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State
Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the
proposed multifamily air-space condominium development conforms to the City's
Subdivision Ordinance and has been designed to comply with other applicable
regulations including the Planned Development Ordinance and the Residential
Density - Multiple zoning designation.
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for single-family residential, multifamily
residential, and park development on the General Plan, in that the project is an in-fill
development and already bounded by multifamily and park uses and the remaining
two sides are separated by major arterial roadways.
That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density
proposed, in that the project site can accommodate the proposed residential
development while complying with all development standards and public facilities
requirements.
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in
that concurrent with the recordation of the final map the developer shall vacate and
adjust any easements that conflict with the proposed development.
That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that structures are oriented
in various directions, adequate separations will be provided to allow for breezes to
cool the areas, and landscaping will be installed to provide shade and reduce the
temperature of developed areas.
That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed
by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs
against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental
resources.
That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that the project site does not contain any sensitive wildlife, the proposed
PC RES0 NO. 5257 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
residential density is within the limits analyzed by the Environmental Impact
Report for the Calavera Hills Phase I1 Master Plan Amendment (EIR 98-02/MP
150(H)), and noise attenuation walls are being provided along the project frontages
with Carlsbad Village Drive and College Boulevard.
That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project has
been designed in accordance with Best Management Practices for water quality
protection in accordance with the City’s sewer and drainage standards, and the
project is conditioned to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) requirements.
The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in
the staff report dated August 7,2002 including, but not limited to the following:
The proposed density of 12.5 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the existing
RMH General Plan designation;
The project minimizes the number of access points to major and prime arterials by
using the Glasgow Drive frontage for access, rather than taking access off of
Carlsbad Village Drive or College Boulevard;
The project includes a noise study with recommendations to reduce the traffic noise
impacts from Carlsbad Village Drive and College Boulevard to 60 dBA CNEL;
The project provides a mixture of three-plex and six-plex multifamily air-space
condominiums, contributing to the diversity of housing stock within the City;
The project will provide emergency water systems and all-weather access roads
throughout construction.
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 the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone
7 identifies the maximum residential yield on the Village E-1 site as 117 units and all
facilities within the zone are planned to accommodate this maximum amount of
dwelling units.
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, in that the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 7 identifies the maximum residential yield on
the Village E-1 site as 117 units and all facilities within the zone are planned to
accommodate this maximum amount of dwelling units.
PC RES0 NO. 5257 -3- a3
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
21
28
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvrments Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 7 and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
Specifically,
A. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified
School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities.
B. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and
will be collected prior to issuance of building permit unless already credited by
park dedication.
C. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be
collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 7.
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 grading permit
or final map for this projecthap, whichever occurs first.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. NO
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Tentative Tract Map.
PC RES0 NO. 5257 -4- 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
5
e
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map documents, as necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
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.
Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Tentative Tract Map, (b)
City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein.
Developer shall submit to Planning Department a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy
of the Tentative Map and 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 Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its
obligation to provide school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect
shall be placed on the Final Map.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of CP 01-01 and is subject to all
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5258 for that other
approval.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
and Imgation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
PC RES0 NO. 5257 -5- 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
21
28
12.
13.
and the City’s Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the
Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official
CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning
Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions:
A.
B.
C.
D.
General Enforcement bv the City. The City shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in
favor of, or in which the City has an interest.
Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to
the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have
the right to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be
transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record.
Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the
event that the Association fails to maintain the “Common Area Lots and/or the
Association’s Easements” as provided in Article , Section
the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary
maintenance. If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give
written notice to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project,
setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required
and requesting the same be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty
(30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to
cany out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association’s
Easements within the period specified by the City’s notice, the City shall be
entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to
reimbursement with respect thereto from the Owners as provided herein.
Suecial Assessments Levied by the City. In the event the City has performed the
necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots andor Association’s
Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs
incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and
or Association’s Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to
each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to
pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection
against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said
invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of
receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full
within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be
PC RES0 NO. 5257 -6- 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
14.
15.
16.
17.
subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of
the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by
means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available
to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot
in the Project for an equal prorata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such
special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing
lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in
the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special
assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal
actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and
his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration.
E. Landscaue Maintenance ResDonsibilities. The HOAs and individual lot or unit
owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth in Exhibits “F”
.- “H”, dated August 7,2002.
F. Balconies. trellis and decks. The individual lot or unit owner allowances and
prohibitions regarding balconies, trellis and decks shall be as set forth in Exhibit
“E”, dated August 7,2002.
The Developer shall provide bus stops to service this development at locations and with
reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District and the
Planning Director. Said facilities, if required, shall be free from advertising and shall
include at a minimum include a bench and a pole for the bus stop sip. The facilities
shall be designed to enhance or be consistent with basic architectural theme of the
project.
This project is being approved as a condominium permit for residential homeownership
purposes. If any of the units in the project are rented, the minimum time increment for
such rental shall be not less than 26 days. The CC&Rs for the project shall include this
requirement.
Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 7, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxedfees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxedfees are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required
passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and
recreational facilities, unless a construction phasing plan is submitted to and
approved by the Planning Director prior to final map or grading permit, whichever
occurs first.
PC RES0 NO. 5257 -7-
1
2
7
4
5
6
7
8
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
The Developer shall report, in writing, to the Planning Director within 30 days, any
address change from that which is shown on the permit application.
Prior to the issuance of the grading permit or final map, whichever occurs first,
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(n)
Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit by Resolutions No. 5256 and 5258 on
the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the
property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all
conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in
the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record
an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of
good cause by the Developer or successor in interest.
If satisfaction of the school facility requirement involves a Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District or other financing mechanism which is inconsistent with City Council
Policy No. 38, by allowing a pass-through of the taxes or fees to individual home buyers,
then in addition to any other disclosure required by law or Council policy, the Developer
shall disclose to future owners in the project, to the maximum extent possible, the
existence of the tax or fee, and that the school district is the taxing agency responsible for
the financing mechanism. The form of notice is subject to the approval of the Planning
Director and shall at least include a handout and a sign inside the sales facility stating the
fact of a potential pass-through of fees or taxes exists and where complete information
regarding those fees or taxes can be obtained.
The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map, or an alternative,
suitable to the Planning Director, in the sales office at all times. All sales maps that are
distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, future
and existing schools, parks and streets.
The developer shall post a sign in the sales office in a prominent location that discloses
which special districts and school district provide service to the project. Said sign shall
remain posted until ALL of the units are sold.
Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, in
a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form
#1 on file in the Planning Department).
Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar
Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney
(see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 58 parking spaces, as shown on
Exhibits “A” - “C”, dated August 7,2002.
PC RES0 NO. 5257 -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
Engineering:
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
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.
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.
Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs oriand other
recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all
the private improvements: streets, sidewalks, street lights, and storm drain facilities
located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner
among the owners of the properties within the subdivision.
Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install rain gutters to convey roof drainage to an
approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
There shall be one Final Map recorded for this project.
Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance
with Engineering Standards. A statement shall be included in the Final Map (see Final
Map Notes) and in the CC&Rs.
A. The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on any
improvement, grading, or landscape plan prepared in association with this
development.
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.
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.
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.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and
obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for
the project.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention for the start
of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.
PC RES0 NO. 5257 -9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
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.
Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City
and/or other appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the
tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map and/or separate
recorded document. All land so offered shall be offered free and clear of all liens and
encumbrances and without cost. Streets that already public are not required to be
rededicated.
Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or
install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent
with any grading or building permit.
Developer shall provide the design of all private streets and drainage systems to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. The structural section of all private streets shall conform
to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value tests. All private streets and drainage
systems shall be inspected by the City. Developer shall pay the standard improvement
plancheck and inspection fees.
Developer shall execute a City standard Subdivision Improvement Agreement to install
and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on
the tentative map and the following improvements including, but not limited to paving,
base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, medians, signing and striping, traffic control,
grading, clearing 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. Glasgow Drive to local street standards
B. Sewer and water facilities
A list of the above shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the Final Map per the
provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed above
shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the subdivision or development
improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map for all lots
abutting Carlsbad Village Drive.
Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, latest version.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Management Plan
(SWMP)." The SWMP shall be in compliance with the NPDES permit requirements
PC RES0 NO. 5257 -10- 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
and provisions as established by the San Diego Region of the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board and the City of Carlsbad. The SWMP shall address
measures to reduce to the maximum extent possible storm water pollutant runoff at
both construction and post-construction stages of the project. The SWMP shall:
A. Identify construction activity and post-development on-site pollutants of
concern.
B. Recommend structural and non-structural Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to remove said pollutants.
C. Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up.
Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee and resident
education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of
pollutants.
D. Ensure long-term maintenance of all post construction BMPs in perpetuity.
E. Incorporate measures to ensure-development runoff rates and velocities from
the site are not increased as a result of the project.
Additionally, concurrent with the SWMP, the applicant shall submit for City
approval a “Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).” The SWPPP shall
be in compliance with current requirements and provisions established by the
California Water Resources Control Board.
Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install street lights along all public and private street
frontages abutting and/or within the subdivision boundary in conformance with City of
Carlsbad Standards.
Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install sidewaks along all public streets abutting the
subdivision in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards.
Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install wheelchair ramps at the public street comers
abutting the subdivision in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards.
Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall have design, apply for and obtain
approval of the City Engineer, for 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.
Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map, Developer shall meet with the Fire
Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations,
building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants 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
PC RES0 NO. 5257 -11- 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
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 Dieao Countv Water
Authority capacity charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits.
The Developer shall prepare a colored recycled water use map and submit this map to the
Planning Department for processing and approval by the Deputy City Engineer -
Utilities.
The Developer shall design landscape and irrigation plans utilizing recycled water as a
source. Said plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the District Engineer.
The Developer shall install potable water and recycled water services and meters at
locations approved by the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be
reflected on public improvement plans.
The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at locations approved by the
District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
The Developer shall design and construct public water, sewer, and recycled water
facilities substantially as shown on the site plan to the satisfaction of the District
Engineer. Proposed public facilities shall be reflected on public improvement plans.
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.
Prior to issuance of building permits the entire potable water, recycled water, and sewer
system shall be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure, and flow
demands can be met to the satisfaction of the District Engineer.
The Developer shall coordinate with the District Engineer regarding a looped system and
easements.
Developer shall show on Final Map the net developable acres for each parcel.
Notes to the following effects shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data:
A. All improvements are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with
the exception of the following:
1. Glasgow Drive
2. College Boulevard
3. Carlsbad Village Drive
4. Sewer and Water facilities
PC RES0 NO. 5257 -12- 32
1
1
7 "
4
<
6
7
8
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B.
C.
D.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
the appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available,
Geotechnical Caution: The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all
of its successors in interest has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the
City of Carlsbad from any action that may arise through any geological
failure, ground water seepage or land subsidence and subsequent damage
that may occur on, or adjacent to, this subdivision due to its construction,
operation or maintenance.
No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above
the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified
as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design
Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this
condition.
Fire Department:
61. All buildings shall be equipped with fire sprinklers to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
62. The Developer shall submit for Fire Marshal review and approval a 400 scale mylar
showing the location of all proposed fire hydrants.
Code Reminders:
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
...
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.
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.
The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map
approval becomes final.
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.
PC RES0 NO. 5257 -13- 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
18
19
2c
21
22
22
24
25
2f
2;
2f
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If you
protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of August 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Baker
ABSTAIN: None
n L\ 2
nn
SEE~T~A~airperso~
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5257 -14- 34
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. 5258
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN VILLAGE E-1 OF THE CALAVERA
HILLS MASTER PLAN LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND COLLEGE
BOULEVARD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
7.
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1
CASE NO.: CP 01-01
WHEREAS, Calavera Hills 11, LLC, “Developer” and McMillin Companies,
LLC and Tamarack Properties, Inc., “Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of
Carlsbad regarding property described as:
APPROVAL OF CONDOMINIUM PERMIT CP 01-01 TO
117 UNIT MULTIFAMILY AIR-SPACE CONDOMINIUM
Parcel A of Parcel Map 16233, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder on September 21, 1990, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Condominium
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “EE” dated August 7, 2002, on file in the Planning
Department, CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1 - CP 01-01 as provided by Chapter 21.45 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of August, 2002, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Condominium Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
3 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
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1 - CP
01-01, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with the
Municipal Code, the General Plan, applicable specific plans, master plans, and all
adopted plans of the City and other governmental agencies, in that the project is
consistent with the Residential Medium High Density (RMH) General Plan
designation as it has a density of 12.5 dwelling per acre; the project complies with
the development standards and design criteria of the Calavera Hills Master Plan
and the Residential Density - Multiple zoning designation.
That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the
neighborhood and the community, in that the project site is designated for multifamily
condominiums in the Calavera Hills Master Plan and provides for the diversity of
housing types within the City.
That such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity, in that the project design conforms to all design and development standards
applicable to the property and public improvements will be provided prior to, or
concurrent with, the development of the project to meet all City standards.
That the proposed Planned Development meets all of the minimum development
standards set forth in Chapter 21.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.080,
and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design
Guidelines Manual, in that the project provides private and common recreation areas;
guest parking is adequately distributed throughout the project, and all vehicular
accessways are a minimum of 34 feet wide.
That the proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural
topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on the
site, in that the site is relatively flat and no tall slopes are proposed with the
development and no native habitat exists within the project boundary.
That the proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site is
compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or
disruptive element to the neighborhood, in that the proposed multifamily residential
product type and density are consistent with the single family residential,
multifamily residential, and community park land uses that surround it.
That the project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with
the project and does not dominate the project.
PC RES0 NO. 5258 -2- 3b
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
21
28
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to grading permit
or final map, whichever occurs first.
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 Condominium Permit.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Condominium Permit 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.
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.
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 Condominium Permit, (b)
City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of CT 01-03 and is subject to all
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5257 for that other
approval, incorporated herein by reference.
The Developer shall submit to the Planning Director a recorded copy of the
condominium plan filed with the Department of Real Estate which is in
conformance with the City approved documents and exhibits prior to building
permit issuance.
PC RES0 NO. 5258 -3- 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously othenvise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of August 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Baker
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARJSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5258 -4- 38
'fie City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 4
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: June 27,2002
P.C. AGENDA OF: August 7,2002 Project Planner: Michael Gri~
Project Engineer: Frank Jimeno
SUBJECT: CT 01-03/CP 01-01 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1 - Request for a
Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, and Condominium Permit to allow
the subdivision and construction of a 117 unit multifamily air-space condominium
development within Village E-1 of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, on property
generally located at the southwest comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and College
Boulevard, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5256,
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director
and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5257 and 5258 RECOMMEN-
APPROVAL of Tentative Tract Map CT 01-03 and Condominium Permit CP 01-01, based upon
the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The proposal involves the subdivision and construction of a 117-unit multifamily air-space
condominium project within Village E-1 of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. Village E-1 and the
future extension of College Boulevard along the project's eastern boundary will be graded in
accordance with the Calavera Hills Phase I1 Master Tentative Map. A Tentative Tract Map is
required for the subdivision of property and a Condominium Permit is required to allow an air-
space condominium subdivision. The project meets all applicable regulations and staff has no
issues with the proposal.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Calavera Hills 11, LLC is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Condominium
Permit to allow the subdivision and construction of a 117-unit multifamily air-space
condominium project within Village E-1 of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. The 9.34 acre site
was originally created with a Minor Subdivision (MS 832, recorded September 21, 1990) and
was remapped through the Calavera Hills Phase I1 Master Plan Amendment and Master
Tentative Map (CT 00-02) with no changes to the project site boundaries. According to the
Master Plan, a maximum of 117 attached residential units could be placed on the site. The site
will be graded in accordance with the Calavera Hills Phase I1 map. Development of the Village
E-I multifamily condominium units can proceed once the Master Tentative Map has been
recorded and/or the associated grading permit has been issued and implemented.
CT 01-03/CP 01-01 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1
August 7,2002
Page 2
The 9.34 acre condominium site is bounded by the future extension of College Boulevard to the
east, the existing multifamily development known as The Cape to the south, existing Glasgow
Drive and the Calavera Hills Community Park to the west, and Carlsbad Village Drive and future
open space and single-family development in Village K to the north. The Calavera Hills Village
E-1 site is designated Residential Medium High (RMH) in the City’s General Plan, allowing up
to 15 dwelling units per developable acre with a Growth Management Control Point of 11.5
dwelling per acre. The proposed density is 12.5 dwelling units per acre lies within the allowable
General Plan range. The Calavera Hills Phase I1 Master Plan Amendment included an
amendment to the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan, which allows for Village E-1 to
exceed the Growth Management Control Point due to lesser densities elsewhere in the Master
Plan and the provision of adequate facilities to serve the units proposed within Village E-1. The
project site is zoned Planned Community (P-C) and, according to the Calavera Hills Master Plan
(MP 150(H)), the site is to be developed in accordance with the Planned Development
Ordinance, except as modified in the Master Plan.
The proposed development would consist of 29 residential buildings, private streets and
driveways, three common recreation facilities, and 60 surface guest parking spaces. The
residential buildings would consist of 14 six-plex buildings and 11 three-plex buildings in a
motor court style development; all units would include a private two-car garage. The buildings
would contain two-stories and measure 34 feet in height to the peak of the roof. The air-space
condominium units would range in size from 1,350 square feet to 1,550 square feet and would
possess private rear yards. The project architecture would follow a Mediterranean theme with
stucco walls and tile roofs, incorporating strong relief and a variety of materials and colors. The
total building coverage for the project would be 26 percent (or 2.46 acres). A swimming pool
with cabana, putting greens, turf areas, and picnic facilities would be located within the three
proposed common recreation areas. The project’s fair share of affordable housing is being
provided in Village Y (SDP 01-05), therefore none is included in this project.
The proposed development would necessitate approximately 18,630 cubic yards of cut, 15,760
cubic yards of fill, with 2,870 cubic yards of export subsequent to the mass grading associated
with the Calavera Hills Phase I1 Map (CT 00-02) for Village E-1. The site development would
also include several retaining walls, with a maximum height of six feet. The project site would
take access off of existing Glasgow Drive to the west and would generate 936 average daily
traffic trips, which can be accommodated by the collector street and the adjoining major arterial
roadways of Carlsbad Village Drive and College Boulevard. The project would be required to
comply with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NF’DES) Permit
through the implementation of Best Management Practices, thus reducing the amount of
pollutants entering the public storm drain system. Due to the project’s proximity to College
Boulevard, the master plan requires that a site-specific noise study be conducted. That noise
study indicates that noise attenuation walls are needed along the project’s frontage with College
Boulevard, Carlsbad Village Drive, and a portion of Glasgow Drive. These walls would range in
size from three (3) feet to 11 feet high and would be incorporated into the project design.
The Calavera Hills Village E-1 project is subject to the following regulations:
A. General Plan;
B. Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP 150(H));
CT 01-03/CP 01-01 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1
August 7,2002
Page 3
C. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
D. Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance);
E. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance); and
F. Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 7.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of 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 utilizing both text and
tables.
A. General Plan
The Calavera Hills Village E-1 project is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of
the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the residential development are the Land Use,
Circulation, Noise, Housing, and Public Safety elements. Table 1 below indicates how the
project complies with these particular elements of the General Plan.
Element
Land Use
Circulation
Noise
Housing
TABLE 1 - GENERA
Use Classification, Goal,
Objective or Program
Site is designated for medium high density (RMH) residential
development.
Minimize the number of access
points to major and prime
arterials to enhance the
functioning of these streets and thoroughfares.
Require that a noise study be
submitted with all residential projects over five units. Enforce
the City policy that 60 dBA
CNEL is the maximum exterior noise level for residential units.
New housing developed with a
diversity of types, prices, tenures, densities, and locations
to meet the demand of anticipated City growth.
PLAN COMPLIANCE
Proposed Use and Improvements
Proposed residential density of
12.5 dwelling units per acre is below the 15 dwellings per acre
maximum allowed in the RMH
designation.
The project design takes access
off of Glasgow Drive, a collector
street, rather than using its frontages with Carlsbad Village
Drive or College Boulevard.
The project includes a noise study
with recommendations to reduce
traffic noise from College
Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive to 60 dBA CNEL.
The project provides a mixture of three-plex and six-plex
multifamily air-space condominium, contributing to the diversity of housing within the
Compliance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
CT 01-03/CP 01-01 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1
August 7,2002
Page 4
Element
Public Safety
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE I
Use Classification, Goal,
Obiective or Program
Provision of emergency water systems and all-weather access
roads.
Proposed Use and Compliance Improvements
City.
All necessary water mains, fire
hydrants, and appurtenances must be installed prior to occupancy of
any unit and all-weather access
roads will be maintained throughout construction.
Yes
Given the above, the Calavera Hills Village E-1 condominium project is consistent with the
City’s General Plan.
B. Calavera Hills Master Plan
The proposed 117 unit air-space condominium project is within Village E-1 of the Calavera Hills
Master Plan area and, therefore, subject to the provisions of that master plan (MP 150(H)).
Table 2 below summarizes the project’s conformance with the requirements of the Master Plan.
TABLE 2 - CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN CONFORMANCE
Standard
Allowed Uses:
Maximum of 117 attached
residential units.
Arterial Setbacks:
Minimum 40 foot setback from
College Boulevard.
Minimum 30 foot setback from
Carlsbad Village Drive.
&-- Proposed Conformance
Proposed project is 117 attached
multifamily air-space condominium
units
All structures are set back a minimum
of 40 feet from the Carlsbad Village Drive right-of-way.
Yes
All structures are set back a minimum
of 30 feet from the Carlsbad Village
Drive right-of-way.
Yes
CT 01-03KP 01-01 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1
August 7,2002
TABLE 2 - CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN CONFORMANCE. continued
Standard
Building Setbacks:
Minimum 20 foot setback from
Glasgow Drive.
Building Setbacks:
Minimum setback from the
southerly property line is 10 feet,
with an average setback of 30 feet.
Motor court developments shall
have a building separation of 10
feet provided that the front facade massing is separated by at least 22
feet and setback a minimum of IO
feet.
Building Height:
Maximum of 35 feet to the peak
of the roof.
Recreation Area:
Minimum of 100 square feet per
unit of common recreation area (for 117 units, a minimum of
11,700 square feet is required).
Design Criteria:
A single loaded street, with sidewalk only on the north side,
shall be allowed adjacent to the
Cape neighborhood (along the
southerly property line of Village
E-I).
A fence/trellis plan shall be
approved in conjunction with the condominium Demit.
Proposed
All structures are set back a minimum
of 25 feet from the Glasgow Drive right-of-way.
The closest buildings to the southerly
property line are IO and 25 feet away, with most buildings setback from 50
to 75 feet.
The proposed front facade massing is
separated by well over 22 feet and
setback a minimum of 10 feet, therefore the building separation of a
minimum of IO feet is acceptable.
Proposed structures measure 34 feet
in height, to the peak of the roof.
The three proposed recreation areas
contain a total of 14,200 square feet
of common recreation area.
The project proposes a single loaded
street, with sidewalk only on the north
side along the southerly property
boundary.
A fence/trellis plan is provided on Exhibit “E, dated August 7,2002.
Conformance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Given the above, the proposed air-space condominium project is consistent with the provisions
of the Calavera Hills Master Plan.
CT 01-03KP 01-01 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1
August 7,2002
Page 6
C. Subdivision Ordinance
Since the Calavera Hills Village E-1 project involves a subdivision into air-space lots, the
proposal is subject to the regulations of Title 20, the Subdivision Ordinance. Chapter 20.16 of
the Subdivision Ordinance addresses the requirements for a major subdivision, that being a
subdivision that creates more than four parcels. These requirements deal mostly with providing
the drainage, sewerage, and circulation dedications and improvements needed to serve the
subdivision. There are also requirements concerning consistency with Title 21, the Zoning
Ordinance, which is addressed in the other sections of this staff report.
The proposed Calavera Hills Village E-1 residential subdivision would provide all necessary
facilities prior to, or concurrent with, construction. The hydrology report, submitted by the
applicant, indicates that all runoff can be controlled on site and conveyed into existing storm
drain facilities in Glasgow Drive. The on-site sewer system would be connected with the
existing system in Carlsbad Village Drive. Water distribution would involve looped service
from the existing lines in Glasgow Drive. All proposed internal circulation would consist of
private streets, therefore no dedications of such are necessary. No standards variances are
needed to approve the project. Given the above, the proposed subdivision would provide all
necessary facilities and improvements without producing land title conflicts, therefore the project
is consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance.
D. Planned Development Ordinance
The Calavera Hills Master Plan states that Village E-1 shall develop in accordance to the
Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance), except as modified
within the Master Plan. As indicated above, the Master Plan contains regulations governing
building setbacks, building separation, building height, and recreation areas. The Calavera
Master Plan area already has a recreational vehicle storage area that serves the entire master plan.
Therefore, the proposed multifamily condominium project is subject to the Planned Development
Ordinance standards regarding visitor parking, private streets and dnveway, and storage space.
Table 3 below details the project’s conformance with these remaining development standards of
the Planned Development Ordinance.
TABLE 3 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE CONFORMANCE
Standard
Visitor Parking:
For projects over 10 units, 5 spaces for
the first 10 units and 1 space per every
4 units above 10 (for 117 units, a
minimum of 3 1 spaces is required).
Private Streets:
Minimum of 34 feet wide streets from
curb-to-curb with minimum 5.5 foot wide parkways.
Proposed I Conformance I
The project provides 60 guest
parking spaces distributed throughout the project site.
Yes
The proposed private streets
measure 34 feet curb-to-curb and
are adjacent to 5.5 foot wide
uarkwavs.
Yes
CT 01-03KP 01-01 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1
August 7,2002
Page 7
TABLE 3 -PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE CONFORMANCE, continued v Standard
Private Driveways:
Minimum 24 feet wide with no parking
permitted in the travel way.
Storage Space:
All units must contain a minimum of 480 cubic yards of storage space.
Proposed Conformance
The proposed private driveways are represented by the entrances
to the motor courts and measure a
minimum of 24 feet wide.
Yes
I
Each unit has a minimum of 480
cubic yards of storage space. Yes
Given the above, the proposed air-space condominium project is consistent with the applicable
portions of the Planned Development Ordinance.
E. Growth Management Ordinance
The Calavera Hills Village E-1 condominium project is subject to the provisions of the Growth
Management Program, as contained in Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance. As discussed
above, the proposed project density of 12.5 dwelling units per developable acre exceeds the
Growth Management Control Point of 11.5 dwelling per acre for the Residential Medium High
Density (RMH) General Plan designation. The Calavera Hills Phase I1 Master Plan Amendment
included an amendment to the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan, which allows for
Village E-1 to exceed the Growth Management Control Point due to lesser densities elsewhere in
the Master Plan and the provision of adequate facilities to serve the units proposed within
Village E-1. Table 4 below details the project’s conformance with the requirements of the
Growth Management Program.
TABLE 4 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
~~
Standard Compliance Impacts/Standards
City Administration
Yes 216.95 sq. ti. Library
Yes 406.77 sq. ft.
Wastewater Treatment Yes 117 EDU
Parks I 0.82 acres I Yes I
Circulation I 936 ADT
Yes Fire I Station#3
Yes
Open Space Yes Satisfied through MP lSO@I)
I Schools I Carlsbad Unified I Yes I
CT 01-03/CP 01-01 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1
August 7,2002
Page 8
TABLE 4 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
Standard Compliance ImpactdStandards
Sewer Collection Svstem I 117EDU Yes
Water Yes 25,740 GPD
The project is at the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance, pursuant to the Zone 7 LFMP.
F. Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 7
The project site lies within LFMP Zone 7. There are no special conditions or requirements
within the Zone 7 LFMP that apply to this residential project. The project is conditioned to pay
the appropriate public facilities fee, water and sewer connection fees, and traffic impact fees.
The project site is located within a Mello Roos District that covers their proportionate obligation
for school fees. All facility improvements necessary to accommodate the development will be in
place prior to, or concurrent with, development. Therefore, the Calavera Hills Village E-1
residential development is consistent with the Zone 7 LFMP.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of Village E-1 were
reviewed through the Environmental Impact Report for the Calavera Hills Phase I1 Master Plan
Amendment (EIR 98-02, certified January 15, 2002). Village E-1 was analyzed with up to 117
multifamily condominium units. This environmental document also reviewed the potential
environmental impacts associated with the future extension of College Boulevard, which will
provide frontage but not access to Village E-1. Since the grading of Village E-1 cannot proceed
until the Master Tentative Map has been recorded andor the associated grading permit has been
issued, the attached environmental analysis deals only with the development of Village E-I with
the proposed multifamily air-space condominium project.
The proposed Calavera Hills Village E-1 condominium project, as designed and conditioned,
would not create any significant adverse environmental impacts. The project is consistent with
the applicable regulations; will be graded in accordance with the City’s Grading Ordinance and
City Standards; will comply with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit; will provide all facilities necessary to serve the development prior to, or concurrent with,
construction; and will provide noise attenuation walls along the College Boulevard and Carlsbad
Village Drive frontages. Given this environmental analysis, the Planning Director issued a
Negative Declaration on July 3, 2002. No public comments were received during the 20-day
public review period.
CT 01-03KP 01-01 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1
August 7,2002
Page 9
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
MG:cs:mh
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5256 (Neg Dec)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5257 (CT)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5258 (CP)
Location Map
Disclosure Statement
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Background Data Sheet
Exhibits “A” - “EE”, dated August 7,2002.
City of
S
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the pan ofthe Cin, Council or anv appointed Board. Commission or Conminee.
The following information be disclosed at the time of application subminal. Your project cm111or
be reviewed until this information is completed. Pleace print.
Note:
Person is defmed as "Any individual. h, co-pamership, joint venture, association. social club. fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, mst, 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
interesf in the application. If the applicant includes a CorDoration or oartnershiD. 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 (NIA) 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
necessa
Person a California limited CorpIPart
Title 2727 Hoover Avenue Address- Citv. - rp, 91950 Address
FalaVera Hills 11, LLC,
liability company Title
2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also. provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e,
partnership. tenants in common, non-profit. corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
corooration or oartnershio, 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-
owed corooration. include the names. titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person McMillin Co~pan~es~ .. LLc or /Part 'Tamarack Pro erties, Inc.
Title company c/o RrQokfielcl mmes Title
Address Nat i nnal ri tv. ('A 91 950 Address
ULLawaLL LLIIILLL; Ilabil&g a Cal~~orniaPcorporation
2727 Hoover Avenue 12865 Poiqte get Mar, Ste. 2OU -
M
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad. CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 @
,, >. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (I) or (2) above is a nonprofit oreanization or a trust. list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profir
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profinrust N/A Non Profinrust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff.
Boards. Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? 0 Yes HNo If yes. please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
pk
=e of ownf;ldate Signature of applicadtdate
Do-/ ~m&€Lc
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 4? Page 2 of 2
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
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: Calavera Hills Village E-1 - CT 01-03/CP 01-01
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 2_ GENERAL PLAN: RMH
ZONING: P-C
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Calavera Hills 11. LLC
ADDRESS: 2727 Hoover Ave. National Citv, CA 91950
PHONE NO.: (619) 336-3138 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 168-041-08
QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 9.34 ac/l 17 du
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: August 2003
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 406.77
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 216.95
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 117 EDU
Park: Demand in Acreage = 0.82
Drainage: Identify Drainage Basin = PLDA B
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 936
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = Station #3
Open Space: Acreage Provided = Satisfied through
MP 150(H)
Schools: Carlsbad Unified
Student demand: Elementary = 30; Middle = 8; High = 17
Sewer: Demands in EDU 117
Water: Demand in GPD = 25,740
The project is at the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance pursuant to the Zone
7 Local Facilities Management Plan.
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 01-03/CP 01-01
CASE NAME: Calavera Hills Villaee E-1
APPLICANT: Calavera Hills 11. LLC
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Reauest for a Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit
to allow the subdivision and construction of a 117 unit multifamilv air-soace condominium
development within Villaee E-1 of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. on property generallv located
at the southwest comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and College Boulevard.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel A of Parcel Map 16233. filed in the Office of the County
Recorder on September 21, 1990, in the Citv of Carlsbad, Countv of San DiePo. State of
APN: 168-041-08 Acres: 9.34 Proposed No. of LotsAJnits: 117
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Residential Medium High Densitv (RMH)
Density Allowed: 8.0 - 15.0 ddac Density Proposed: 12.5 ddac
Existing Zone: P-C Proposed Zone: P-C
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning General Plan Current Land Use
Site P-c RMH vacant
North P-C RMH vacant
South P-C RM multifamily residential
East P-c RLM vacant
West P-C os community park
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 117
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued Julv 3, 2002
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
0 Other,
Planning Commission Minutes
8. CT 01-031CP 01-01 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-I - Request for a Tentative Tract Map and
condominium development within Village E-1 of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, on property
Condominium Permit to allow the subdivision and construction of a 117 unit multifamily air-space
generally located at the southwest corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and College Boulevard, in
Local Facilities Management Zone 7.
Mr. Wayne introduced item #8 stating that Michael Grim and Frank Jimeno would make the presentation.
Chairperson Trigas asked if the applicant would like to proceed with the item without a full Commission.
The applicant wished to proceed.
Chairperson Trigas opened the public hearing.
Michael Grim, Senior Planner described the item and pointed out the site on the display boards. He said it‘s approximately 9.3 acres that is currently undeveloped and will be graded in accordance with the Master
Tentative Map for Calavera Hills Phase II. He pointed out the roadways around the site and indicated two
access points off Glasgow Drive. The site is designated RMH in the General Plan and is zoned P-C. The
except as modified in the Master Plan. One of the modifications was an adjustment of the treatment along
Master Plan says the site is to be developed in accordance with the Planned Development Ordinance,
this property line with the existing Cape neighborhood, increased setbacks and certain stipulations about
parking if a roadway was put there.
Mr. Grim stated the site includes 29 residential buildings, a mixture of three-plex and six-plex buildings.
Units range in size from about 1,300 to over 1,500 square feet. There are three recreation areas which
developed in a motor court style, which is allowed by the Master Plan. The architecture style is
include a pool area, turf area, and picnic area. The development will have private streets and be
Mediterranean, incorporating a variety of colors and strong architectural relief as required by the Master
Plan. Staff found it to be consistent with the General Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan, the
the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
Master Plan, all the applicable portions of the Zoning Ordinance, the Growth Management Ordinance, and
adopt the resolutions and recommend approval of this project to the City Council.
Mr. Grim read the following statement into the record for Eva Brown, 2976 Ridgefield Avenue, Carlsbad,
who was unable to stay to speak. “Please note -the proposed site will be built up by an additional 9 feet. I have strong concerns with the loss of privacy and increased noise with the Village E-I Project running
with Brian Milich, McMillin homes and Mike Grim, City of Carlsbad, and would like to request enhanced
along the back property line - Ridgefield Avenue - the Cape at Calavera Hills. I have preliminarily spoken
the wall on the property be built to 7 feet instead of 6 feet if possible to ensure area privacy. Mr. Milich has
landscaping along the property line on Ridgefield Avenue, and if necessary, request that the Council allow
stated the McMillin Company would be willing to work with the homeowners, however, I would like to make sure this is duly noted.”
the phase of the entitlements where they will be coming before the Commission every couple weeks as
Brian Milich with Corky McMillin Companies, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, stated they are now in
their villages get through the planning process. This is the first market rate project and one of the more
affordable projects because it is an attached product. Mr. Milich thanked Mike Grim and Frank Jimeno for
the project is consistent in all regards with the Master Plan and they think it will be a good complement to
their hard work and effort on this project and said they are in support of Staffs recommendations. He said
the Cape, the neighbors directly to the south. They have had a number of discussions with the Cape
homeowners and others in the community over several years. It was removed from its original
Commercial designation to an RMH designation. They had further discussions with the Cape
homeowners about the location of recreational facilities and the buffer between the two projects. Mr.
they develop the landscape plans for the project to ensure adequate buffering and aesthetic treatment
Milich said he talked with Eva Brown and told her they would be glad to work with her and anyone else as
with the Cape homeowners. He knows the City has rules and regulations going above 6 feet and didn’t
between the two projects. He said they agreed to raise the wall from 5 feet to 6 feet when they last met
think another foot would make much difference. He said too tall of a wall starts to detract from the project
so he prefers to leave it at 6 feet and work on landscaping as a buffer between the two projects.
Planning Commission Minutes August 7,2002 Page 17
Commissioner Dominguez asked if the wall Ms. Brown was referring to would be on top of the additional
till or at the bottom. Mr. Milich replied it will be on the top of the slope and they will be glad to work with Ms. Brown.
Commissioner Segall said it looks like a great project and said a lot of people in the community are
probably more excited with the fact that this will start the construction of College. Mr. Milich said this
project, the affordable project, and another one coming up will be their first villages and they have to be
under construction on College Boulevard and Cannon Road as those projects develop.
Commissioner Segall asked what the timetable would be for College, assuming approval by the
Commission and the City Council in the near future. Mr. Milich said they hope to start in the September-
October timeframe and it would probably be about an 18-month project to actually complete the road, so it
probably would be open by the first or second quarter of 2004. Mr. Milich pointed out on the map where
College and Cannon Roads would be constructed.
Commissioner Dominguez complimented their efforts on the architecture
Commissioner Trigas commented about the need for moderately priced housing, not only for Carlsbad,
but all of North County and said she thinks the developer is fulfilling some of the need by the mixed
housing they are offering.
Chairperson Trigas opened and closed public testimony
the Cape to try to mitigate any concerns they have. Mr. Grim said it's fully disclosed in the public record
Commissioner Dominguez wanted to ensure that it is noted that the developer has committed to work with
and he would be doing the plancheck on the project.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner White and duly seconded, that the Planning
adoption of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopt
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5256, recommending
Tentative Tract Map CT 01-03 and Condominium Permit CP 01-01, based upon Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5257 and 5258 recommending approval of
the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
VOTE: 6-0-0
AYES:
Whitton Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, White, and
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
None
None
TO: Honorable Mayor Claude Lewis, Ray Patchette, City Manager,
Councilmembers: Julianne Nygaard, Ramona Finella, Matt Hall, AM Kulchin
I have been attending your City Planning Workshops and City Council Meetings for the past 3 years concerning the rezoning and developments of Villages. E-1 and Village Y at The Cape in Calavera Hills. I commend you & your Staff in your dedication for always
considerkg the best iiiter8s:s of it's citizens - it .is "ongoing" which demands many extra
hours over and beyond the call of duty .. .. you all do an excellent job. At present, McMillin Developers are within a few months of proceeding with their development on E-1 which is my main concern. Future College Boulevard (when completed) will be within 10 ft.
of our southeasterly boundary at Ridgefield Avenue where I live.
Many of our backyards borders the northeastern boundary of our community next to the proposed E-1. McMillin'sdevelopment plans presently calls for increasing the grading level to a height of 9 ft. above our present ground level before erecting their 3-story Condos.
This was never pointed Out to us by the city Planning Staff (Eric Munoz & Don Turner in those
early years) at Staff & Council Meetings or by McMillin Builders. PLEASE NOTE !
1) California is noted for mudslides during a rainy season - drainage will at a 64-
high risk inasmuch as Calavera Hills sets on top of hard mountain shale. Built-up land will easily loosen along with rain & run down the sloped hillside
into our backyards jeopardizing our yards & homes. (Why 9 ft. - no one
wants a neighbor looking down into their private domain - OR, their soil !)
2) McMiilin had previously told us there would be no windows facing The Cape
call for windows facing our backyards. (If windows are a MUST, why not to preserve the privacy of each homeowner. NOW, their new drawing plans
stained, block windows.?)
Many of us homeowners at The Cape take pride in our backyard, landscaped gardens with fountains and ponds which brings a calming & aesthetic touch of nature to our lives after
fighting the bitter battle of commuting on our freeways to reach the safety of our homes
. .. .. our little corner of the world ! Isn't it enough that we must bear the impact of
busyhoisy future College Boulevard so close to our backyards ? Please take your time
to review and give this concern your immediate attention to keep our neighborhood the fine
community that we all enjoy. Thank you for reading my message !
Very truly yours,
cc: Mike Grimm, Planning Dept. Dm 't D+. me 7+! 720-0246
76 a
From: Bernice C Hill <bchill2984@juno.com>
To:
Date:
<mstr@ci.carlsbad.ci.us>
9/6/02 1 1 :53AM
Subject: Village E-I -The Cape at Calavera Hills
Per request of Richard A. Reck, Please forward copies of this E-Mail to
Honorable Mayor Bud Lewis
Ray Patchette, City Manager
Ann Kulchin, Councilwoman
Julie Nygaard, Councilwoman
Ramona Finella, Councilwoman
Matt Hall, Councilman
I am sending this E-Mail relating to the City Council Meeting taking
place Sept. 10, 2002 concerning the adoption of a Negative Declaraton
concerning the construction of a 117-unit condominium within Village E-I of the Calavera Hills Master Plan as my workload may not allow me to
attend this meeting.
I strongly support the comments on the issues addressed in my neighbor,
Bernice C. Hill's, letter to you dated last Friday, September 6,2002.
The elevation and drainage of E-I land use should match the present land site and not be built higher than it presently stands - - - a 3-StOry.
6-Plex and 3-Plex condo units with balconies built on top of a 9 ft. land
site would tower over & invade the privacy of the adjoining neighbors at
The Cape. There is also the "windows" issue - McMillin Developers originally advised us there would be NO windows facing The
show windows !
Cape neighbors' backyards to protect our privacy. New drawings now
Staff employ concerning City growth & development and again request that
I have always appreciated the fine team and concern that you & your
you carefully review these important issues, as this will affect our
quality of life in our community and totally jeopardize the peace and
serenity that we Cape owners enjoy.
Thank You !
4534 Hartford Place - The Cape
RICHARD A. RECK
Carlsbad. CA
(760) 720-9143
GET lNTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http:l/dl.www.juno.comlgevweb/.
September 10,2002
The Honorable Claude A. 'Bud" Lewls
Mayor Pro Tem Ann J. Kulchin Councll Member Ramona Flnnlla
Councll Member Matt Hall
Council Member Jullanne Nygaard
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Vlllage Drlve
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Calavera Hllls Vlllage E-1-Agenda Item 18
Dear Mayor bwls and Councll Members:
This letter Is being wrftten to volce concern and opposition to the proposed Negatlve Declaration and
Tentative Tract Map and Condominlum Permlt which wlll be presented to the City Council for approval
on Tuesday evening, September 10, 2002. I respectfully request that the Councll delay approval of
the plan until the grading and prlvacy issues are clarlfled.
I am a homeowner who Ilves at 2976 Ridgefield Avenue, whlch Is on the backslde of the proposed
development. Currently, it Is belng proposed that the development be graded to -prior to the start of bullding (mch hiu&than the homes on the backlde of the development). The
proposed development Is slated to bulld two-story condominlurn unlts whlch Include an attached
third-story unlt in the middle. Between the nine-foot grade and the height of the actual units, a
~wlll be Incurred. The new homeowners wIII have full vlew of not only
my backyard but my nelghbors' yards as well.
In speaklng with Brlan Millch of McMillin Cos., and reviewing the development plans, I have volced concerns wlth hlm and wlth the Plannlng Commlssion (In a written statement at the August 7, 2002
Plannlng Comrnlsslon Meeting) regardlng the loss of privacy and the need for "enhanced landscaping"
to protect our privacy. One Commlsslon member voiced concern while the others did not feel it would be a problem. The Commlssion requested that McMillln meet with me regarding my concerns.
A meetlng was scheduled and I notlfled the president of The Cape at Calavera Hllls Homeownen
Association, Gordon French, I asked hlm about notlfylng the other nine homeowners of the meetlng,
and he stated that he dld not feel it was necessary as the other homeowners failed to show any
Interest by attendlng the Commlsslon Meetlng. I then requested that he notify Ms. Bernice HI11 as she did attend the meetlng. The notiflcatlon was. never glven as he sald that he had gotten busy and
forgot to tell her. I personally invited Bill Champlon, a neighbor of mlne who is knowledgeable in real estate and property matters, to attend the meeting. I had speclflc questlons regarding the grading and landscaping that was belng offered in a proposal from McMillin (Please refer to letter dated July
31,2002). I notifled Brian Milich's omce that Mr. Champion would be attending the meetlng. When
he arrlved, Gordon French denied access to Mr. Champion because he was offended by his presence.
Accordlng to Mr. Champlon, Mr. French stated that It was a prlvate rneettng and Intended only for
homeowners (whlch was not true), Thus, I was dented representatlon at the meetlng where I could
have a soundlng board to fully appreclate the optlons and ask pertlnent questlons.
The Honorable Claude A. "Rud" Lewis
Mayor Pro Tern Ann 3. Kulehln Council Member Ramona Fsnnila Council Member Matt Hall muncil Member Julianne Nygaard City of brlsbad
September 10,2002 Page 2
At the meetlng, I found out that In addltlon to stalrwell wlndows, there would be porch ligb on the
side facing my backyard. I asked If the wlndows In the stairwell would have glass that would diffuse
the light that will illumlnate from the stalrwell area. I was not given an answer and directed to go look at a development called Portico whlch Is off Melmse. Since that the, I have visited the
development both in the day and nlght tlme and my concerns have only increased. I have taken a
number of pictures of the Portlco development to support my concerns that will be available for your
revlew at the meetlng.
I cordially Invite all City Councll members to my home to appreclate the full impact the E-1 Development wlll have on me as a homeowner as well as the other nlne homeowners. It will be
essential that planner, Mlke Grlm, be present as well as a city engineer. I would like to request that
the Engineering Department of the City of Carlsbad provide visual alds to see exactly where the nine-
foot grade will start and where the nnlshed development wlll $.and (especially the third stow) and its
impact.
It took a long time for me as a parent to purchase a home in Carlsbad. I chose the City of Carlsbad
for the strong dedication to the promotlon of famllles In the community and the wonderful opportunltles It provides for chlldren. My famlly and I will be remaining in our home and community
for years to come-McMillln will only remaln In the communlty as long as there are development
opportunities.
Agaln, I respectfully request that the Negatlve Declaratlon and Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permlt be delayed thls evening untll the grade is clarlfied. It is totally unclear as to the net effect the
nine (9) foot grade wlll have on each indivldual homeowner affected In my neighborhood. I have
only obtalned the lot plans yesterday and have not had the to have an engineer revlew them to see how It would affect us as homeowners. A meeting was held yesterday between Brian Mlllch and his
representative, and Bill Champlon, Warren Jenks and myself. At the meetlng, Brlan stated he would
provide some drawings for review of the lot lines. These have not been seen at this Ume. It would not be prudent to proceed with approval of this plan untll all questions are answered, lncludlng how
they will be preparlng to grade the land. Please note that slnce I have purchased my home In
October 20D1, there has only been one general meeting that I have been made aware of where
homeowners have met with McMlllln and that was in July 2002. All other meetlngs have been
indlvidual.
5%- Eva M. Brown
2976 Rldgefield Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 730-3256 (unlisted)
BR ~runerk Rosi Management, ~nc.
Srruiq the Hamtnwner ~rsotiorinn Indmy 1930 SO. Coasl Hwy. Suirc 110. Oceanside. CA 9205444bb
The Cape at Calavera Hilts Homeowners Association
ocnr Evr.
Your Board of Directors muld like IO invite you to anend a meeting regarding the plans for the Villagc: E-1 development.
Wednesday. July 3 1.2002
5:30 p.m.
at the Community Center .. .
. . .. 2997 Glasgow Drive
developmenl arid spcificdly the &rea benveen the E-! development and your hackyard. 'rho Asswirttion
i(cpwscntat.ivt?s t?om McMillin, Don Mitchell and Brim Mitchell will presenl the plans for the E.1
otrorncy, either I&y Hansen of Tom Gatlin. will anend the meeting as well as the Board of Directors and
Managenlent.
development. McMillin will give a general presentation to all the Cape homeowners.
Following this special meeting of the ten homeowners whose. property line is next Io [he GI
This is a very important meorilrg for you to adend.
j cu ~TY ~jas;oas t~w~~lg lhis meair,& $~ZSC d:. W, ~CS~WZ w ctil WC, (760! ??? SW <kt: .I 7;
Sincere!)..
Helen Yakcly, CCAh
Cnmmunily Association Manager Tht Cepe @ Cnlavera BOA ' ' ..
:I .. ,
Cc: Board of Directors
Ji/O File #: 49-022
. ..
..
(k4.58) 481-7823 . Del Mar (619) 670-7508 -El Csjon (760) 6314148. Escondido
(760) 4334868. Norrh Counry (760) 433.05117 Fnx
09/1c3/2002 15:15 THE ALLEN LiKUUY -) YlLUY4bl NU. YLO YW -r
I
I
fPSTlN GRINHELL & HOWELL: 9980 Carroll Canyon Rd. 2nd Floor Tel858.527.0111
San Dleao, CA 92131 Tel800.300.17W
ATTORNEYS AT LAW www.epatsn.com Fax 858.527.1531
-.
July 31, 2002
To: Owners Adjacent to McMillin "Village E-1''
Re: Caoe at Calavera Hills Homeowners Assoclation
Issues Relating to Village E-I Project
Our File No. 7206.01
DearHorneownen: .- " -
The Board of the Cape at Calavera Hills has asked us to prepare this letter concerning
issues relating to McMillin's "Village E-1'' residential development that will be built on the vacant
land adjacent to your homes. We understand that representatives of McMillin have been in touch
with you. They have also been in contacl with the Board of the Cape.
You may be aware that McMillin is proposing to construct a wall between Village E-1 and
the Cape. Currently, there are wooden fences that roughly track your rear property lines. The true
fence. This would leave a type of "no man's land between your fence and the Village E-1 wall,
boundary line between your lots and Village E-1 would fall somewhere between the wall and your
most of which will either be a slope, or a slope plus some space at the top of the slope. We also
understand that Village E-1 will be somewhat elevated, as McMillin uses fill to increase the
essentially deed the "no man's land" property to each of you owners. McMlllln would have to
elevation of the adjoining property. McMillin had proposed a lot line adjustment that would
reserve about 3 feet of space on your side of the wall as an easement to enable Village E-1 to
perform periodic maintenance and repairs on the wall, as necessary. iiyou took over this properly,
it would involve moving your fence line out to meet up with the McMillin wall. It would also require
the written consent of each owner and each of your lenders.
The Association had legal concerns about the proposal for a lot line adjustment for different
reasons. A lot line adjustment would change the legal description of your lots, and the consent of your lenders would eifectiveiy modiiy the mongage to conform IO rhe new boundarres. The
problem from ihe Association's perspective is that the Association cannot change the boundary
lines of the recorded covenants (CC&Rs) through a simple process. According section Article IX,
Section 1 of the Declaration, additional property can be annexed (and thus covered under the
CC&Rs) by the Association only upon the vote of U3rds of all members. As you may know, it is
very difflcult to obtaln approval from an absolute percentage of homeowners, regardless of what
majority Is required. This is generally not due to opposition but rather to apathy. Owners generally
wish to be left alone and to retain the status quo, but any owner who chooses not to vote is
effectively a negative vote when an absolute percentage is needed. The larger the number of
owners to begln with, or the hlgher the requlred percentage for approval, the more difficult it is to
obtaln the approval. Also, as the percentage of non-resident owners increases, approval also
becomes increasingly dlfficult.
are currently under consideration. The flrst is that McMillin would give owners the right to use the
As a result, we discussed the marterwith McMillin representatives, and the followlng options
adjoining property, but it would not change the legal description of your property or deed the no "_
SIN DIE00 I
"_
RANCHO CUCAMON(IA
09/10/2002 15:15 THE ALLEN GROUP + 97209461 -. .. NO. 926 DEI5
The Owners Adjacent to McMillin 'Village E-1''
Cape at Calavera Hills Homeowners Association
June 17, 2002
Page 2
man's land property to you. Instead ora lot line adjustment, McMillin would require owners to enter
agreement would give you the right to use the adjoining property and to extend your fences into
into something like a "maintenance and indemnity agreement." A maintenance and indemnity
it. In exchange, you would be obligated to assume the maintenance responsibilityfor the area, and
Association), in case someone were injured on the property you were using and sued McMillin (or
you would have to agree to provide insurance and to indemnify McMillin (or the Village E-1
the Village E-1 Association) based on their ownership of the property. The second option is that
McMillin would leave the "no man's land" in place. McMillin or Village E-1 would continue to
maintain the property between your rear fence and the Village E-1 wall. .. "-
on July 31, 2002. We will also mail a copy of thrs letter to each of the affected owner6 who is
These matters wlll be discussed with the owners who appear at the meeting with McMillin
unable to attend the meeting on July 31. If you have any questions, please direct them to the
Association. c/o Helen Yakelv. Bruner and Rosi Management. Inc.. 1930 South Hill St.. Suite 110,
Oceanside,' CA 92054, E-Mail: &n@BrunerR&Mgt.com: phone: 760-433-6868. Fax:
619-433-0507.
Very truly yours,
EPSTEN GRINNELL & HOWELL, APC
JWH:bsk
KEY PLAN ; - 1,./,
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
.,
CALAVERA HILLS
VILLAGE E- 1
. . . _. .,. I.I_..-. .. " -. .. .. . ""
.. -......I
PLAN 3 hl5S.F T-153X SF.
1 OF 11
SECOND FLOOR PLAN ,.
CALAVERA HILLS
VILLAGE E- 1
CALAVERA II. L.L.C.
I,j ~,
2oFll
PLAN 1 330 S.F.
"
THIRD FLOOR PLAN
CALAVERA HILLS
VILLAGE E- 1
CALAVERA II. L.L.C.
I,,j ,"
3 OF 11
CALAVERA HILLS
VILLAGE E- 1
CALAVERA 11, L.L.C.
Bff 11
WCED REAR ELEVATW .
VILLAGE E- 1
CALAVERA U. L.L.C.
9oFll
, ,, ... ,,.,,,.. ,,,,,,, 1: Janice. Breitenfeld': ,, Calavera Hills Village'E-1 .ppt'
I Janice Breitenfeld - Calavera Hills Villaoe E-1.DDt ,, .. . . . . , ....,., Pane 7 8j
. ,. .
I
, ... , ., .., , 1, Janice Breitenfeld - Caiavera Hills \iillage E-I .ppt ,, -
~ ..._____~"
,- ,(.., ...................... .,.,..,,,,,
, .,, .,.,, ..., ,,,.. Page . , ....
/Janlcemfdd - CalavG Hills tillage E-I .ppt "- ~..____"~.____.___~~
., . ,,., 1, Janice'Breitenfdd ,, Calavera Hills Village E-I .ppt ., ,. . . , , Page , .. . , i.61 ..
.. , . . . . , .
PROOF OF PUBLICL ION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of
the printer of
North County Times
Formerlj; '~OW~I as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the County of San Diego,
that the notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has
been published in each regular and entire issue of
said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof
on the following dates, to-wit:
AUGUST 29,2002
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS- California
this 29TH day
of AUGHUST, 2002
Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space is fc 'le County Clerk's Filing Stamp
/2.&&,z.h@d 7 -3.- 3- /-
pi., 9-1
Proof of Publication of - ~~ ~.
CITY c m3xEQE -
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 to
consider a request for adoption of a Negative Declaration, a Tentative Tract Map and
Condominium Permit to allow the subdivision and construction of a 117 unit multifamily air-
space condominium development within Village E-I of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, on property generally located at the southwest corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and College
Boulevard, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7 and more particularly described as:
Parcel A of Parcel Map 16233, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder on September 21, 1990, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after September 6, 2002. If you
have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract
Map and/or Condominium Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance,
and is very short. If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map and/or
Condominium Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered
to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 01-03/CP 01-01
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E 1
PUBLISH: Thursday, August 29, 2002
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
CALAVERA HILLS
VILLAGE E-I
CT 01 -03/CP 01 -01
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 516f
' CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST CITY OF ENClNlTAS
801 PINE AVE 505 S VULCAN AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF VISTA
300 NORTH COAST HWY PO BOX 1988
OCEANSIDE CA 92054 VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH 8 GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE STE I00
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
LAFCO AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
1600 PACIFIC HWY 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE CA COASTAL COMMISSION 2730 LOKER AVE WEST STE 103
CARLSBAD CA 92008 7575 METROPOLITAN DR
- SAN DIEGO CA 92108402
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY PUBLIC WORKSlENGlNEERlNG
SERVICES DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
MICHAEL GRIM
08/14/2002
AVERW Address Labels
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Laser 5160@
CALAVERA HILLS I1 L L C
2727 HOOVER AVE
KEBLEY PS JAMES A KETCHAM
- 4537 HARTFORD PL T’IONAL CITY 91950-6625 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6514 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6514 4535 HARTFORD PL
LORETTA E REYNOLDS TERESA S CIOCCA RONALD D GERDES
4501 GOOSE VALLEY RD
HARRISBURG PA 17112-2172 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6514 OCEANSIDE CA 92052-6385
4531 HARTFORD PL PO BOX 6385
ELIZABETH G HARRISON
4527 HARTFORD PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6514 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6514
4534 HARTFORD PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6514
DOUGLAS J ANDERSON RICHARD A RECK
4536 HARTFORD PL
KIMBERLEE J PEASE PAMELA R PATERSON
4532 HARTFORD PL 4749 EDINBURGH DR
WILSON
1031 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6514 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6534 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4821
PAMELA S GLOVER
4526 HARTFORD PL
JAMES H & CHERYL LEAMON GEORGE D & LINDA HOOD
4535 NORWICH PL 4533 NORWICH PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6514 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6542 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6542
RANDOLPH S VORHIS HEDWIG D GORSZWICK MAUREEN LEHAN
4720 EDINBURGH DR 4534 NORWICH PL 2973 RIDGEFIELD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6502 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6542 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6543
EVA M PETRY WILLIAM H MCWETHY WILLIAM L CHAMPION
500 EL CAMINO REAL 208 11839 SORRENTO VALLEY R 2979 RIDGEFIELD AVE
BURLINGAME CA 94010-5154 SAN DIEGO CA 92121-1040 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6543
VERA M THEISS EVA M BROWN THOMAS J & JILL NASH
2974 RIDGEFIELD AVE 2796 RIDGEFIELD AVE 2978 RIDGEFIELD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6543 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6543 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6543
LANCE A JACKOLA
2980 RIDGEFIELD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6543 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6543
2986 RIDGEFIELD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6543
BERNICE C HILL JEFF KUESTER
2984 RIDGEFIELD AVE
. ARLES R CARTER
2988 RIDGEFIELD AVE
BARBARA A STROTHER LOUIS F JOHNSON
2990 RIDGEFIELD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6543 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6543 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6545
2990 WOODBURY CT
LAURA SKARVADA
2150 CORTE CIDRO
.-YLSBAD CA 92009-9010
THOMAS J CONNORS
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6544
2979 WOODBURY CT
CYD L & SIDNEY SHAW
2985 WOODBURY CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6544
DEBRA C NELSON BILLIE J KELLY
2986 WOODBURY CT 2 984 WOODBURY CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6544 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6544
ALEX & ALICE KREMER RUTH M FUQUA
21193 S MATTOON RD 170 ELY ST
ESTACADA OR 97023-8644 OCEANSIDE CA 92054-3858
JUDITH D WESTFALL CURTIS A ROBERTSON
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6545 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6545
2987 WOODBURY CT 2989 WOODBURY CT
RUBEN B LUJAN
2988 BRANDON CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6546 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6546 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6546
JACQUELINE ERSKINE GLEN TAYLOR
2990 BRANDON CIR 2992 BRANDON CIR
HARRY P ACHENBACH DERK & ERIKA FOLKERT
16416 WIKIUP RD
RAMONA CA 92065-4644
SHERI LUONGO
2998 BRANDON CIR 2996 BRANDON CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6546 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6546
W H DRAPER EULANA M BASTONE ERIC VANHAMERSVELD
OCEANSIDE CA 92049-0381 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6547 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6547
PO BOX 381 3002 BRANDON CIR 3003 BRANDON CIR
ROBERT L DAVIS
3001 BRANDON CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008-6547 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6546 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6546
NOUHADE DAOU KAREN S KELLY
2999 BRANDON CIR 2997 BRANDON CIR
EDWARD MARTINET JAMES L GATES
2995 BRANDON CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6546 VISTA CA 92084-3415
RICHARD L KRANTZ
924 ALYSSUM RD 1332 ARCADIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009-3907
STALEY RUSSELL K EST OF HILARY JOHNSON
1880 HARBOR ISLAND DR 3 3999 SAN AUGUSTINE WAY RICHARD G CROSS
SAN DIEGO CA 92101-1019 SAN DIEGO CA 92130-2261 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6546
2982 BRANDON CIR
-
YLIAM B EVANS
2978 BRANDON CIR LEO J & BEVERLEY MILLER
2970 BRANDON CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008-6546 MONTEBELLO CA 90640-2847 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6546
SKEWES
537 E LOS AMIGOS AVE
GLENN THOMASHOW FRANCES T ROBLES M BATEMAN
2966 BRANDON CIR
'"'LSBAD CA 92008-6546 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6546 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7041
3513 HASTINGS DR 2962 BRANDON CIR
WILLIAM J BRYANT ROBERT T & JUDY HUTTON SANDRA B RAY
2963 CAPE COD CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6548 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1929 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6548
2959 CAPE COD CIR 1264 OAK AVE
ELEONORE MCNABB
2957 CAPE COD CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6548 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6548 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6548
CHRIS J KALIVAS RAYMOND & PEGGY KEERS
2955 CAPE COD CIR 2953 CAPE COD CIR
MONICA C NAVA
2951 CAPE COD CIR
RAYMOND R SERLES JANET A BIEBER
2952 CAPE COD CIR 2954 CAPE COD CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6548 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6548 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6548
DAVID J & MARY CROWDER
2956 CAPE COD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008-6548
DAVID L PHILLIPS
8603 CALMOSA AVE
WHITTIER CA 90605-1526
FRANK A PUGLIESE
4544 CAMBRIDGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008-6550
COLETTE NESBIT
4545 CAPE COD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008-6549
JAMES M & MARILYN HOPE
4558 CAPE COD CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6549
aAVERA HILLS I 2727 HOOVER
FIELDS TR THOMAS R PROTZELLER
1761 MOUNT HAMILTON DR 2960 CAPE COD CIR
ANTIOCH CA 94509-8816 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6548
JACKOB YERMIAN STEFFAN & SHAWNEE COX
3218 LONE JACK RD ENCINITAS CA 92024-7011 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6550
4542 CAMBRIDGE WAY
STACEY C GOODSON WARREN E & DORIS JENKS
4546 CAMBRIDGE WAY 4548 CAPE COD CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6550 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6549
ROBERT SANTONI JANET GOSSELIN
4552 CAPE COD CIR 4554 CAPE COD CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6549 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6549
CAPE AT CALAVERA HILLS
3900 HARNEY ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92110-2825 SAN
CALAVERA HIL
/51-:6:5 2727 HO
CALAVERA ~
/"-
AL CITY 91950-6625
CALAVERA HILL
2727 HOOV
CITY 91950-6625 91950-6625
*** 93 Printed ***
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, [DATE], to consider a
request for a Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit to allow the subdivision and
the Calavera Hills Master Plan, on property generally located at the southwest corner of
construction of a 117 unit multifamily air-space condominium development within Village E-1 of
Carlsbad Village Drive and College Boulevard, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7 and
more particularly described as:
Parcel A of Parcel Map 16233, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on September 21, 1990, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623.
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after [DATE]. If you have any
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map and Condominium
Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you
challenge the Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public
hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 01-03/CP 01-01
CASE NAME: CALAVEFW HILLS VILLAGE E 1
PUBLISH: [DATE]
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NT
CALAVERA HILLS
VILLAGE E4
CT 01-03/CP 01-01
TO: Honorable Mayor Claude Lewis, Ray Patchetk, City Manager, Councilmembers: Julianne Nygaard, Ramona Finella, Matt Hall, Ann Kulchin
I have been attending your City Planning Workshops and City Council Meetings for the past 3 years concerning the rezoning and developments of Villages. E-1 and Village Y at The Cape in Calavera Hills. I commend you & your Staff in your dedication for always
considering &e best iakxsts of it's citizens - it is "oagoing" which demands many extra hours over and beyond the call of duty .. .. you all do an excellent job. At present, McMillin Developers are within a few months of proceeding with their development on E-1 which is my main concern. Future College Boulevard (when completed) willbe within 10 ft. of our southeasterly boundary at Ridgefield Avenue where I live.
Many of our backyards borders the northeastern boundary of our community next to the proposed E-1 . McMillin's development plans presently calls for increasing the grading level to a height of 9 ft. above our present ground level before erecting their 3-story Condos. This was never pointed out to us by the city Planning Staff (Eric Munoz & Don Turner in those
early years) at Staff & Council Meetings or by McMillin Builders. PLEASE NOTE !
6L 1) California is noted for mudslides during a rainy season - drainage will at a high risk inasmuch as Calavera Hills sets on top of hard mountain shale. Built-up land will easily loosen along with rain & run down the sloped hillside into our backyards jeopardizing our yards & homes. (Why 9 ft. - no one
wants a neighbor looking down into their private domain - OR, their soil !)
2) McMillin had previously told us there would be no windows facing The Cape to preserve the privacy of each homeowner. NOW, their new drawing plans call for windows facing our backyards. (If windows are a MUST. why not
stained, block windows.?)
Many of us homeowners at The Cape take pride in our backyard, landscaped gardens with
fountains and ponds which brings a calming & aesthetic touch of nature to our lives after fighting the bitter battle of commuting on our freeways to reach the safety of our homes . .. .. our little comer of the world ! Isn't it enough that we must bear the impact of busyhoisy future College Boulevard so close to our backyards ? Please take your time to review and give this concern your immediate attention to keep our neighborhood the fine
community that we all enjoy. Thank you for reading my message !
Very truly yours,
cc: Mike Grimm, Planning Dept. Dou't D+. &a& me 7+! 720-0246
76 a
September 10,2002
The Honorable Claude A. "Bud" Lewis
Mayor Pro Tern Ann 3. Kulchin
Councll Member Ramona Flnnila
Councll Member Matt Hall
Council Member lullanne Nygaard
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Vlllage Drlve
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Calavera Hills Vlllage E-1-Agenda Item 18
Dear Mayor Lewls and Councll Members:
This letter Is. being written to volce concern and opposition to the proposed Negatlve Declaration and
Tentative Tract Map and Condornlnium Permlt which wlll be presented to the City Council for approval
on Tuesday evening, September 10,2002. I respectfully request that the Councll delay approval of
the plan until the grading and prlvacy Issues are clarlfled.
I am a homeowner who Ilves at 2976 Ridgefield Avenue, which is on the backslde of the proposed
development. Currently, it Is belng proposed that the development be graded to -prior
to the start of bullding (m& Muhqthan the homes on the backlde of the development). The
proposed development Is slated to bulld two-story condominium unlk which Include an attached
third-story unlt in the middle. Between the nine-foot grade and the height of the actual units, a
-wIII be Incurred. The new homeowners will have full view of not only
my backyard but my nelghbors' yards as well.
In speaklng wlth Brlan Millch of McMillin Cos., and reviewing the development plans, I have voted
concerns with him and wlth the Planning Commission (in a written statement at the August 7, 2002
Plannlng Cornrnlsslon Meetlng) regardlng the loss of privacy and the need for "enhanced landscaping"
to protect our privacy. One Commlsslon member voiced concern while the others dld not feel it
would be a problem. The Cornmlsslon requested that McMillln meet with me regarding my concerns.
A meetlng was scheduled and I notlfled the president of The Cape at Calavera Hills Homeownen
AssociaUon, Gordon French. I asked hlm about notlfylng the other nine homeowners of the meetlng,
and he stated that he dld not feel it was necessary as the other homeowners falled to show any
interest by attendlng the Comrnlsslon Meetlng. I then requested that he notify Ms. Bernice Hlll as she
did attend the meetlng. The notlficatlon was never glven as he sald that he had gotten busy and
forgot to tell her. I personally invlted Blil Champlon, a nelghbor of mlne who is knowledgeable in real
estate and property matters, to attend the rneetlng. I had specific questlons regarding the grading
and landscaping that was belng offered in a proposal from McMiliin (Please refer to letter dated July
31, 2002). I notifled Brian Mlllch's offlce that Mr. Champion would be attending the meetlng. When
he arrlved, Gordon French denied access to Mr. Champion because he was offended by his presence.
According to Mr. Champion, Mr. French stated that it was a prtvate rneetlng and Intended only for
homeownen (whlch was not true). Thus, I was denled representatlon at the meeting where I could
have a soundlng board to fully appreciate the optlons and ask pertinent questlons.
The Honorable Claude A. "Bud" Lewis
Mayor Pro Tern Ann 3. Kulchln Council Member Ramona Flnnila
Council Member Matt Hall Council Member JuQanne Nygaard
Cky of Carlsbad September 10,2002
Page 2
At the meetlng, I found out that In additlon to stalrwell wlndows, there would be porch lights on the
side facing my backyard. I asked if the wlndows In the stalmell would have glass that would dlffuse
the Ilght that will [Ilumlnate from the stairwell area. I was not given an answer and directed to go look at a development called Portico whlch Is off Melmse. Since that time, I have visited the
development both In the day and nlght tlme and my concerns have only Increased. I have taken a
number of pldures of the Portlco development to support my concerns that will be available for your
revlew at the meeting.
I cordially lnvite all Clty Councll members to my home to appreclate the full Impact the E-1
Development wlll have on me as a homeowner as well as the other nlne homeowners. It will be
essential that planner, Mlke Grlm, be present as well as a city engineer. I would like to request that
the Englneering Department of the Clty of Carlsbad provlde vlsual alds to see exactly where the nine-
foot grade will start and where the flnlshed development will stand (especially the third story) and Its
impact.
It took a long time for me as a parent to purchase a home in Carlsbad. I chose the City of Carlsbad
for the swong dedlcation to the promotlon of farnllles In the community and the wonderful
opportunltles It provides for children. My family and I will be remaining In our home and community
for years to come-McMillln will only remaln In the communlty as long as there are development
opportunltles.
Again, I respectfully request that the Negatlve Declaratlon and Tentative Tract Map and Condominium
Permlt be delayed thls evenlng untll the grade is clarlfied. It is totally unclear as to the net effect the
nine (9) foot grade wlll have on each IndMdual homeowner affected In my neighborhood. I have
only obtained the lot plans yesterday and have not had time to have an englneer revlew them to see
how It would affect us as homeowners. A meetlng was held yesterday between Brian Mlllch and his
representatlve, and Blll Champion, Warren Jenks and myself. At the meetlng, Brlan stated he would
provide some drawings for review of the lot lines. These have not been seen at thls tlme. It would
not be prudent to proceed wlth approval of this plan untll all questions are answered, Including how
they will be preparlng to grade the land. Please note that slnce I have purchased my home In
October 2001, there has only been one general meetlng that I have been made aware of where d
homeowners have met wlth McMlllln and that was in luly 2002. All other meetlngs have been
indlvidual.
W- Eva M. Brown
2976 Ridgefield Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 730-3256 (unllsted)
r
!
Eva Brow
2976 Ridgcficld Aven.ue
Cntlahad, California Y100A
IvfcMillin i>rwI.lpmot of Village E-1 . ..- " ".".__._ - .I . - _" ., I . _. . . ..I
DCPI' Eva:
Your Board of Directors would lib to invite you to anend a meeting regarding the plans for the Village E-l developmnt.
Wednesday. July 3 1.2002
530 p.m. at the Community Center .. .
. . ., 2991 Glargov Drive
ibplescntetivos from McMillin, Don Mitchell and Brim Mitchell will present the plans for the Ll
developmen1 rnd specifically the Area benveen the E-! development and your hackyard. The Assacinrim
anornoy, either lay Hanxit 'or' Torn Garlin. will anend the meeting as well as the Board uf Directors and Management.
developrnenr. McMillin will give a general presentation fo all tho Cape homeowners.
Following this special meeting of the ten homeowners whose property line is next 10 the GI
This is a very important lneefing I:ory.ou 10 attend,
~:,~~~~v~~~~~~~Sii~~~~~~~~~~~~gl)lisme~i~~.~~d~sc~:.w,hos~~~~~~~~iI~~:~.~76~!??3~S~~~1~~17:
FOR rp BOARD OF DIKECTORS
Sincere!)..
Helen Yakuly, CCAkl . Communi\) Aimciutian Manager
The Cepe @ Calavera I1OA ' '
:I
Cc: Bonrd of Directors HI0 Fila #: 4.9-022
[PSIEN ~RlNHELl & HOWHE 9980 Carroll Canyon Rd. 2nd Floor Tel 858.527.0111
San Dlego, CA 92131 Tel 800.300.1704
www.epaten.com Fax 858.527.1531 AlTORWEY8 AT LAW
July 31, 2002
To: Owners Adjacent to McMillin "Village E-1''
Re: Caoe at Calavera Hills Homeowners Association
Issues Relating to Village E-I Project
Our File No. 7206.01
Dear Hmmowners: .- -_ -
The Board of the Cape at Calavera Hills has asked us to prepare this letter concerning
issue6 relating to McMillin's "Village E-1'' residential development that will be built on the vacant
land adjacent to your homes. We understand that representatives of McMillin have been in touch
wlth you. They have also been in contact with the Board of the Cape.
You may be aware that McMillin is proposing to construct a wall between Village E-1 and the Cape. Currently, there are wooden fences that roughly track your rear property lines. The true
boundary line between your lots and Village E-1 would fall somewhere between the wall and your
fence. This would leave a type of "no man's land between your fence and the Village E-1 wall,
most ofwhich will either be a slope, or a slope plus some space at the top of the slope. We also
understand that Village E-1 will be somewhat elevated, as McMillin uses fill to increase the
elevation of the adjoining property. McMillin had proposed a lot line adjustment that would
essentially deed the 'no man's land" property to each of you owners. McMlllln would have to
resetve about 3 feet of space on your side of the wall as an easement to enable Village E-1 to
perform periodic maintenance and repairs on the wall, as necessary. If you took over this property,
it would involve moving your fence line out to meet up with the McMillin wall. It would also require
the written consent of each owner end each of your lenders.
The Association had legal concerns about the proposal fora lot line adjustment for different
reasons. A lot line adjustment would change the legal description of your lots. and the consent of
your lenders would eifeciiveiy moaiiy the mongage to conform to the new boundarles. The
lines of the recorded covenants (CC&R6) through a simple process. According section Article IX, problem from the Association's perspective is that the Association cannot change the boundary
Section 1 of the Declaration, additional property can be annexed (and thus covered under the
CC&Rs) by the Association only upon the vote of U3rds of all members. As you may know, it is
very diftlcult to obtain approval from an absolute percentage of homeowners. regardless of what
majority is required. This is generally not due to opposition but rather to apathy. Owners generally
wish to be left alone and to retain the status quo, but any owner who chooses not to vote is
effectively a negative vote when an absolute percentage is needed. The larger the number of
owners to begln with, or the hlgher the required percentage for approval, the more difflcult it is to
obtaln the approval. Also, as the percentage of non-resident owners increases. approval also
becomes increasingly dlfflcult.
are currently under consideration. The flrst is that McMillin would give owners the right to use the
As a result, we discussed the matterwith McMillin representatives, and thefollowlng options
adjoining property, but it would not change the legal description of your property or deed the no
SIN DIE00 I RANC~O CUCAMON~A
09/18/2802 15: 15 THE RLLEN GROUP + 97209461 1' '
. ..
I
NO. 926 D85
The Owners Adjacent to McMillin "Vlllage E-1''
June 17,2002
Cape at Calavera Hills Homeowners Association
Page 2
man's land property to you. Instead of a lot line adjustment. McMillln would require owners to enter into something like a "maintenance and indemnity agreement." A mainlenance and indemnity
agreement would give you the right to use the adjoining property and lo extend your fences into
it. In exchange. you would be obligated to assume the maintenance responsibililyforthe area, and
you would have to agree to provide insurance and to indemnify McMillin (or the Village E-1
Association), in case someone were injured on the property you were using and sued McMillin (or
Ihe Village E-1 Association) based on their ownership of the property. The second option is that
McMillin would leave the "no man's land" in place. McMillin or Village E-1 would continue to
maintain the property between your rear fence and the Village E-1 wall. ..
These matters will be discussed with the owners who appear at the meeting with McMillin
on July 31, 2002. We will also mail a copy of this letter to each of the affected owners who is
Association. c/o Helen Yakelv. Bruner and Rosi Manasement. Inc.. 1930 Souih Hill St.. Suite 110.
unable to attend the meeting on July 31. If you have any questlons, please direct them to Ihe
"- . . .
Oceanside.. CA 92054, E-Mail: &&&BrunerR&Mat.com: .Phone: ~ 760-433-6868, Far:
619-433-0507.
Very truly yours,
EPSTEN GRINNELL 8 HOWELL, APC
JWH:bsk
From: Bernice C Hill <bchill2984~juno.conl>
To: <mstr@ci.carlsbad.ci.us> Date: 9/8/02 1 1 :53AM
Subject: Village E-I -The Cape at Calavera Hills
Per request of Richard A. Reck, Please forward copies of this E-Mail to
Honorable Mayor Bud Lewis
Ray Patchette. City Manager
Ann Kulchin, Councilwoman
Ramona Finella, Councilwoman
Julie Nygaard, Councilwoman
Matt Hall, Councilman
place Sept. 10. 2002 concerning the adoption of a Negative Declaraton
I am sending this E-Mail relating to the City Council Meeting taking
concerning the construction of a 117-unit condominium within Village E-I
of the Calavera Hills Master Plan as my workload may not allow me to
attend this meeting.
I strongly support the comments on the issues addressed in my neighbor,
The elevation and drainage of E-I land use should match the present land
Bernice C. Hill's, letter to you dated last Friday, September 6, 2002.
site and not be built higher than it presently stands - - - a 3-story,
6-Plex and 3-Plex condo units with balconies built on top of a 9 fl. land
The Cape. There is also the "windows" issue - McMillin
site would tower over B invade the privacy ofthe adjoining neighbors at
Developers originally advised us there would be NO windows facing The
Cape neighbors' backyards to protect our privacy. New drawings now
show windows !
I have always appreciated the fine team and concern that you & your
Staff employ concerning City growth B development and again request that
you carefully review these important issues, as this will affect our
quality of life in our community and totally jeopardize the peace and
serenity that we Cape owners enjoy.
Thank You I
RICHARD A. RECK
4534 Hartford Place - The Cape
Carlsbad. CA
(760) 720-9143
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.comlget/web/.