HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-21; City Council; 17052; Riva GardensCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# 17,052 TITLE:
RlVA GARDENS
CT 01 -1 2
DEPT. PLN
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
I
DEPT. HD.
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2003-025 , APPROVING the Tentative Tract
Map for the Riva Gardens single family residential subdivision.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On December 4, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended
approval of the Tentative Tract Map for the Riva Gardens single-family residential subdivision with a
7-0 vote. The proposed project entails the subdivision of two parcels, totaling 1.14 acres, into five
single-family residential lots. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,144 square feet to 10,000
square feet in area. Two of the proposed lots would be in a panhandle configuration, taking access
off of Adams Street. The subject properties are located at the northwest corner of Adams Street and
Chestnut Avenue. The site is currently occupied with two single family residences, which are
proposed to remain after recordation of the subdivision. No grading is proposed with the subdivision
and no additional residential buildings are proposed at this time.
The project site is designated Residential Low-Medium density (RLM) in the City’s General Plan. The
allowed density for that designation is 0.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per developable acre and the Growth
Management Control Point is 3.2 units per acre. The proposed subdivision would create a density of
4.6 units per acre, which is 1.4 units over that allowed by the Growth Control Point. Section II.C.l of
the Land Use Element of the General Plan allows for the development of up to five (5) dwelling per
acre on RLM designated properties where the zoning designation would permit a slightly higher yield
on the property. The units would be withdrawn from the.excess dwelling unit bank in accordance with
Council Policy No. 43.
The only public testimony regarding the Riva Gardens proposal at the Planning Commission hearing
was from the property owners of the adjacent property to the west. Their concerns dealt with the
potential reflection of sound off of the six-foot high sound wall required along the project’s westerly
boundary. In response to the testimony, the Planning Commission revised Condition No. 14 of
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5317 to require that the wall be constructed and/or treated with
a material that would reduce the sound reflection to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. The
adjacent property owners testified that the proposed condition addressed their concerns.
The proposed development is consistent with the City’s General Plan, Zone 1 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 Riva
Gardens single-family residential subdivision.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The proposed five-lot subdivision over 1.14 acres qualifies as an in-fill development project pursuant
to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposal is consistent with the applicable
General Plan policies and zoning regulations and would not result in any significant effects to traffic,
noise, air quality or water quality. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or
threatened species. Therefore, the project is exempt from further environmental documentation; in
making this determination, the Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section
15300.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project. A Notice of Exemption will be
filed upon final project determination.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,052
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. 2003-025
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5317
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 4,2002
5. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 4,2002.
1
2
f
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP FOR THE RlVA GARDENS SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF ADAMS STREET AND
CHESTNUT AVENUE, IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT.
CASE NAME: RlVA GARDENS
CASE NO: CT 01-12
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on December 4, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law to consider a Tentative Tract Map; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 21'' day of
January , 2003, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Tentative Tract
Map, and at the time received recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all
persons interested in or opposed to CT 01-12,
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 the application for a Tentative Tract Map
to subdivide I .I4 acres into five lots, including two panhandle lots, on property generally
located at the northwest corner of Adams Street and Chestnut Avenue, as shown in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5317, and the findings and conditions of the
Planning Commission as set forth in that resolution, on file with the City Clerk and made
a part hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council except that
Condition No. 14 shall read:
1
2
c
4
C *
E
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
’3 1
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“The developer shall install a six-foot high solid noise attenuation wall
along the westerly boundary of the subdivision to reduce the noise levels
incurred by the Interstate 5 freeway, in accordance with the applicant
submitted noise analysis. The developer shall construct and/or treat the
wall with materials designed to reduce the noise reflection and to enhance
its appearance, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, concurrent
with the construction of the homes on lots 3 and 4.”
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad held on the 2IST day of Januaw ,2003 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Hall and Packard.
NOES: Council Member Finnila.
ABSENT: None.
E M. WOOD, City Clerk
EXHIBIT 2
SITE
RIVA GARDENS
CT 01-12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5317
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
SUBDIVIDE 1.13 ACRES INTO FIVE LOTS, INCLUDING TWO
PANHANDLE LOTS, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CHESTNUT AVENUE
AND ADAMS STREET, IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: RIVA GARDENS
CASE NO.: CT 01-12
WHEREAS, Joseph and Nadja Spano, “Developers/Owners,” has filed a
APPROVAL OF CARCSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 01-12 TO
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lots 5 and 6 of the Optimo Tract, according to Map No. 1805,
filed in the Office of the County Recorder on September 4,
1924, 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 Exhibit “A” dated December 4, 2002, on file in the Planning Department
RIVA GARDENS - CT 01-12, as provided by Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning .Commission did, on the 4th day of December 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.
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CT 01-12 - FUVA GARDENS based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
FindinPs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as
conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any
applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State
Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the lots
being created satisfy all minimum requirements of Title 20 governing lot sizes and
configuration, and have been designed to comply with other applicable regulations
including the One-Family Residential (R-1) zoning designation.
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for low-medium and medium density residentiai
development on the General Plan, in that the proposed five-lot single family
subdivision is the same or similar to surrounding development.
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 will 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 Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed
by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs
against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental
resources.
That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that there are no environmentally sensitive plant or animal species within
the project area.
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 is
conditioned to comply with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit requirements.
PC RES0 NO. 53 17 -2- 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
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 December 4,2002 including, but not limited to the following:
A) The proposed density of 4.41 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the
provisions of the RLM land use designation as contained in Section II.C.l of
the General Plan Land Use Element;
B) The closure of driveways and relinquishment of access rights on Chestnut
Avenue reduces the number of intersections and potential traffic movement
conflicts on the roadway;
C) The project is conditioned to pay the affordable housing in-lieu fee at time of
building permit issuance;
D) The project will provide a six-foot high noise attenuation wall along the
westerly boundary to reduce the noise from the Interstate 5 freeway;
E) The project is conditioned to provide an automatic fire sprinkler system for
the future structure on Lot No. 4 due to the distance from Adams Street.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
Specifically,
A) The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified
School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities.
B) Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and
will be collected prior to issuance of building permit.
C) The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be
collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
That the 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
PC RES0 NO. 53 17 -3 - 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
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
21.
22.
23.
will not be adversely impacted, in that the existing public facilities were sized to
accommodate the additional density in excess of the control point because the
surrounding development has not been developed to the Growth Management
Control Point.
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 ths project and in compliance with adopted City standards, in that the project
is conditioned to provide all necessary public improvements, as detailed below.
That the property cannot be served adequately with a public street without panhandle lots
due to unfavorable conditions resulting from unusual topography, surrounding land
development, or lot configuration, in that the depth and configuration of the existing
lots, and the relinquishment of access to Chestnut Avenue, do not allow the
necessary access to the northwestern and central portions of the property.
That subdivision with panhandle lots will not preclude or adversely affect the ability to
provide full public street access to other properties within the same block of the subject
property, in that the lots to the north are already developed with panhandle lots,
there are no lots to the east or south, and the existing property to the west is too
narrow to accommodate a future panhandle subdivision.
That the buildable portion of the panhandle lots consist of 12,340 square feet and 10,714
square feet, which meet the requirements of Section 21.10.080(c) of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code;
That the front, side, and rear property lines of the buildable lot, for purposes of
determining required yards, are as shown on Exhibit “A,” dated September 18,2002.
That any panhandle lot hereby approved satisfies all the requirements of Section
21.1 O.O80(d) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
That the Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects
that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the
environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 - In-Fill Develop-
ment Project of the State CEQA Guidelines. In making this determination, the Planning
Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the State CEQA
Guidelines do not apply to this project.
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.
PC RES0 NO. 53 17 -4- 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
Conditions:
Note:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to grading
permit or final map, whichever occurs first.
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 hrther 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.
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 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 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
PC RES0 NO. 53 17 -5- Id
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.
14.
that Plan prior to the issuauce of building permits, including, but not limited to the
following:
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 permits;
C) The Public Facility Fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will
be collected prior to issuance of building permit.
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.
At issuance of building permits, the Developer shall pay to the City an inclusionary
housing in-lieu fee as an individual fee on a per market rate dwelling unit basis in the
amount in effect at the time, as established by City Council Resolution from time to time.
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, hture and
existing schools, parks and streets.
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 fiom 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).
The developer shall install a six-foot high solid noise attenuation wall along the
westerly boundary of the subdivision to reduce the noise levels incurred by the
Interstate 5 freeway, in accordance with the applicant submitted noise analysis. The
developer shall construct and/or treat the wall with materials designed to reduce the
noise reflection, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, concurrent with the
construction of the homes on lots 3 and 4.
Enpineering:
15. 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
PC RES0 NO. 5317 -6- //
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
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.
There shall be one Final Map recorded for this project.
Developer shall install and maintain sight distance corridors at all street intersections in
accordance with Engineering Standards.
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.
Developer shall cause property owner to execute, record and submit a recorded copy to
the City Engineer, a deed restriction on the property which relates to the proposed cross
lot drainage as shown on the Tentative Map. The deed restriction document shall be in a
form acceptable to the City Engineer and shall:
A. Clearly delineate the limits of the drainage course;
B. State that the drainage course is to be maintained in perpetuity by the underlying
property owner; and
C. State that all future use of the property along the drainage course will not restrict,
impede, divert or otherwise alter drainage flows in a manner that will result in
damage to the underlying and adjacent properties or the creation of a public
nuisance.
Developer shall cause property owner to enter into a Neighborhood Improvement
Agreement with the City for the future public improvement of Adam Street along the
subdivision frontage for a half street width of 30-feet. Public improvements shall include
but are not limited to (paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, medians, grading,
clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire
hydrants, street lights, retaining walls, reclaimed water, and assessment district
engineering fees).
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.
Developer shall cause Owner to execute a covenant of easement for private access,
drainage and sewer purposes as shown on the Tentative Map. The obligation to
execute and record the covenant of easement shall be shown and recording information
called out on the Final Map. Developer shall provide City Engineer with proof of
recordation prior to issuance of building permit.
PC RES0 NO. 53 17 -7- /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
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
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. 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 execute and record 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. Remove driveways and replace curb, gutter and sidewalk along Chestnut
Avenue.
b. Install streetlight along Chestnut Avenue in accordance with City Standards.
c. Install a potable water/fire service along Adams Street to serve Lot 4
d. Install asphalt driveway approaches to serve Lots 1, 2,4 and 5 along Adams
Street.
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.
In lieu of preparing public improvement plans, Developer shall prepare and submit a
construction change in accordance with the submittal checklist to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. Construction change shall include the installation of a streetlight, removal
of driveways, replacement of curb, gutter and sidewalk along Chestnut Avenue and the
installation of a potable water servicehprinkler service along Adams Street.
Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map for lots 1 and
2 abutting Chestnut Avenue.
Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, latest version. Developer shall provide
improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the
"California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface
pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such
improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
PC RES0 NO. 5317 -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
30.
31.
32.
33.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
A.
B.
C.
All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, hngicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
Developer shall show on Final Map the net acres for each parcel.
Notes to the following effect shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data
A. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
the District Engineer determines that sewer and water facilities are available.
B. Within the sight distance corridor, no structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or
other object may be placed or permitted that obstructs comer sight distance
pursuant to Caltrans Standards. Owner shall maintain this condition in perpetuity.
Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Dieqo County Water
Authority capacity charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits.
The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at a location approved by
the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
Fire Department:
34. The future residential unit on proposed Lot No. 4 shall be equipped with an automatic fire
sprinkler system designed to meet NFPA 13D.
Code Reminders:
35. Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as
required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
36. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
PC RES0 NO. 5317 -9- l4
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.
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.
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 t.he satisfaction
of the City Engineer. 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.
...
...
..
...
PC RES0 NO. 53 17 -10- /5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
2e
2;
25
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of December 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None * -b
SEE TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
I PC RES0 NO. 5317 -1 1-
fhe City of Carlsbad Plrtnning Department EXHIBIT 4
A REPORT TO TEE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: July 28,2001
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 4,2002
Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle
Project Planner: Michael Grim
SUBJECT: CT 01-12 - RIVA GARDENS - Request for a Tentative Tract Map to allow the
subdivision of two parcels totaling 1.14 acres into five single-family lots,
including two panhandle lots, on property generally located at the northwest
comer of Adams Street and Chestnut Avenue, in Local Facilities Management
Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 53 17,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Tentative Tract Map CT 01-12, based upon the findings
and subject to the conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The proposal involves the in-fill subdivision of two existing lots totaling 1.14 acres into five
single-family lots, including two panhandle lots. A Tentative Tract Map is required to subdivide
the property. All subdivisions proposing panhandle lots must be reviewed and approved by the
City Council, regardless of size. The project meets all applicable regulations and staff has no
issues with the proposal.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Joseph and Nadja Spano are requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide two
existing residential properties into five single-family parcels. The project site is located at the
northwest comer of Chestnut Avenue and Adams Street and is comprised of a 0.55 acre parcel
and a 0.59 acre parcel. The project site is designated Residential Low Medium (RLM) in the
City's General Plan and is zoned One-Family Residential (R-1) with a minimum lot size of 7,500
square feet. The property is bound by Adams Street to the east and Chestnut 'Avenue to the
south. Across those streets, as well as to the north of the project site, is single-family residential
development. To the west is vacant residentially designated property currently under agriculture.
Each of the two existing parcels contains a single-family home, which are proposed to remain
after the subdivision. The rear yards of each home are currently used for open field agriculture.
The proposed subdivision would create five lots, ranging is size from 8,144 square feet to 10,000
square feet. Two of these lots would be panhandle lots, taking access off of Adams Street via a
shared paved driveway. The two existing homes would keep their access off of Adams Street
and the remaining lot would be accessed off of Chestnut Avenue. No grading would be needed
to develop the subdivision and all utilities needed to serve the proposed lots are in place. No
CT 0 1 - 12 - RIVA GARDENS
December 4,2002
Page 2
additional homes are proposed with the subdivision at this time, therefore no homes or future
utility connections are shown on the tentative map.
The proposed subdivision would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Due to the
proximity to the Interstate 5 freeway, a six-foot high solid noise attenuation wall would be
needed along the westerly subdivision boundary to reduce the noise levels. A standard noise
notice will also be recorded on the properties. As discussed below, the project complies with all
applicable regulations and staff has no issues with the proposed subdivision.
The Riva Gardens project is subject to the following regulations:
A. General Plan;
B. One-Family Residential Zone (Chapter 2 1.10 of the Zoning Ordinance);
C. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
D. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 2 1.85 of the Zoning Ordinance);
E. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance);
F. Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan.
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 Riva Gardens residential subdivision proposal is consistent with the applicable policies and
programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the residential development request are
the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Noise, and Public Safety elements. Table 1 below indicates
how the project complies with these particular elements of the General Plan.
1 TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
Element Compliance Proposed Use and Improvements Use Classification, Goal, Objective or Program
Land Use
1I.C. 1. Section 1I.C. 1 of the Land Use
range allowed through Section residential development and
units per acre is within the density medium (RLM) density
Yes Proposed density of 4.41 dwelling Site is designated for low-
dwelling units per acre.
Element allows for up to five (5)
CT 01-12 - FUVA GARDENS
December 4,2002
Page 3
Element
Circulation
Housing
Noise
Public Safety
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
Use Classification, Goal, Objective or Program
~ ~~~~~ ~
Use good road design to
minimize the number of intersections and other conflicting
traffic movements.
Require all subdivisions of fewer than seven (7) units to pay an
affordable housing in-lieu fee.
Enforce the City policy that 60
dBA CNEL is the maximum exterior noise level for residential
units.
Enforce the Uniform Building and Fire Codes adopted by the
City to provide fire protection
standards for all existing and
proposed structures.
Proposed Use and Improvements
Project proposes to close two driveways and relinquishment of
access rights on Chestnut Avenue
to reduce the number of conflicts and intersections on Chestnut.
Project is conditioned to pay the
affordable housing in-lieu fee at
time of building permit issuance.
The project is conditioned to
provide a six-foot high noise
attenuation wall along the westerly
boundary to reduce the noise levels, in accordance with an applicant submitted noise analysis.
Project is conditioned to provide fire sprinklers for Lot No. 4 due to
the distance between the future
structure and the access off of
Adams Street.
Compliance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Given the above, the proposed Riva Gardens residential subdivision .is consistent with the
applicable portions of the General Plan.
B. One Family Residential Zone
The Riva Gardens site is zoned One Family Residential (R-1) and therefore is subject to the
provisions contained in Chapter 21.10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Table 2 below describes the
project's conformance with those provisions.
~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~
TABLE 2 - R-1 ZONING COMPLIANCE
~~
Standard Compliance Proposed
Minimun Lot Area: The minimum lot
square feet. portion of the lot.
portion, measure a minimum of 8,230 square feet exclusive of the access
panhandle lots, excluding the access lots, the minimum lot area is 8,000
least 8,000 square feet and the proposed area is 7,500 square feet. For panhandle
Yes The proposed standard lots measure at
Front Yard Setback: The minimum The two existing homes would maintain a Yes front yard is 20 feet. minimum front yard setback of 29 feet.
CT 01-12 - RIVA GARDENS
December 4,2002
Page 4
TABLE 2 - R-1 ZONING COMPLIANCE
Standard Proposed
Side Yard Setback: A minimum of ten
a street side yard setback of over ten feet. feet for street side yard setbacks. ten percent of the proposed lot width and property lines and a minimum of ten
internal side yard setback of more than percent of the lot width for internal
The existing homes would maintain an
Rear Yard Setback: A minimum of The existing homes would maintain a rear twenty percent of the lot width. yard setback of more than twenty percent
of the proposed lot width.
Lot Width: A minimum of 60 feet, as
95 feet. access portion for panhandle lots.
panhandle lots have a lot width of at least standard lots and at the rear of the width of at least 70 feet and the proposed measured at the street frontage for All proposed standard lots have a lot
Lot Coverage: A maximum of 40 The two proposed lots with existing
percent. homes would have lot coverages of 12.5 and 13.2 percent.
Panhandle Access Width: For dual
feet wide. of 15 feet wide. proposed shared access driveway of 20 each access portion must be a minimum portions of at least 15 feet wide with a panhandle lots with a shared driveway, Both proposed panhandle lots have access
Compliance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Given the above, the proposed Riva Gardens subdivision is consistent with the requirements of
the R-1 zone, Chapter 21.10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
C. Subdivision Ordinance
Since the Riva Gardens proposal involves the subdivision of land, 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 mostly deal 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 Riva Gardens 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 surface curb system
within the public streets. There are also existing sewer lines within both Chestnut Avenue and
Adams Street. The proposed lots would take access off of both Chestnut Avenue and Adams
Street. 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.
CT 01-12 - RIVA GARDENS
December 4,2002
Page 5
D. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
The proposed residential subdivision is subject to the provisions of the Inclusionary Housing
Ordnance, Chapter 21.85 of the Zoning Ordinance. Since the project involves less than seven
lots, it is eligible to satisfy its fair share of affordable housing through the payment of an
affordable housing in-lieu fee. The project is conditioned to assess and collect the fee at the time
of building permit issuance for the undeveloped lots. The existing lots, each with an existing
single family home, would not be subject to the in-lieu fee. Given this requirement of the
project, the Riva Gardens residential subdivision is consistent with the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance.
E. Growth Management Ordinance
The Riva Gardens residential subdivision is subject to the provisions of the Growth Management
Program, as contained in Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance. Since the proposed project
exceeds the maximum density allowed by the Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 dwelling
units per acre for the Residential Low Medium density designation, a withdrawal from the excess
dwelling unit bank is needed. The withdrawal of units from the bank is regulated through City
Council Policy 43. According to that policy, infill single family subdivisions that meet all
development standards and where the proposed lot sizes will be equal or greater than adjacent
subdivided properties are among the projects that are given first priority for the withdrawal of
units from the bank. As of March 2001, there were 1,339 excess dwelling units in the Northwest
Quadrant Dwelling Unit Bank, more than enough to fulfill this withdrawal.
With regard to the facility requirements of the Growth Management Program, Table 3 below
details the project’s conformance with those standards.
Open Space
The project is 1.4 units above the Growth Management Control Point.
Yes 1,100 GPD Water
Yes 5 EDU Sewer Collection System
Yes Carlsbad Unified Schools
Yes da
CT 01-12 - RIVA GARDENS
December 4,2002
Page 6
F. Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan
The project site lies within the Local Facilities Management Zone 1. There are no special
conditions contained in the Zone 1 LFMP that apply to this residential subdivision. Once the
proposed lots are developed, the developer will be required to pay the appropriate public
facilities fee, water and sewer connection fees, traffic impact fees, and school fees. All facility
. improvements necessary to accommodate the development will be in place prior to, or
concurrent with, development. Therefore, the Eva Gardens residential subdivision is consistent
with the Zone 1 LFMP.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed five-lot subdivision over 1.14 acres qualifies as an in-fill development project
pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines. As discussed above, the proposal is
consistent with applicable General Plan policies and zoning regulations. The project is within
the City limits, on a property of less than five acres, and would not result in any significant
effects to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. The project site has no value as habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species. In addition, the site can be adequately served by all
required utilities and public services. Therefore, the project is exempt from further
environmental documentation; in making this determination, the Planning Director has found
that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this
project. A Notice of Exemption will be filed upon final project determination.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 53 17
2. Location Map
3. Disclosure Statement
4. Background Data Sheet
5. Local Facilities Impact Assessment
6. Exhibit “A”, dated December 4,2002.
- City of Carlsbad
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
r Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will requlre
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commlssion or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
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. LEGG names and addresses of persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a comoration or Dartnershie include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
APPLICABLE OIJ/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclvswned cornoration, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Person JfJSFm Y- CorP/part NADJA A. SPANO
Title 01"INER Title OWNER
Address 2390 SPXUCE STRm, CARLSBAD Address 2390 SPRUCE STR~IC~~~
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN' 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
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 &e,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a comoration or DartnerShiD, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv- owned cornoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 @
3. NOK-PROFII ORGANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonmofit orean~zat~on or a msr. 11s: 1h.c
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non ProfitrTrust Non ProfivTmst
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of Cq staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (It) months?
Yes If_l NO If yes, plcase indicate person(s):
~ ~~ -
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
Signature of ownedapplicant's agent if applicablddate
Print or type name of ownedapplicant's agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98
a4
Page 2 of 2
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 01-12
CASE NAME: Riva Gardens
APPLICANT: Joseph and Nadia Suano
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a Tentative Tract Map to allow the subdivision of
two parcels totaling 1.13 acres into five single-family lots, including two panhandle lots, on
prouerty generally located at the northwest comer of Adams Street and Chestnut Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 5 and 6 of the Optimo Tract. according to Map No. 1805,
filed in the Office of the Countv Recorder on September 4, 1924. in the City of Carlsbad. Countv
of San Diego, State of California
APN: 205-1 12-1 1, -18 Acres: 1.14 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 5
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Residential Low Medium Density (RLM)
Density Allowed: 0.0 - 4.0 ddac Density Proposed: 4.4 ddac
Existing Zone: R-1 Proposed Zone: R-1
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning
Site R- 1
North R-1
South R-1
East R- 1
West R-1
General Plan
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RM
Current Land Use
Single family residential
Single family residential
Single family residential
Single family residential
Vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
0 Negative Declaration, issued
c] Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, Notice of Exemption pursuant 15332 - In-Fill Development Proiect
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: Riva Gardens - CT 0 1 - 12
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1 GENERAL PLAN: RLM
ZONING: R-1
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Joseph and Nad-ia Spano
ADDRESS: 2390 Spruce St., Carlsbad CA 92008
PHONE NO.: 760-729-8584 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 205-1 12-1 1. -18
QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 1.14 acres
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: December, 2003
A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 17.38
B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = 9.271
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 5 EDU
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = 0.035
E. Drainage: Identify Drainage Basin = PLDA B
F. Circulation: Demand in ADT = 50 ADT
G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = #1
H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = n/a
I. Schools: Carlsbad Unified
(Student Generation: Elementary = 1.17; Middle = 0.59; High = 0.72)
J. Sewer: Demands in EDU 5 EDU
K. Water: Demand in GPD = 1.100
L. The project is 1.4 units the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
Planning Commission Minutes December 4,2002
3. CT 01-12 - RlVA GARDENS - Request for a Tentative Tract Map to allow the subdivision of two
parcels totaling 1.14 acres into five single-family lots, including two panhandle lots, on property
generally located at the northwest corner of Adams Street and Chestnut Avenue, in Local
Facilities Management Zone 1.
Mr. Wayne introduced Item #3 and stated that the presentation would be made by Michael Grim.
Michael Grim, Senior Planner, stated that the item is a subdivision of two parcels totaling 1.14 acres into
five single-family lots at the northwest corner of Chestnut Avenue and Adams Street. The proposed
subdivsion would include two panhandle lots. By including one panhandle lot into the subdivision they are
deleting one of the access points off of Chestnut that is rather close to Adams Street and they feel this is
an improved circulation aspect. The lots would range from 8,100 square feet to 10,000 square feet. The
two existing homes located along Adams Street would remain and there are no homes proposed with the
subdivision. Mr. Grim noted that because of the proximity to the freeway, Condition No. 14 requires that
prior to the construction of the homes on the rear two lots, a six-foot high solid wall be constructed to
attenuate the noise to the City standards. He stated that Staff has no issues with the proposal.
Commissioner Baker asked if they had any idea on how the homes will be oriented on the panhandle lots
and wanted to know if someone’s front yard would be looking into the back of another property. Mr. Grim
replied that the proposal was a relatively typical layout. He said there were no special requests, so the
front yard would face where the driveways are accessing.
Commissioner Baker asked if there is any other way to avoid that configuration because she’s seeing a lot of this in the old part of town where they’re doing infills. They’re panhandles and they’re looking into the
back of the house in front of them. Mr. Grim said they would have a rear yard, which is someone else’s
side yard, especially when they’re on the corner. On the panhandle you will have a front yard which is
someone else’s rear yard. When the fronts and rears abut each other you’re getting the maximum
amount of building separation. On the most western part you’re going to have the rear yard of the lot on
Chestnut be the side yard of someone else’s. Because of the lot width you’re getting close to the
maximum 10-feet of side yard and 20-feet of rear yard so that‘s about the most separation you’re going to
be able to get.
Commissioner Baker asked if he meant on the north or on the west when speaking of the sound wall. Mr.
Grim replied that it‘s along the west property line.
Commissioner Baker asked if there are going to be two houses remaining and three new ones. Mr. Grim
replied that the two existing houses are proposed to remain. He said that‘s why the configuration of the
one panhandle on the southern side has such a large driveway because they wanted to make sure that
house maintains its existing front yard based on the lot dimensions and the definitions of front yards. He
said he didn’t know the long-term plans of the owner as to whether they’re going to demolish those houses
and build new ones or just build new ones on the three new lots. If the project gets approved the only
thing that would be required would be building permits to build the homes on the new lots.
Commissioner Baker asked what the rationale is for the density bonus. Mr. Grim said that this project was
still in the pipeline prior to Council directing the committee to study the excess dwelling allowance. One of
the priorities of Council Policy 43 is infill subdivisions that are achieving their minimum lot size. The RLM
designations allow up to four units an acre per the General Plan. Comparing that to an R-1 7500 zoning,
which allows lots a minimum of 7,500 square feet, when doing the math it‘s more than four units per acre.
There’s a policy in the General Plan that allows up to five units an acre within an RLM designation if you
are implementing your zoning. He also noted that since the lots are up to 10,000 square feet, the
applicant does not request to go down to the minimum allowed of 7,500 square foot lots.
Commissioner Dominguez said he noticed in the March 2001 evaluation there were 1,339 excess dwelling
units left in the northwest quadrant and asked what it is down to after the Council meeting. Mr. Wayne responded that the Council reduced it to 2,800 but allowed for the addition of new excess dwelling units
and Staff estimates there will probably be about an additional 1,000, so there will be approximately 3,800
at the end. The direction from Council is to monitor the progress and there is really no quadrant
differentiation at this point. There are 3,800 technically and plenty to go around for this kind of project.
Planning Commission Minutes December 4,2002 Page 6
Commissioner Dominguez asked if there wouldn’t be any quadrant allocations, just overall application.
Mr. Wayne replied there may have to be eventually because of Prop E. If one quadrant is getting a disproportionate number of excess dwelling units it could theoretically exceed quadrant caps. That‘s why
they have been requested by Council to monitor the situation so that can’t happen.
Chairperson Trigas opened public testimony.
Alvin Rose, 1060 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad, stated they live directly west of the subdivision. He said he
has no complaints about the subdivision but had a concern about the sound wall, which is going to be
about ten feet from his house. He wanted to know if they build a sound wall to stop the freeway traffic
from bothering them, does that mean it’s going to bounce off that wall into his house. The main noise
from the freeway goes from west to east so he was concerned if they would have all kinds of extra noise
at his house. He said Mr. Grim thought there shouldn’t be any reason they couldn’t alleviate it some way
by taking a sound check before and after they put the wall up. If it does make more noise they could do
something on the wall to reduce it. Marie Rose, 1060 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad, said they live left of the complex. She said they moved
there in 1959 and mentioned how noisy the traffic has become. She said their phone reception is very
noisy in some rooms. She said pollution, coal dust, and oil that hits their patio will hit that wall and she
wishes they would put the sound wall up on the freeway. She said she knows the noise will bounce off the
wall.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Trigas closed public testimony.
Mr. Grim said he spoke with Mr. Rose and he also called the applicant‘s consultant to have him speak with
the acoustical engineer on a preliminary basis. They assured him there are materials or treatments they
can put on walls that greatly reduce the attenuation of noise off of that wall so Staff is recommending that they add an addendum to Condition No.14 of Resolution 5317 that requires the sound wall. It could be
augmented with another sentence at the end that says, “the developer shall construct and/or treat the wall
with materials designed to reduce the noise reflection to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
concurrent with the building permits for those adjacent properties.” That way instead of just going through
a normal building permit review for those two homes, the Planning Department would take an active role in making sure the noise reflection is brought down the greatest extent possible.
Commissioner Baker wanted to make sure the materials would be attractive since the wall is close to
them. Mr. Grim said that‘s why they have the caveat, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Applicant Joseph Spano, 2309 Spruce Street, Carlsbad, said they are prepared to do whatever is
necessary so they don’t create a negative situation to any of the neighbors. He said they could consult
with Mr. Rose to make sure he is satisfied with what they’re going to do.
Chairperson Trigas closed public testimony.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 531 7, recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map CT 01-12, and adding an addendum to Condition
14 to coat the sound wall with a material that will alleviate some of the sound problems to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, based upon the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
Chairperson Trigas asked if they needed to add anything to the motion.
Mr. Grim added the following: The developer shall construct and/or treat the wall
with materials designed to reduce the noise reflection to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director concurrent with the building permits for those adjacent
properties.
Planning Commission Minutes December 4,2002 Page 7
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Segall wanted to know if there is any way of measuring it technically to know what that bounce would be. Mr. Grim said the difficulty in measuring is that the noise evaluation is going to based
on the buildout of the freeway, so the neighbors are not getting the maximum amount of noise from the
freeway as it is. It‘s modeled for that. They can design the wall to reduce the reflection as much as possible using the materials in that location but all the noise analysis is based on future buildout of the
freeway.
Commissioner Segall said what he was trying to understand is that they’re building a wall to mitigate
sound for people on the east side of the wall but could be creating a situation that increases noise on the
west side, and he has a problem if they create any additional noise. He asked how they measure it so
they don’t create any additional noise for the Roses by mitigating the others. Mr. Grim said they would
refer to experts on the materials that are available to reduce the amount of reflection of that noise to the
greatest extent possible.
Commissioner Segall asked what happens if they don’t put up a wall. Mr. Grim replied that the project would not be consistent with the noise guidelines and there could potentially be inconsistency with the
General Plan because they’re not reducing the noise to the levels required by the General Plan and noise
guidelines. In order for the project to go forward, since it‘s within the area of the freeway that would be
subject at buildout to noise in excess of 60 dB CNEL, they need to require the noise wall. He said the
Roses brought up a very good point that attenuation of the wall means the wall itself is blocking the noise and will reflect back, therefore, we’re adding the condition that we either construct or treat that wall with
anti-noise reflection to the greatest extent possible.
Commissioner Segall said his problem is that they’re creating a situation where they’re going to mitigate
for one and someone that has been there for 43 years is going to potentially have additional sound, even if
it’s mitigated. Mr. Grim replied that if someone were to build a building on one of those existing lots, that building would also reflect the freeway noise onto the Roses, so any development in that area is going to
bounce the noise around. As development occurs around that area it could very well be that the property
to the west of the Roses develop and they get larger homes. The building of larger homes to the west
would actually attenuate some of the noise coming from the freeway. There’s also the unknown variable if
there will be a freeway expansion and what noise mitigation CalTrans may be required to do for that. It‘s a
rather dynamic environment.
Commissioner Segall said he understands if a building goes there and that there are some dynamics, but
to create a barrier to protect people from sound on one side of the wall and create additional on the other
doesn’t make sense to him. He said if he’s going to support this he wants to know what the thresholds
are. Chairperson Trigas asked if it‘s possible to ensure that it will not go beyond the noise threshold. Mr.
Grim replied that right now the Roses are experiencing noise that is already beyond the threshold for new
subdivisions and the noise will increase as the traffic on Interstate 5 happens. What we’re talking about is
to what extent do you retrofit an existing situation.
Commissioner Segall said the monaural sound they’re getting now will be stereo, they’ll get it on both sides. Mr. Wayne said there’s an issue that you’re going past and what he’s saying is that to the extent
feasible and any increase of noise is not significant. The ear can only pick up 3 dBA so increases in
measures of 3 dBA add up logarithmically. That’s the way sound is measured. What we’re trying to do is
create a situation where the new development will not substantially negatively impact the old development
and there are a number of ways to do this. The Roses can plant vegetation along the other side of the
wall. Vegetation does not block sound going through but it dampens it. There are number of rubberized
paints that will. When you split face and make a rough surface the sound starts to cancel itself. They’re
going to try to the greatest extent and consult with a sound expert on the way to do it. The applicant is willing to do that. As Mr. Grim said, the mere fact of putting up a wooden fence there would also have an
impact and we could not prevent a property owner from putting up a wooden fence. Mr. Wayne said he
thinks it will be a better situation in the end with the condition reworded.
Commissioner Segall asked if there’s any increase in noise then it would not be to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director. Mr. Wayne said that‘s not what he’s saying. You can increase the noise and not be
significant. There is going to be an increase in noise; there’s going to be an increase in noise when you
add three more families there, but that is not considered significant. He said we would shut down
Planning Commission Minutes December 4,2002 Page 8
development in this city if that were the case because adding any more people, there would be potential
for more noise. There’s only so far we can go in exacting and in conditioning this. We’re trying to be on
the reasonable side. He said he’s sure there’s going to be some discretion involved, but we’re not going
to all of a sudden let it increase by 20 dBA.
Commissioner Segall asked if the trees and vegetation indicated by Mr. Wayne as sound mitigation is part
of this or could it be incorporated as another method for mitigation. Mr. Grim said the developer is only
responsible for the construction on their property and typically people want to build their property line
fences relatively close to their property. As Mr. Spano alluded to, the existing fence may not even be on
the property line but actually on his property and may require demolition prior to building this wall. If we
require landscaping on the other side we would be reducing the setback of the buildings, and as Mr.
Wayne said, landscaping is typically not a very effective noise attenuation device. We’ve also added, to
the satisfaction of the Planning Director, which takes care of the aesthetics issue, so presumably
landscaping wouldn’t be necessary to hide the wall because it will be nice looking. We were building a
sound wall that mitigates the noise and now we’re adding to that to mitigate the noise reflection. He said
he thinks it‘s important to note that even if the subdivision were denied and never applied for, Mr. Spano
still has a right to build a solid masonry wall that could be smooth and reflect all the noise coming that way.
That‘s still allowed by the zoning because he wouldn’t have any discretionary permits; he could build a
home that would reflect it. The fact that we’re getting a subdivision in allows us to actually reduce those
impacts to the greatest extent possible for the Roses. This is a preferred situation for the neighbors
versus what he could do alone.
VOTE: 7-0-0
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, White,
Segall, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSTAl N : None
30
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, January 21, 2003 to
consider a request for a Tentative Tract Map to allow the subdivision of two parcels totaling
1.14 acres into five single-family lots, including two panhandle lots, on property generally
located at the northwest corner of Adams Street and Chestnut Avenue, in Local Facilities
Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as:
Lots 5 and 6 of the Optimo Tract, according to Map No. 1805,
filed in the Office of the County Recorder on September 4, 1924,
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 Friday, January 17, 2003. 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 Tentative Tract Map, if approved, is
established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Tentative
Tract Map in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised
at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City
of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 01-12
CASE NAME: RlVA GARDENS
PUBLISH: Thursday, January 9,2003
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
SITE
RIVA GARDENS
CT 01-12
' CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123'
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CITY OF CARLSBAD
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
PROJECT PLANNER
MIKE GRIM
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKSlENGlNEERlNG MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
DEPT
ANDY &CAROLYN IANYl
1629 CALLE LAS CASAS
OCEANSIDE CA 92056-6564
CITY OF CAR
PAUL A LAUBACH
183 CALLE MAGDALENA
ENClNlTAS CA 92024-3748
TR RAMOS
1052 CHESTNUT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2509
SUSAN T WALSH
3375 ADAMS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2502
SOUTHEASTERN ASSN
11330 PIERCE ST
RIVERSIDE CA 92505-3303
MARK YAMANAKA
3443 ADAMS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2504
JOHN W KING
75 CUTTER DR
WATSONVILLE CA 95076-2209
JOHN L & CHERYLE MATHEWS
3376 ADAMS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2501
OSBURN
3456 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2503
STEFAN0 &JOSEPHINE MIONE
10946 BELGIAN ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92126-2455
CHRISTOPHER &TERESA
STROBEN
3374 EUREKA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2519
MARIE E ROSE
1060 CHESTNUT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2509
KlYOAKl & KIYOKO DO1
3357 ADAMS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2502
CARLSBAD GIRLS CLUB
PO BOX 584
CARLSBAD CA 9201 8-0584
TINA M CASTELLANOS
3401 ADAMS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2504
JAMES R & JULIA SHRIVER 3437 ADAMS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2504
ERICK D &JANET STONE
15941 FOOTHILL BLVD
SYLMAR CA 91342-1004
VIRGINIA D THRASHER
3470 ADAMS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2503
CITY OF CAR d pYcy
NOE & ADEIA SANCHEZ
270 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-4061
CHIN L & YU TSAl
2958 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2359
HENRY & CONSUELO TREJ
PO BOX 281
CARLSBAD CA 9201 8-0281
KRISTIN KNICKERBOCKER
2278 VALLEY RD
OCEANSIDE CA 92056-3107
JAMES S & HEATHER
MACWHORTER
3447 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2504
DONALD R KRAWIEC
341 5 ADAMS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2504
BEATRICE H CARLSON
3390 ADAMS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2501
EDWARD SNEDEKER
3432 ADAMS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2503
GUY & DOLORES ROWLETT
3480 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2503
FRED K THORNTON 1170 CHESTNUT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-251 1
JUDITH T EDICK PO BOX 294
OCEANSIDE CA 92049-0294
P SISSON 3465 WOODLAND WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2558
DENNIS A & CAROLYN TIC0
3435 WOODLAND WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2558
TERRY T SCOTT
3440 WOODLAND WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008-2558
HELEN E WENDLAND
1044 PALM AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2547
ALBERT E STEIN 1097 CHESTNUT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-251 0
GARY L & DANA SERSHON 1703 ALVARADO ST
OCEANSIDE CA 92054-6026
MR & MRS WEEDMAN
1059 CHESTNUT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-251 0
RICHARD L DUQUETTE
1015 CHESTNUTAVE
STE A2
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2563
ROBERT C & CAROL BARRY THOMAS L & MONICA HALL
PO BOX 192 41 15 SKYLINE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0192 CARLSBAD CA 92008-3641
NICHOLS ERNEST C FRAZEE
1274 CHESTNUT AVE 1220 CHESTNUT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-251 5 CARLSBAD CA 92008-251 3
PAC CREST AT RANCHO SANTA J QUIRK 3455 WOODLAND WAY 3445 WOODLAND WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2558 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2558
SCOTT C & MARY SHARP MARC T CORRELL
3425 WOODLAND WAY 3430 WOODLAND WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2558 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2558
WILLIAM & DONNA GARDNER BUSCHER
3450 WOODLAND WAY 3460 WOODLAND WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2558 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2558
DERRICK TR KATHERINE I CARCELLA
607 FREMONT ST 1081 CHESTNUTAVE
UPLAND CA 91784-1915 CARLSBAD CA 92008-251 0
JEFFREY B FARRELL DIANE CVETICHAN
3565 ADAMS ST 1080 PALM AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2506 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2547
FRANK M BELL CHARMION B MCMILLAN
PO BOX 151 121 2 268TH ST NE ANAHEIM CA 92815-0151 ARLINGTON WA 98223-5527
HELMUT & JENNIFER PFEIFFER RUBEN L & LUDlVlNA GARCIA
1055 CHESTNUT AVE 1047 CHESTNUT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2510 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2510
JANE J &JOHN DORE ARO PARTNERS
1015 CHESTNUT AVE B2 1015 CHESTNUTAVE
STE B2 STE A3
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2563 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2564
* RICHARD & CYNTHIA MACGURN RICHARD & MARILYN GUEVARA CARRANZA
1015 CHESTNUTAVE 1179 MONTEREY PL 1015 CHESTNUTAVE
STE E3 ENCINITAS CA 92024-1340 STE B3
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2565 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2564
PAUL & ROBERTA KAPLAN RICHARD 0 & ELLIE WATTLES
3660 CARLSBAD BLVD 3871 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008-8208 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2701
RICHARD & CYNTHIA MACGURN
1015 CHESTNUTAVE 3660 CARLS
STE E3
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2565
ROBERT F HOULDIN STEPHEN J MOORE MUKUND L & MADHU SHAH
PO BOX 232493 1015 CHESTNUT AVE C2 3570 PI0 PIC0 DR
ENCINITAS CA 92023-2493 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2563 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2599
CINNAMON APARTMENT SNODGRASS JUNE SNODGRASS JUNE L
580 BEECH AVE A 1065 PALM AVE 3980 ADAMS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1657 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2548 CARLSBAD CA 92008-3503
.JUNE SNODGRASS HAROLD R & VIOLET BOWLING TAKAYAMA
1065 PALM AVE 1075 PALM AVE PO BOX 4248
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2548 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2548 CARLSBAD CA 92018-4248
'ROBERT & MARGARET GARROW ERIC P & GRACE WONG GERALDINE A HOLT
3643 ADAMS ST 5318 VALLEY VIEW RD 3780 HANCOCK ST G
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2508 PALOS VERDES CA 90275-5089 SAN DIEGO CA 921 10-4328
DOLORES A CASTRO DIONE P KAEBISCH FISCHER VICTOR 1995 MAGNOLIA AVE 3995 SYME DR 3630 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2632 CARLSBAD CA 92008-3569 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2507
JAMES R SWAB
PO BOX 194
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0194
DAVID A & PAMELA DVORAK MR & MRS BAASCH RlCCl A VELASQUEZ
1197 CHESTNUT AVE 1173 CHESTNUT AVE 3504 WOODLAND WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2512 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2512 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2560
- CHESTNUT VILLAS ASSN CHESTNUT HOMES LLC MELLOR FAMILY TRUST
PO BOX 1282 2541 STATE ST 2585 PI0 PIC0 DR
LA JOLLA CA 92038-1282 STE 202 CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JG&@H E & NADJA A SPANG 2390 SPRUCE ST CARLSBAD CA 92008