HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-08; City Council; 17236; Calavera Hills Village WCALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
CT 01-OSIPUD 01-06 MTG. 7-8-03
DEPT. PLN 4 CITY ATTY. ~3% I CITY MGR a
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2003-184 , ADOPTING the Negative
Declaration, and APPROVING the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development for the
Calavera Hills Village W single-family development.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Village W is designated for single-family development in the Calavera Hills Master Plan, on a net
developable area of 23.9 acres. On November 20, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of the Tentative
Map for the 114 unit single-family project by a 7-0 vote.
However, the corresponding planned unit development permit (PUD 01 -06) was not recommended
for approval by the Commission due to issues with the lack of architectural variety between the
single-family developments within Ca!avera Hills.
On June 4, 2003, the Planning Commission again considered PUD 01-06 with revised architectural
styles proposed. The revised architecture implements Spanish Colonial, Craftsman and Italian
Rustic styles and is substantially varied from the approved architecture in the other single-family
villages of the master plan. The Commission supported the revised architecture and now the
combined entitlement package of CT 01-05 and PUD 01-06 is being recommended for approval to
the City Council.
The site is currently being mass-graded in accordance with the Master Tentative Map for Calavera
Hills Phase II, as approved by the City Council on January 15, 2002. The proposed units would be
developed in accordance with applicable Citywide and Master Plan architectural criteria including two
story, single-story and reduced second story units.
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Growth Management Plan
and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and implements the Calavera Hills Master Plan as
well as the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan. Staff and the Planning Commission are
recommending approval of Village W.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The potential environmental impacts associated with the creation and grading of the Village W site
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 Village W project will not create any significant adverse environmental impacts. The
Planning Director has issued a Negative Declaration for CT 01-05 and PUD 01-06. No comments
were received during the public review period.
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,236
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impacts to the City are negligible since all development fees will be collected at the time of
grading and building permit issuance. All public facilities necessary to serve the development will be
in place prior to, or concurrent with, future development.
EXHIBITS:
2003-184 1. City Council Resolution No.
2. Location Map
3.
4.
5.
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 531 1, 531 2, and 5420
Planning Commission Staff Reports, dated November 20,2002 and June 4,2003
Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 20, 2002 and June 4, 2003.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Eric Munoz, (760) 602.4608, emuno@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
d
’
1
1
t
I
E
5
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-184
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CALAVERA
EAST OF FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF THE
INTERSECTION OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND CARLSBAD
VILLAGE DRIVE, IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT.
CASE NAME:
HILLS VILLAGE W SINGLE-FAMILY PROJECT, LOCATED
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
CASE NO.: CT 01-05/PUD 01-06
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on November 20, 2002 and June 4, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing
as prescribed by law to consider a Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, and Planned Unit
Development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 8th day of
JULY , 2003, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Negative
Declaration, Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development, and at the time received
recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or opposed to CT
01 -05/PUD 01 -06; 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 adopts Resolution No. 2003-184 and that the
findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 531 1, 5312, and 5420, on file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by
reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council with the addition of the following
condition: Prior to the issuance of building permits for the model homes, a disclosure form for
home buyers and signage for the sales office shall be developed by the applicant. The
disclosure form and signage shall be subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and on-
site inspection by Planning staff. The disclosure form and signage shall indicate (1) that the
adjacent College Boulevard roadway along with Cannon Road, both four-lane arterials, are part
of the approved circulation within the Calavera Hills Master Plan and the City’s General Plan;
and, (2) that the slope behind Lots 75-93 will be restricted by an easement in favor of the HOA
to be responsible for maintenance of landscaping and watering and will not be available for
private homeowner use.
3. That the applications for a Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit
Development for an 114 unit single-family development on property generally located west of
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
future College Boulevard, south of the intersection of College Boulevard and Carlsbad Village
Drive, are approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 531 1, 5312, and 5420.
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which .has been
made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed in
the appropriate court not later than the nineteenth day following the date
on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the
decision becomes final a request for the record of the deposit in an
amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such
record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is
extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the
record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney
of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the
record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of
Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA. 92008.”
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 8th day of JULY 1 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall, Packard
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
SEAL
-2-
EXHIBIT 2
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
CT 01-OS/PUD 01-06
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
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5311
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 114 UNIT
VILLAGE W OF THE CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN
LOCATED EAST OF FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD,
SOUTH OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVEKOLLEGE
BOULVARD INTERSECTION IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 7.
CASE NAME:
SINGLE-FAMILY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
CASE NO.: CT 01-OSPUD 01-06
WHEREAS, Calavera Hills 11, LLC, “Developer~’/”Owner,’’ has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Portion of Lots “D” and “J” of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map 823, filed in the Office of the San Diego
County Recorder on November 6, 1896, also being Lot 2 of
Carlsbad Tract No. 00-02
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of November, 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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
25
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit "ND" dated September 26, 2002, and "PII" dated
September 17, 2002, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
FindinPs:
1. The Pldng Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration and the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any. comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project;.and
The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part 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 20th day of November, 2002, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Segall,
White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 531 1 -2-
Citv of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: Villages X and W within the Calavera Hills Master Plan, generally
located east and west of future College Boulevard south of the
College BlvdCarlsbad Village Drive intersection in the Northeast
Quadrant.
Project Description: 1 15 single-family detached homes (Village X)
114 single-family detached homes (Village W)
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 Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4608.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 26,2002
CASE NO: CT 01-06/PUD 01-07 AND CT 01-05lPUD 01-06
CASE NAME: VILLAGE X AND VILLAGE W
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 26,2002
Planning Director
@ 1635 Faraday Avenue 0 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 * FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
8
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 01-05PUD 01-06 and CT 01-06PUD 01-07
DATE: SeDtember 17,2002
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Calavera Hills Village W and X
2. APPLICANT: McMillin Homes
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2727 Hoover Ave. National
City. CA 92950 (619) 336-3138
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: May 17,2001
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative MaD and Planned Unit DeveloDment for the
construction of two single family Villages within the Calavera Hills Master Plan: Village
X proposes 115 units and Village W proposes 114 units, generally located on both sides
of future College Blvd. south of the intersection of College Boulevard and Carlsbad
Village Drive. in Local Facilities Management Zone 7.
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 Ix] TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral 0 Aesthetics
c] Water 0 Cultural Resources
Air Quality 0 Recreation
Resources
0 Hazards
Noise
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
9
0 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 (b) 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.
J Planner Signature
Planning Direct08 Signhre
Date
ld0L
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTALIMP d! CTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be’ mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 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). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 0 0 UIXI
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 IXI (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
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 0 0 0 IXI vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. 0 0 0 IXI impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 0 0 El
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0
0 0 Ix1
0 0 El
4 Rev. 03/28/96
a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
in or expose people to potential impacts
involving: Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-
Landslides or mudflows? (#1 :Pgs 5.1 - 1 - 5.1 - 15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions fiom excavation, grading, or fill?
Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#1 :Pgs
(#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
1 - 5.1-15)
(#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#1 :Pgs 5.2- 1 - 5 ..2- 1 1)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#l':Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) Changes in the quantity of ground watcrs, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#1 :Pgs 5.2-1 -
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
5.2-1 1)
5..2-11)
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
5.2-1 1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#1 :Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
Potentially otentially
Significant
Impact
0 0 0
cl
0 0
.o 0 cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ix1
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
incorporated
0 0
0
0 0
CI 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
0 0 0
0
CI 0
CI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5 Rev. 03/28/96 13
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#1 :Pgs
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-
5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
12)
12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCATION. Would the
proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#1 :Pgs
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-
24) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-
24) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1 :Pgs
(#1 :PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
pool)? (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
5.4- 1 - 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 &
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Potentially otentiallv
Significit Significai
lmpact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0 0
0 0
IXI 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
CI 0
0 0
LessThan No
Significant Impact
Impact
D IXI
0 0
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 1x1
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
cl IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
6 14 Rev. 03/28/96
a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs
5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
E. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion' or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
(#l:PgS 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 -
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 5.9-15)
(#l:PgS 5.9-1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following
areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
C) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
5.12.8-7)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-
7)
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
* e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Potentially a otentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated 17 0 0 1x1
0 0 0 Ix1
0
0 cl
0 0
0 0
ISI
IXI
[XI
[XI
0 0 0 IXI
cl 0 [XI
cl 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 IXI
7 Rev. 03/28/96 /g
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2- 1 - 5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
Create light or glare? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 1 - 1 - 5.1 1-5)
(#l:PgS 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
(#l:PgS 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#1 :Pgs 5.8-1 -
Disturb archaeological resources? (#1 :Pgs 5.8-1 -
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
5.8- 10)
5.8- 10)
10)
(#l:PgS 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#1 :Pgs
Affect existing recreational opportunities?
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
(#l:PgS 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS . OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0 a
El
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a otentiallv
Significait
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0 0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant impact
0 0
0
0
a‘
c3
0 o
0
0
CI
8 Rev. 03/28/96 I6
e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentiallv otentiallv Less Than No
Significit Significai Significant ~rnpict
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
lncomorated
c) Does the project have environmental effects c] 0 0 IXI which will cause the substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
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, Carlsbad,
California, 92008. (760) 602-4600.
1. Update of Geotechnical Report, Calavera Hills Villages W. X and Y Citv of Carlsbad,
California, dated October 20, 1999, Geosoils, Inc.
2. Interim ReDort of Geotechnical Investigation, Calavera Heights Villages - W. X and Y
Carlsbad. California, dated March 20, 1990, Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc.
3. Noise Technical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11 Village W. Citv of
Carlsbad, California, dated May 1,2002.
4. Noise Technical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1 Village X. Citv of
Carlsbad, California, dated August 13,2002.
9 Rev. 03/28/96 /7
a DISCUSSION OF EVALUATION
The project involves the construction and occupation of two single-family villages within the
Calavera Hills Master Plan: 115 detached single-family units within Village X and 114 detached
single-family units in Village W. Both sites will be created through the recordation of the Master
Tentative Map for Calavera Hills Phase I1 (CT 00-02) and will be mass graded in accordance
with that map.
The potential environmental impacts associated with the grading of Villages X and W site were
reviewed through the Environmental Impact Report for the Calavera Hills Phase I1 Master
Tentative Map (EIR 98-02, SCH No. 991 11082), certified January 15,2002. The Environmental
Impact Report also reviewed the impacts associated with the development of Village X with up
to 117 single-family units; and Village W up to 121 units. These maps propose less units than
allowed by the master plan and comply with all design and development standards. EIR 98-02,
as certified, also reviewed the potential environmental impacts associated with the major. public
improvements required for the buildout of the master plan including Villages X and W.
Since the development of Village X and W cannot proceed until the Master Tentative Map (CT
00-02) has been recorded, and the site has been graded in accordance with that map, the
following environmental analysis deals only with the development of Villages X and W and the
project differences compared to the EIR. The differences center on revised noise studies (which
does not result in more or higher walls than those analyzed in the EIR) and a reduced unit
amount (proposing less units than allowed by the master plan).
College Boulevard separates the Village X and W sites. The proposed single-family residential
uses are compatible with all of the existing and future uses allowed by the master plan.
The residential designation of both Villages is Residential Medium (RM) in the City's General
Plan, allowing up to 8 dwelling units per developable acre. The proposed densities of 4.6
(Village X) and 4.8 (Village W) is within the RM range. The project site is zoned P-C (Planned
Community) and, according to the Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP 15O(H)), both sites are to be
developed in accordance with the R-1 - Single Family Residential Zone, except as modified in
the Master Plan. The proposed developments will consist of single-family residential units with
open space and common recreation lots. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan
and meets all development standards and design criteria of the Master Plan and the R-1 zone.
The proposed development would necessitate approximately 60,000 cubic yards (Village X) and
65,000 cubic yards (Village W) of balanced grading subsequent to the mass grading associated
the above referenced master tentative map (CT 00-02). 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 be provided
throughout construction and Fire Marshal approval would be required prior to the storage of any
hazardous materials on site.
The residential project would take access off of future College Blvd and would generate 1150
(Village X) and 1140 (Village W) average daily traffic trips, which can be accommodated by
existing and required road segments in the area.
The project will be required to comply with the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System ("DES) Permit through the implementation of Best Management Practices, thus
reducing the amount of pollutants entering the public storm drain system. All facilities needed to
10 Rev. 03/28/96
a serve the single-family will be provided prior to occupancy, in association with the
Phase I1 Master Tentative Map grading and improvement plans. In addition, the Carlsbad
Unified School District has stated that there are adequate school facilities to serve the proposed
apartment project.
Noise wall locations and heights are not greater than those covered in the earlier analysis (EIR
98-02) and the proposed unit yields are less than the maximums allowed by the master plan.
These two elements represent the variation in the project as reviewed by the master plan’s
certified environmental review (EIR 98-02) and now proposed. Given the above analysis, the
previous environmental documentation and the site-specific technical reports, the proposed
projects for Calavera Hills Villages W and W 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 “non-attainment basin”, any additional air
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered
by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR
11 Rev. 03/28/96
e CIRCULATION:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan would result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning
Department.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance.
Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED/SOURCE DOCUMENTS CITED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. , Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5312
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT CT 01-05 TO
SUBDIVIDE 23.9 ACRES INTO 114 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS
WITHIN THE CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN, VILLAGE
W, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF
FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF THE
COLLEGE BOULEVARD/CARLSBAD VILAGE DRIVE
INTERSECTION IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 7.
CASE NAME:
CASE NO.: CT 0 1-05
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
WHEREAS, Calavera Hills 11, LLC, “Developer”/“Owner,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as:
Portion of Lots “D” and “J” of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map 823, filed in the Office of the San Diego
County Recorder on November 16, 1896, also being Lot 2 of
Carlsbad Tract No. 00-02
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map as shown on Exhibits “A” - “RR” dated November 20, 2002, on file in the Planning
Department CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W - CT 01-05 provided by Chapter 20.12 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 20th day of November, 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:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
01-05 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W - CT
Findinw :
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 single family development conforms to the City’s Subdivision Ordinance
(by satisfying lot size and subdivision provisions) and has been designed to comply
with other applicable regulations including the Planned Development Ordinance
and the Calavera Hills Master Plan.
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for single family and multi-family residential
development on the General Plan, in that the project implements the approved master
plan for Calavera Hills.
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
PC RES0 NO. 5312 -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.
habitat, in that the proposed 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 frontage with 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 November 20,2002 including, but not limited to the following:
The proposed density of 4.8 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the existing
RM General Plan designation;
The project minimizes the number of access points to major and prime arterials by
using College Boulevard for access consistent with Engineering standards;
The project includes a noise study with recommendations to reduce the traffic noise
impacts from College Boulevard to 60 dBA CNEL;
The project provides a mixture of architectural styles, contributing to the diversity
of housing within the master plan and City; and
The project will provide emergency water systems and all-weather access roads
throughout construction.
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 W site as 121 units (114 proposed) and all facilities within the zone are
planned to accommodate this maximum amount of dwelling units.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements 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.
PC RES0 NO. 5312 -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
27
28
13.
14.
15.
16.
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 projecffmap, whichever occurs first.
1 If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Tentative Tract Map.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map documents, as necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
PC RES0 NO. 5312 * -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
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 PUD 01-06 and is subject to all
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5313 for that other
approval, incorporated by reference.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
and the City’s Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
The Developer shall 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
PC RES0 NO. 5312 -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
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. General Enforcement bv the Citv. 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.
B. 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.
C.
D.
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
the City shall have tlle right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary
maintenance. If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give
written notice to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project,
setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required
and requesting the same be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty
(30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to
carry out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots andor 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.
, Section
Special Assessments Levied by the Citv. In the event the City has performed the
necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association’s
Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs
incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and
or Association’s Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to
each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to
pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection
against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said
invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of
receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full
within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be
subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of
the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by
means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available
to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot
in the Project for an equal prorata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such
special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing
lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in
the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special
assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal
actions andor to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and
ab PC RES0 NO. 5312 -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
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
hisher respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration.
E. Landscaoe Maintenance Responsibilities. The HOAs and individual lot or unit
owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth in Exhibits “R” - “Y,” dated November 20,2002.
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
“N” -“Q,” dated November 20,2002.
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 sign. The facilities
shall be designed to enhance or be consistent with basic architectural theme of the
project.
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.
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 PUD Permit by Resolutions No. 5312 and 5313 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
A7 PC RES0 NO. 5312 -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
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
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).
Open Space Lot 122, which constitutes General Plan Open Space in Village W in
compliance with the Calavera Hills Master Plan and Certified EIR 98-02, shall be
dedicated to a third party environmental manager with a conservation easement
dedicated to the City of Carlsbad concurrent with final map approval, to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Engineerinz:
General
25. 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.
26.
078 PC RES0 NO. 5312 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs and/or 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.
The final map for the Master Tentative Map CT .OO-02 shall be recorded prior to the
recordation of the Final Map for this Tentative Map.
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.
The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on any improvement,
grading, or landscape plan prepared in association with this development.
Building permits for this project will not be issued beyond the cumulative traffic
generation of 2,500 ADT by‘ building permits issued for all Calavera Hills Phase I1
projects if the roadway improvements connecting College Boulevard from Carlsbad
Village Drive southerly to El Camino Real have not been completed. Additional
permits may be allowed subject to approval of the City Engineer based on
substantial completion of the required roadway improvements. A note to this effect
shall be included in the Final Map.
FeedAareements
33.
34.
35.
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.
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
PC RES0 NO. 5312 -9- aQ
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
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.
36. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street
Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
Grading
37. 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.
38.
39. This project requires off site grading. No grading for private improvements shall occur
outside the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records and submits a
recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or slope easement or agreement from the
owners of the affected properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope
easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must
either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading
will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial
conformance from both the City Engineer and Planning Director.
DedicationsAmprovements
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
PC RES0 NO. 5312 .lo- 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
A. Streets "A," "B," and "C."
B. Traffic signals at the intersections of Streets "A" and "C" with Colleg
Boulevard.
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 Iisted 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 College Boulevard.
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
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:
1. Identify construction activity and post-development on-site pollutants of
concern.
2. Recommend structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs)
to remove said pollutants.
3. 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.
4. Ensure long-term maintenance of all post construction BMPs in perpetuity.
5. 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 streetlights 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 sidewalks 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.
PC RES0 NO. 5312 .11-
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
Utility
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
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 Carlsbad.
At the discretion of the District Engineer, wider easements may be required for adequate
maintenance, access and/or joint utility purposes.
Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Dieno County Water
Authoritv capacity charne(s1 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.
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.
Final Map Notes
57.
58.
Developer shall show on Final Map the net developable acres for each parcel.
Note(s) to the following effect(s) 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 Streets "A," "B," "C," and the traffic signals.
PC RES0 NO. 5312 -12- 32
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.
C.
D.
E.
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 sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design
Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this
condition.
No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object may be placed or
permitted to encroach within the area identified as the Caltrans intersection
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:
59. All building permit applications for units adjacent to native open space/preserve
areas shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
60. The Developer shall submit for Fire Marshal review and approval a 400 scale mylar
showing the location of all proposed fire hydrants.
Code Reminders:
61. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
62. 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.
63. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
64. 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.
65. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map
approval becomes final.
PC RES0 NO. 5312 .13- 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
66. 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.
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
“feedexac tions .”
You have 90 days from date of approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you
protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
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 feedexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
e..
...
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5312 -14-
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
C mmission
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular*meeting of the Planning
f the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of November, 2002, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Segall,
White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSTAIN: None
-Ch YT
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 53 12 -15- 35
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. 5320
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
06, TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION AND CONSTRUCTION
OF A 114 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN VILLAGE W OF THE CALAVERA
HILLS MASTER PLAN LOCATED EAST OF FUTURE
COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF THE CARLSBAD
VILLAGE DRIVEKOLLEGE BOULEVARD INTERSECTION
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 7.
CASE NAME:
APPROVAL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PUD 01-
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
CASE NO.: PUD 0 1-06
WHEREAS, Calavera Hills 11, LLC, “Developer”/”Owner,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as:
Portion of Lots “D” and “J” of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map 823, filed in the Office of the San Diego
County Recorder on June 6,1896, also being Lot 2 of Carlsbad
Tract No. 00-02
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planning Unit
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “BB” dated June 4, 2003, on file in the
Planning Department, CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W - PUD 01-06 as provided by
Chapter 2 1.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 4th day of June, 2003, 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 PUD Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.. 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
01-06, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W - PUD
Findinm:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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 density (RM) General Plan designation as it
has a density of 4.8 dwellings per acre. The project complies with the development
standards and design criteria of the Calavera Hills Master Plan for detached single-
family homes.
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 single-
family units 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, traffic calming and
livable street features are proposed, and the internal street system has a minimum
width of 34 feet.
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 development of Village W conforms to the Habitat Management Plan
open space boundary on the east side of the project.
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 single family residential
product type and density are consistent with the master plan’s single family
residential and multifamily residential land uses that surround it. The proposed
architecture of the project complies with all master plan and planned development
ordinance criteria and will complement the variety of high-quality single-family
architectural style throughout the master plan.
PC RES0 NO. 5420 -2- 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. That the project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integated with
the project and does not dominate the project.
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 Planned Unit Development.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the PUD 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 PUD, (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 01-05 and is subject to all
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5312 for that other
approval, incorporated herein by reference.
The landscape exhibits (“K” and “L”) shall be revised to reflect HOA common
maintenance for both planting and irrigation on the slope between Lots 75-93.
38 PC RES0 NO. 5420 -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
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, declications,
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 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 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 feedexactions 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 4th day of June, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson
COMMISSION
ATTEST:
4.4-
MICHAEL J. HO-ME~ER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5420 -4- 39
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: November 20,2002
Item No. @
Application complete date: August 26, 2002
Project Planner: Eric Munoz
Proiect Engineer: Frank Jimeno
SUBJECT: CT 01-05/PUD 01-06 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W - Request for
approval of a Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, and Planned Unit
Development Permit to allow the subdivision and construction of a 1 14 unit single
family development within Village W of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, on
property generally located east of future College Boulevard, south of the College
Boulevard/Carlsbad Village Drive intersection, in Local Facilities Management
Zone 7.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 53 1 1,
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director
and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5312 and 5313 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of Tentative Tract Map CT 01-05 and Planned Unit Development Permit PUD 01-
06, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The proposal involves the subdivision and construction of a 114-unit single-family project within
Village W of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. Village W will be mass graded in accordance with
the Calavera Hills Phase I1 Master Tentative Map (CT 00-02). A Tentative Tract Map is required
for the subdivision of property and final grading. A PUD Permit is also being requested. The
project meets all applicable regulations and staff recommends approval.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development
Permit to allow the subdivision and construction of a 114-unit single-family project within
Village W of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. The 36.3-acre site of Village W has a net
developable area of 23.9 acres.
MP 150(H) now allows up to 121 detached single-family homes on Village W. This project
proposes 114 units and complies with all necessary city policies, standards, and master plan
criteria.
Village W is bounded by College Boulevard to the west, vacant Limited Control zoned property
to the south, General Plan Open Space to the east and Village U (multi-family village) to the
north. Village W is designated Residential Medium (RM) in the City's General Plan, allowing
up to 8 dwelling units per developable acre with a Growth Management Control Point of 6
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 4
CT 01-05/PUD 01-06 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
November 20,2002
Page 2
dwelling units per acre. The proposed density is 4.8 dwelling units per acre and is within the
allowable General Plan range.
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, the Village W standards, and general provisions of the Master Plan.
The proposed development would consist of 114 single-family homes that comply with the
master plan’s single-family development criteria for architectural variety and articulation. These
criteria include: minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft., a mix of single-storyheduced second story
homes and two story homes, architectural variety, plan variety, setbacks, garage placement, front
porches, front entry features and recreation areas. The Village W proposal complies with or
exceeds all of the above noted master plan criteria for single-family development within Calavera
Hills. Four versions of the following architectural styles will be represented in Village W:
Monterey, Craftsman, Spanish Colonial and Santa Barbara.
The single-story units will be under 17 feet in height with approximately 2,050 square feet
(including garage). The reduced second story units will be approximately 21 feet in height with
the second story being no more than 25% of the first floor area. Total square footage of the
reduced second story units (including garage area) is approximately 2,575 sq. ft. The proposed
two-story units area will be under 25 feet in height with total square footage range of
approximately 3,090 to 3,300. A 34-foot internal street system will serve the project and sewer
and water services will be available. Recreational amenities include three common passive areas
as allowed by the master plan. These areas will include tot lots, bocce ball court and children’s
play equipment. Every unit will also have the required amount of private rear yard recreation
space. The project’s fair share of affordable housing is being provided at the Master Plan level in
Village Y (SDP 01-05), therefore none is included in this project.
The proposed development would necessitate approximately 65,000 cubic yards of cut and fill,
after the mass grading of CT 00-02. The development would also include retaining walls. The
project site would take access off of future College Boulevard to the east and would generate
1,140 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) trips, which can be accommodated by the collector street and
College Boulevard, which is a major arterial. The project is 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.
Due to the project’s proximity to College Boulevard, the master plan/EIR required that a site-
specific noise study be conducted. That noise study indicates that noise attenuation walls are
needed along some of the project’s perimeter units facing west towards College Boulevard.
These walls would range in height from 3 to 6 feet, are compliant with the master plan’s noise
wall design that limits solid block wall height to 6 feet, and are incorporated into the project
design.
The project is depicted on Exhibits “A” - “RR” dated November 20, 2002. The Calavera Hills
Village W project is subject to the following regulations:
CT Ol-OS/PUD 01-06 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
November 20,2002
Page 3
~~
Proposed Use and
Improvements
A. General Plan;
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP 150(H));
Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance);
Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance); and
Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 7.
Compliance
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 W 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.
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
Element
Land Use
Circulation
Noise
Use Classification, Goal,
Objective or Program
Site is designated for medium
density (RM) 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.
Proposed residential density of
4.8 dwelling units per acre is
below the 6.0 dwellings per
acre maximum allowed in the
RM designation.
Yes
The project design has two
access points off of College
Boulevard, in accordance with
Engineering standards and
traffic calming measures
designed internal to the site.
Yes
The project includes a noise
study with recommendations to
reduce traffic noise from
College Boulevard to 60 dBA
CNEL.
Yes
CT Ol-OSPUD 01-06 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
November 20,2002
Standard
Allowed Uses:
Maximum of 121 detached ’
single-family residential units.
Page 4
Proposed Conformance
Proposed project is 114 detached
single-family residential units
Yes
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
Setbacks: Per PD Ordinance
(no arterial setbacks involved)
Element
Compliance
Housing
Public
Safety
Use Classification, Goal,
Objective or Program
New housing developed with
a diversity of types, prices,
tenures, densities, and
locations to meet the demand
of anticipated City growth.
Provision of emergency water
systems and all-weather
access roads.
Proposed Use and
Improvements
The project provides a mixture
of architectural styles; and the
single-family product type in
this master plan contributes to
the diversity of housing within
the 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.
Compliance
~
Yes
Yes
Given the above, the Calavera Hills Village W single-family project is consistent with the City’s
General Plan.
B. Calavera Hills Master Plan
The proposed 114-unit project is within Village W 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
Yes
Architectural Criteria Compliance with elements of .architectural criteria; includes
architectural styles of: Monterey, Craftsman, Italian, Spanish Colonial and Santa Barbara
Yes
Single-Story : 10 units Reduced 2-Story: 20 units Two-Story: 84 units Total: 114 units
CT 01-05PUD 01-06 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
November 20,2002
Page 5
TABLE 2 - CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN CONFORMANCE
Standard
Building Height:
Maximum of 30 feet to the
peak of the roof.
Recreation Area:
Minimum of 100 square feet
per unit of common recreation
area (for 114 units, a minimum
of 11,400 square feet is
required).
Design Criteria:
Access via College Boulevard.
A fencehrellis plan shall be
approved in conjunction with
the condominium permit.
~
Proposed
Proposed highest structures
measure 25 feet in height, to the
roof peak.
Three passive recreation areas
contain a total of 21,207 square
feet of common recreation area
consistent with master plan
criteria.
The project proposes access off of
College Boulevard
A fencekrellis plan is provided on
Exhibits “N”-“Qy.
Conformance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The inclusionary affordable housing requirement for this village is being satisfied by the
development of Village Y and the Calavera Hills Affordable Housing Agreement.
Given the above, the proposed single-family project is consistent with the provisions of the
Calavera Hills Master Plan.
C. Subdivision Ordinance
Since the Calavera Hills Village W project involves a subdivision into 122 lots (1 14 of which are
residential 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 W 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. The on-site sewer system would be connected with the existing system in
College Boulevard. Water distribution would involve looped service from the existing lines in
College Boulevard. No standards variances are needed to approve the project. Given the above,
CT 0 1 -05/PUD 01 -06 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
November 20,2002
Page 6
Standard Proposed
the subdivision provides all necessary facilities and improvements consistent with the
Subdivision Ordinance.
Conformance
D. Planned Development Ordinance
Storage Space:
All units must contain a minimum
of 480 cubic yards of storage space.
The Calavera Hills Master Plan states that Village W shall develop in accordance with 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 (Village I - RV Storage) that
serves the entire master plan. Therefore, the proposed project is subject to the Planned
Development Ordinance standards regarding visitor parking, private streets and driveway, and
storage space. Table 3 below details the project’s conformance with these remaining
development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance.
Each unit has a minimum of
480 cubic yards of storage
space via 2-car garages per unit
Yes
Visitor Parking:
For projects over 10 units, 5 spaces
for the first 10 units and 1 space per
every 4 units above 10 (for 1 14
units, a minimum of 31 spaces is
required).
The project provides 128 guest
parking spaces distributed
throughout the project site.
Yes
I I Streets:
Minimum of 34-foot wide streets
from curb-to-curb with parkways.
The proposed streets measures
34 feet curb-to-curb and is
adjacent to 7.5-foot wide
parkways.
Yes
Given the above, the proposed single-family project is consistent with the applicable portions of
the Planned Development Ordinance.
E. Growth Management Ordinance
The Calavera Hills Village W 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 4.8 dwelling units per net developable acre is within the Growth
Management Control Point of 6.0 dwelling per acre for the Residential Medium density (RM)
General Plan designation. Table 4 below outlines the project’s conformance with the
requirements of the Growth Management Program.
45
CT 01 -05/PUD 01 -06 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
November 20,2002
Page 7
Standard
City Administration
I TABLE 4 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE I
ImpactdStandards Compliance
422 sq. ft. Yes
Parks
Drainage
1 Library
.80 AC Yes
37 CFS Yes
-1 Yes I ~~ 1 225 sq. ft.
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
I Wastewater Treatment I 114 EDU I Yes I
Station #3 Yes
Satisfied through MP 150(H) Yes
Carlsbad Unified Yes
114 EDU. Yes
Circulation I 1,140ADT I ~~ 1 Yes
I Water 125,080GPD 1 Yes I
The project is below the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance
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. The Zone 7 LFMP requires the completion of a
connection between College Boulevard and El Camino Real prior to building permit issuance
beyond 2,500 ADT. Therefore, the Calavera Hills Village W residential development is
consistent with the LFMP Zone 7.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of Village W were
reviewed through the Environmental Impact Report for the Calavera Hills Phase I1 Master Plan
Amendment (EIR 98-02, certified January 15, 2002). Village W was analyzed with up to 121
single-family units. Mitigation affecting this village centers on monitoring during the Master
Plan’s mass grading (approved via CT 00-02). In addition, a revised noise study for Village W
was required to determine the heights and locations of noise walls.
The proposed Calavera Hills Village W project, as designed and conditioned, would not create
any significant adverse environmental impact than previously identified and addressed in EIR
98-02. 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
CT 01 -05PUD 01 -06 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE b’
November 20,2002
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 is consistent with EIR 98-02.
Given this environmental analysis, the Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration on
September 26, 2002. No public comments were received during the 20-day public review
period.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 53 1 1 (Neg Dec)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5312 (CT)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5313 (PUD)
Location Map
Disclosure Statement
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Background Data Sheet
Reduced Exhibits
Exhibits “A” - RR”, dated November 20,2002.
EM:&
47
- City of Carlsbad
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s statement OT disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications whch will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council OT any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note: Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint ventwe, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, mf 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. LEG& names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a comoration or ~artnmship, include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
APPLICABLE V/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.)
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
Calavera Hills II L.L.C. Person corp/Part
Title Title
Address
OWNER (Not the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (ix,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a cornoration or uartnershiu, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDWUALS OWN MORE T” 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.)
Address 2727 Hoover Ave. National City
CA 91950
2.
Person Corp/Part Calavera Hills II L.L.C.
Title Title
Address 2727 Hoover Ave. National City Address
CA 91950
98 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 6024600 - FAX (760) 602-8559
3. NON-PROFA JRGANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonurofit organization or a trust, list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Rofiflrust Non Profiflrust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees andor Council within the past twelve (12) months? 0 Yes NO Eyes, please indicate persm(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets ifnecessary.
I certify that all the above infomation is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Print or type name of owner
c\ m;-1Cl?d\
Print or type name of applicant
Signature of omer/applicant’s agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owncr/applicant’s agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 49 Page 2 of 2
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 2 GENERAL PLAN: RM
ZONING: PC - Calavera Hills Master Plan
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Calavera Hills I1 L.L.C.
ADDRESS: 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, CA
FILE NAME AND NO: CT 01-05/PUD 01-06 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
PHONE NO.: (619) 336-3138 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 168-040-29, 168-050-27
QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU):
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: 2004
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
~ ~
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 422
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 225
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage = .80
114 EDU
Drainage: Demand in CFS = 37
Identify Drainage Basin = Buena Vista
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 1140
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 3
Open Space: Acreage Provided = Per MP 150(A)
Schools: Carlsbad Unified
Elementary: 29.7
Middle: 8.2
High: 15.5
Sewer: Demands in EDU 114
Identify Sub Basin = SAH
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water:
The project is 1.0 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
Demand in GPD = 25,080
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 01-05/’PUD 01-06
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS - VILLAGE W
APPLICANT: MCMILLIN COMPANIES
REQUEST AND LOCATION: 114 single-family homes in Villa3e W
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Lots “D” and “J” of the Rancho Awa Hedionda. in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map 823, filed in the
Office of the San Diego County Recorder on November 16, 1896, also being Lot 2 of Carlsbad
Tract No. 00-02
APN: 168-040-29, 168-050-27 Acres: 23.9 net Proposed No.of LotsNnits: 114 units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RM
Density Allowed: 4-8
Existing Zone: PC
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Density Proposed: 4.8
Proposed Zone: PC
Zoning General Plan
Site PC RM
North PC RM
South LC RLM
East PC Open Space
West PC Major Arterial
Current Land Use
Vacant
Village U
Vacant
~
Open Space
College Blvd
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 1 14
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued September 26,2002 u
0 Other,
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
41
7d
It
43
5-7
8
k
m
8
I i P
e
b3
b4
I h b
! I
W
81
73
c h h c .B 4 4
d
9 - I- c
2 T-
4 4
74
J
0
I
N %
"9.1 n
78
W 0
\o 0
t
i 86
t
*I- .? P
r-- I I I
P
$
. f
0 n 12 iC4
I
I1 +#-t+-N ic i!’
$7 ce 3
io
i
a i
I I/ I
u) 0 I M 0 n U
I f
2 tK
i I n
9 i
il t tr
... m
!.
-i-
89
I
Ill I I I
II I I I
it
k d
YY
I
t L
r
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
P.C. AGENDA OF: June 4,2003
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: March 1 1, 2003
Project Planner: Eric Munoz
ItemNo. @
Project Engineer: Frank Jimeno
SUBJECT: PUD 01-06 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W - Request for approval of a
Planned Unit Development Permit to allow the construction of a 114-unit single-
family development within Village W of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, on
property generally located east of future College Boulevard, south of the College
BoulevardCarlsbad Village Drive intersection, in Local Facilities Management
Zone 7.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5420,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Planned Unit Development Permit PUD 01-06, based
upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
Village W in the Calavera Hills Master Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on
November 20, 2002. The Commission recommended approval of CT 01-05, which proposes the
subdivision of Village W into residential, open space and private street lots, as well as site
grading for 114 single-family units. However, the Commission did not support the architectural
style and details that they also considered on November 20, 2002 via PUD 01-06, and this aspect
of the project was continued to allow the applicant to redesign.
The applicant has returned with a resubmittal of the architecture and PUD permit for the
Commission’s consideration. The proposed architecture complies with all applicable master plan
and planned development ordinance criteria. The 114-unit, single-family PUD is depicted on
Exhibits “A” - “BB” dated June 4, 2003. Staff recommends approval, which will allow City
Council consideration of PUD 01 -06 concurrent with CT 01 -05.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development Permit to allow the
construction of a 114-unit single-family project within Village W of the Calavera Hills Master
Plan. The 36.3-acre site of Village W has a net developable area of 23.9 acres.
Village W is bounded by College Boulevard to the west, vacant Limited Control zoned property
to the south, General Plan Open Space to the east and Village U (multi-family village) to the
north. Village W is designated Residential Medium (RM) in the City’s General Plan, allowing up
to 8 dwelling units per developable acre with a Growth Management Control Point of 6 dwelling
PUD 01-06 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
June 4,2003
Page 2
units per acre. The proposed density is 4.8 dwelling units per acre and is within the allowable
General Plan range.
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, the Village W standards, and general provisions of the Master Plan.
The proposed development would consist of 114 single-family homes that comply with the
master plan's single-family development criteria for architectural variety and articulation. These
criteria include: minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft., a mix of single-storyheduced second story
homes and two story homes, architectural variety, plan variety, setbacks, garage placement, front
porches, fiont entry features and recreation areas. The Village W proposal complies with or
exceeds all of the above noted master plan criteria for single-family development within Calavera
Hills.
The earlier concerns of the Commission centered on ensuring architectural diversity among the
single-family villages of the master plan. With this proposal, Village W has been designed by a
different architect and will be developed by a separate builder (with architecture proposed by this
PUD) distinct from the single-family development of Village X across College Boulevard and
opposite the Village W site. The other single family Villages of K and L-2 will have similar
architecture to each other, but will vary in style from X and W.
Versions of the following architectural styles will be represented in Village W: Spanish
Colonial, Craftsman, and Italian Rustic. The attached Calavera Hills Village W - Architectural
Modifications outlines the changes made since the previous review of the PUD on November 20,
2002.
The single-story units will be less than 17 feet in height with approximately 1,673 square feet
(additional 413 square feet for garage). The reduced second story units will be approximately 22
feet in height with the second story being no more than 25% of the first floor area. Total square
footage of the reduced second story units is approximately 2,184 square feet (additional 413
square feet for garage). The proposed two-story units area will be just over 25 feet in height with
total square footage amounts of approximately 2,502 (additional 646 square feet for garage) and
2,753 (additional 617 square feet for garage). A 34-foot internal street system will serve the
project and sewer and water services will be available. Recreational amenities include three
common passive areas as allowed by the master plan. These areas will include tot lots, bocce
ball court and children's play equipment. Every unit will also have the required amount of
private rear yard recreation space. The project's fair share of affordable housing is being
provided at the Master Plan level in Village Y (SDP 01-05), therefore none is included in this
project. All grading and subdivision issues have already been considered with CT 01-05.
PUD 01-06 for the Village W project is subject to the following regulations:
A. General Plan;
B.
C.
Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP 15O(H)); and
Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance).
PUD 01-06 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
June 4,2003
Pane 3
Proposed Use and
Improvements
Proposed residential density of
4.8 dwelling units per acre is
below the 6.0 dwellings per
acre maximum allowed in the
RM designation.
IV. ANALYSIS
Compliance
Yes
The focus of this request is reconsideration of the proposed architectural style as required by
prior Planning Commission action (November 20, 2002). Staffs recommendation for approval
of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable policies
and regulations. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these
regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables.
A. General Plan
The Calavera Hills Village W 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.
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
Element
Land Use
Use Classification, Goal,
Objective or Program
Site is designated for medium
density (RM) residential
development.
Circulation Minimize the number of
access points to major and
prime arterials to enhance the
functioning of these streets
and thoroughfares.
Noise 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.
The project design has two
access points off of College
Boulevard, in accordance with
Engineering standards and
traffic calming measures
designed internal to the site.
Yes
The project includes a noise
study with recommendations to
reduce traffic noise from
College Boulevard to 60 dBA
CNEL.
Yes
PUD 01-06 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
June 4,2003
Page 4
Proposed Use and
Improvements
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE CONT’D
Compliance Element
Housing
TABLE 2 - CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN CONFORMANCE
Standard Proposed Conformance
Allowed Uses:
Maximum of 121 detached Proposed project is 114 detached Yes
single-family residential units.
Setbacks: Per PD Ordinance Compliance demonstrated on Yes
single-family residential units
Exhibit “B” (sheet 2 of the PUD
exhibits) .
Architectural Criteria Diversity of architectural styles Yes (see Attachment 2)
and elements which may include: Single-Story : 10 units
Reduced 2-Story: 20 units Two-Story: 84 units
Total: 114 units .I
Public
Safety
Use Classification, Goal,
Objective or Program
~~ ~
New housing developed with
a diversity of types, prices,
tenures, densities, and
locations to meet the demand
of anticipated City growth.
~
Provision of emergency water
systems and all-weather
access roads.
The project provides a mixture
of architectural styles; and the
single-family product type in
this master plan contributes to
the diversity of housing within
the City.
Yes
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 W single-family project is consistent with the City’s
General Plan.
B. Calavera Hills Master Plan
The proposed 114-unit project is within Village W of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area and,
therefore, subject to the provisions of that master plan (MP 15O(H)). Table 2 below summarizes
the project’s conformance with the requirements of the Master Plan.
PUD 01 -06 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
June 4,2003
Pane 5
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 114 units, a
minimum of 3 1 spaces is required).
TABLE 2 - CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN CONFORMANCE CONT’D
Proposed Conformance
The project provides 128 guest
parking spaces distributed
throughout the project site.
Yes
Standard
Recreation Area:
Minimum of 100 square feet
per unit of common recreation
area (for 114 units, a minimum
of 11,400 square feet is
required).
Design Criteria:
Access via College Boulevard.
A fencehrellis plan approved.
Proposed
Three passive recreation areas
contain a total of 21,207 square
feet of common recreation area
consistent with master plan
criteria.
The project proposes access off of
College Boulevard per CT 0 1-05.
A fence/trellis plan already
approved with CT 01-05.
Conformance
Yes
Yes
Yes
The inclusionary affordable housing requirement for this village is being satisfied by the
development of Village Y and the Calavera Hills Affordable Housing Agreement.
Given the above, the proposed single-family project is consistent with the provisions of the
Calavera Hills Master Plan.
C. Planned Development Ordinance
The Calavera Hills Master Plan states that Village W shall develop in accordance with the
Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 2 1.45 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 (Village I - RV Storage) that
serves the entire master plan. Therefore, the proposed project is subject to the Planned
Development Ordinance standards regarding visitor parking, private streets and driveway, 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 I
97
PUD 01 -06 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
June 4,2003
Page 6
Streets:
Minimum of 34-foot wide streets from
curb-to-curb with parkways.
Storage Space:
All units must contain a minimum of
480 cubic feet of storage space.
TABLE 3 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE CONFORMANCE CONT’D
The proposed streets measure 34
feet curb-to-curb and are adjacent
to 7.5-foot wide parkways.
Yes
Each unit has a minimum of 480
cubic feet of storage space via 2-
car garages per unit
Yes
Standard I Proposed I Conformance
Given the above, the proposed single-family project is consistent with the applicable portions of
the Planned Development Ordinance.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of Village W were
reviewed through the Environmental Impact Report for the Calavera Hills Phase II Master Plan
Amendment (EIR 98-02, certified January 15, 2002). Village W was analyzed with up to 121
single-family units. Mitigation affecting this village centers on monitoring during the Master
Plan’s mass grading (approved via CT 00-02). In addition, a revised noise study for Village W
was required to determine the heights and locations of noise walls.
The proposed Calavera Hills Village W project, with redesigned architecture as reflected on PUD
01-06, would not create any significant adverse environmental impacts that were not previously
identified and addressed in EIR 98-02. 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; will
provide noise attenuation walls along College Boulevard; and is consistent with EIR 98-02.
Given this environmental analysis, the Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration on
September 26,2002, which can be applied to PUD 01-06.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3. Location Map
4. Disclosure Statement
5 Reduced Exhibits
6.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5420 (PUD)
Calavera Hills Village W - Architectural Modifications
Exhibits “A” - “BB” dated June 4,2003
EM:bd
98
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
Presently Proposed Village W (Case)
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Italian Rustic
ARCHITECTURAL MODIFICATIONS
Previous Village W Proposal (McKinley)
Monterey
Santa Barbara
Spanish Colonial
Per the direction of the Carlsbad Planning Commission, the Village W architectural program has been
modified and enhanced to provide clear distinction between the proposed Village W single-family products and those of the remaining Calavera Hills Phase 11 neighborhoods. These architectural plans
continue to incorporate consistency with the detached single-family design guidelines of the Calavera
Hills Master Plan, and the City of Carlsbad small lot PUD guidelines.
Presently Proposed Village W (Case)
Plan 1 - 1673 sf
Plan 2 - 2502 sf
Plan 3 - 2753 sf
The newly proposed Village W architectural styles include a Spanish Colonial style, an Italian Rustic style, and an American Craftsman style. Each of these architectural styles is represented in a uniquely
detailed elevation, supported by a distinct color palette. Special attention has been given to the size,
placement and treatment of. windows and doors. Decorative details for each elevation have been
customized for the new plans.
Previous Village W Proposal (McKinley)
Plan 1 - 1645 sf
Plan 2 - 2436 sf
Plan 3 - 2712 sf
When compared to the previously proposed architecture, the newly designed plans possess different floor
plans, different 2nd story massing, different rooflines, different colors, different architectural treatment
materials and details, different window placement.
Details - Plan 1
3/20/03
Page 2
Village W
Calavera Hill Architecture
Stone detailing
Wrought iron railing at front balcony
Details - Plan 2
Front door side lights
Wrought iron at windows
1 Wood sable detailinn I Wood beams with knee braces I
SITE I
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
PUD 01-06
G
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications \vhicIl n.iI1 require’
discretionary action on the part ofthe City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Cornminee. -
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application subminal. )’our projecl caiiiio1
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defmed as “Any individual. lirrn, co-pamenhip, joint venture, association. social club. fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, s).ndicate, in this and any other counq, city and counr).. city
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.”
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corooration or oartnersliio. include tlie
names. title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
APPLICABLE (WA) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corooration. include tlie
names. titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
lavera Hills 11, LLC, necessar&
Person a California limited Corp/Part liability company Title Title Hoover Avenue 950 Address 2727 Address-1 ci tv. - CA 91
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES. PLEASE INDICATE NON-
A. 7 OWNER (Not the owner‘s agent)
Provide tlie COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also. provide the nature of tlie legal ownership (Le,
partnership. tenants in common, non-profit. corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
coruoration or partnershie, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned corooration. include the names. titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
pase may be attached if necessary.)
Person McMillin Companies, _I. . LLC
d ueiafldie ILIIIIL~U llabi
Title company
2727 Hoover Avenue
1 0 /Part Tamarack Properties, Inc. -’p a Californja corporation Title 0-
oiqte Mar, Ste. Ahdress
m 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-1161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 @
. J. NOX-PROFIT ORC UZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (I) or (2) above is a nonprofit oreanitation or a trust. 11s: the
!lames and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-pori;
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Title Title
Address Address
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transactedlwith any member of Cit? stafi.
Boards. Commissions. Committees and/or Council within the past nvelve ( 12) months?
1 t t
3.
a Yes @No If yes. please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
1 certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of ownerF '
- Signature of owner/ P --o-gkz+fQ
Signature of applicant/ te
DaJ MI=&'<
Print or type name df owner Print or type name of applicant Print or type name df owner Prin
Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/96 Page 2 of 2 Id3
n
7 E
I I N/ I
I
// 3
4
E ?
J
m - - P b e B e - In
... ._
3
D
'. , i,
1 \
r
E !i !.. d
3
a
1 e
, !i ' -
I
s v I
.- -
U
/a 3
a 0 I - 0 a 3 P,
i I
Ip i
G c
5 li
r- t 4
a
Y
/a 5
iD C
C -
n 3 p.
. .? P
d
P
I
I
I
U L' .
C G
U
\D 0
3 0 a 3
CL,
I
I‘
u - i
\o 3 I -
C a 3 la
--
A
J
I3Q
Q 0
W 0 n 3 &
Q
I U
2
w CL
\o 0
c 0
Q (2 a
t E II
U
a z
r- i-
LLJ
cn c; - <-
0
c 0
I
C n 3 P,
- i -,
t
u- LJ .
t
i, ‘I
ii-
it
G C
h W a 3 P,
t: 3
t
i
I k I
c a 3 a
13L
Planning Commission Mini’ November 20,2002 Page 2
EXHIBIT 5
AB STA I N : Commissioner Segall due to absence at the November 6, 2002 meeting
Chairperson Trigas directed everybody’s attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the
Commission would be following for tonight’s public hearing.
Chairperson Trigas stated that the Commission had already heard testimony on whether or not the
Conditional Use Permit should be granted for Item #1 and directed Staff to prepare a resolution approving
the CUP. She said Staff would make a presentation describing any changes in the project, summarize the
more important project conditions and respond to Commission questions. The Commission would then
hear public testimony specific to the project changes and the recommended findings and conditions, and
would not hear repeat testimony on whether the CUP should be granted. The Commission does not want
repetitious testimony. To facilitate the process Staff made copies of the revised Staff Report for the
audience to read. She stated that Agenda item 2 would be heard first to give the audience time to read
the report.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Taken out of order
Chairperson Trigas asked Mr. Wayne to introduce the first item.
2. CT 01451PUD 01-06 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W - Request for approval -of a Negative
Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, and Planned Unit Development Permit to allow the subdivision
and construction of a 114 unit single-family development within Village W of the Calavera Hills
Master Plan, on property generally located east of future College Boulevard, south of the College Boulevard/Carlsbad Village Drive intersection, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7.
Mr. Wayne introduced Item #2 and stated that Eric Munoz would make the presentation, assisted by David
Rick. The Commission’s action is advisory and their decision will be forwarded to the City Council for final
action.
Chairperson Trigas opened the public hearing.
Eric Munoz, Senior Planner, pointed out the location of Village W on the map and stated that it is on the
east side of future College Boulevard. The City Council approved the Master Plan Amendment for
Calavera Hills on January 15, 2002. The Master Plan designated Village W for 121 single-family homes
and this project proposes 114. It complies with all development standards of the Master Plan regarding
setbacks, building height, street widths, recreational areas, and architecture. Mr. Munoz said that no
public comment was received during the public review period for the Negative Declaration. There are no
new environmental impacts and it meets all the standards of the Master Plan.
David Rick, Assistant Engineer, added that an Errata Sheet was distributed to clarify one of the conditions
and reads as follows: On page 11 of Planning Commission Resolution 5312 under Condition No. 42,
please remove from Item A the phrase “with College Boulevard” and add it at the end of Item B. The
items will now read as follows:
A. B. Streets -A”, “B, and ”C. Traffic signals at the intersections of Streets “A” and “C” with College Boulevard.
Commissioner Segall wanted to make sure there is enough variety in terms of the architectural elevations
so that there are four distinct villages versus four common villages and asked that that be addressed. Mr.
Munoz stated that Staff reviewed the project for compliance with the Master Plan, which speaks to variety between the villages. There are seven different architectural styles - Mission, Early California, Monterey,
Craftsman, Italian, Spanish Colonial, and Santa Barbara. They emphasized about half of them on about
half of the single-family villages. There is some variety between the villages and the styles that they’re
emphasizing and there’s architectural variety within the village as well.
I3 7
Planning Commission Mini,’ November 20,2002 Page 3
Commissioner Segall asked if these are basically the same floor plans with different elevations or are
there different plans within each development. Mr. Munoz replied that the floor plans are the same
between the developments. They all meet the architectural articulation requirements of the Master Plan. It‘s not a real obvious architectural variety, but Staff feels there is enough variety between the villages. He
said if the Commission feels otherwise or would like more detail; the applicant could address the proposed
architecture.
Commissioner Segall asked if there’s a chart showing the three architectural styles in each of the four
villages with single-family homes. Mr. Munoz said there’s an exhibit that he could post and the applicant
could describe the details for each village.
Commissioner Heineman said it bothers him that the garage is included with the living area square
footage. He said it’s separated on the drawings and wanted to know who is doing that and why. Mr.
Munoz said he included the garages in the square footage because not all garages are 400 square feet.
Mr. Munoz said if it’s just the square footage plus the garage, it may give the assumption of a two-car
garage. He said that‘s why he specified that the square footage included the garage, but in the exhibits
it’s broken out. Mr. Munoz said he was providing an absolute square mass of the structure and the next
time he would specify the garage square footage.
.- Commissioner Segall asked if they would be addressing the rear elevations of these units as done in
previous developments. Mr. Munoz responded that the Commission would need to add a condition similar
to Village X.
Commissioner Segall asked if the school student generation factor in the Staff Report includes the revised
numbers. Mr. Munoz confirmed that it does.
Applicant, Brian Milich, Corky McMillin Companies, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City 91 950 stated he
would address the architectural issues raised and clarify one of the conditions. As it relates to the
architecture, the floor plans on each of the single-family villages are essentially the same. He said the
reason is driven more by procedure and process because when they started the master plan process
almost five years ago they needed to submit architecture with both the single-family and multi-family
villages. At that time it wasn’t clear which villages McMillin would be building, which villages Brookfield
would build, and if they would be selling any of the villages. He said they took their best shot at the
architecture at the time. If the villages were adjacent to each other this issue might not be as significant
because it might all be done under one set of models. Because they are separated and because that was
an issue as they went through the master plan process, Staff said they would accept one set of
architecture but wanted them to differentiate the elevations between the villages so there would be some
assurance of diversity within the architecture. He said Brookfield will be building at least one of the single-
family villages and will be coming in with their own architect. They haven’t done that yet because it hasn’t
been determined which village they will be building. That will have to go through some type of substantial
conformity process. Brookfield will be hiring a different architect, so there will be some additional diversity.
He said they have heard the Commission’s concerns and will be addressing those issues as they come
through with each village. He said all of the villages already have different architectural elevations and
gave the following distinct architectural styles in each village.
Village X will have Santa Barbara, Spanish Colonial, Mission, and Early California
Village K will have Monterey, Craftsman, Mission, and Early California
Village W will have Santa Barbara, Monterey, Spanish Colonial, and Craftsman
Mr. Milich said they have taken four of the six styles and mixed them between the villages so they would
be different in the villages. They have also taken the color and roof tile palettes and modified them within
the villages. There would be distinction between the villages even if they didn’t change the architecture. He said there will most likely be further distinction to the architecture as they and their partner decide
which villages they are going to build. It will have to be in substantial conformance with what was already
approved. The floor plans will be different but generally similar in terms of footprint. The elevations will be
different but there won’t be dramatic differences.
Mr. Milich said they believe that Condition 42, an engineering condition that talks about which traffic
signals need to be constructed, inappropriately references a traffic signal at the intersection of Street “C”.
They believe that was already addressed with another village so should not be included in this condition.
138
Planning Commission Mini * November 20,2002 Page 4
Chairperson Trigas asked if he was referring to the Errata Sheet. Mr. Rick clarified that at the intersection of College and Street 'C" that another development has been conditioned to build that signal. However,
the other development hasn't yet been built and they can't have assurance that it will ever be built, so they have this development also required to install a signal or bond for it. He said they can work out that
agreement at Council as to whether it's a shared cost between developments or not.
Chairperson Trigas asked if they would put it as a condition to be worked out at Council. Mr. Wayne said
the details of the agreement will be worked out and they recommend that the Commission approve it per
the Errata Sheet. He said it's not uncommon to have adjacent, across the street developments have
exactly the same condition to build the whole road. Mr. Milich said he misunderstood and clarified that it's
apparently a right in, right-out so their belief is that there is no need for a signal there. He said they may
have missed it when they looked at the draft Staff Report and is fine with it being approved as it is and
they can work it out.
Mr.'Milich said they would agree to the same condition that was applied to Village X which required additional enhancements to all of the rear elevations, subject to review by the Planning Director.
Commissioner Heineman said that's what he understood from the last meeting but he didn't see it in the
minutes.
'- Commissioner Segall said he wanted to make sure there is enough variety in all the units and did not feel
they were going to be significantly different. He said as you drive through X and W, which is about 230
homes, it seems like it will be the same neighborhood. He thought the spirit of the PUD ordinance was to
have some variety and the villages would be distinctly different.
Mr. Munoz said the Commission has a couple of options. They could approve the project as it is and the
approval may get built. There may be a substantial conformance process to improve it or the substantial
conformance process may be so different that it may have to come back before the Commission. They
could approve the project as it is and let that process take its course, which is already in place. Another
option that would go beyond that would be to impose a new condition on this approval tonight that would
require a PUD amendment to come back before the Planning Commission prior to building permit
issuance for revised architecture. That way the approval could go forward tonight but there would be no
building permit issuance until they came back with an amendment to the PUD that actually showed the
revised architecture.
Commissioner Segall said it would be only for this particular village and they couldn't go back to the
villages already approved. Ms. Mobaldi said they would not be able to go back to previous approvals but
the master plan has a provision that says that the applicant has to demonstrate architectural variety. One
of the findings for the PD permit is that they are consistent with the master plan so if the Commission
didn't feel there was sufficient variety they wouldn't be able to make that finding and could deny. She
added that variety is defined and implemented by the Commissioners.
Commissioner Segall said it's kind of confusing without seeing the three villages together that they have
approved over the last month and a half to see what the differences and common elements are. The last
thing he'd like to see going into Calavera is some 300 homes that are basically the same house with
maybe four different floor plans. Two 2-stories, a modified l-story, and a 1-story, but they're all basically
the same with some enhancements in the front that may be different. He said he's not feeling that there's
enough variety and asked if there are there other developments in Calavera that will be coming in the future. Mr. Munoz replied that this is the last single-family development.
Commissioner Segall thought Commissioner White asked a very similar question at the last meeting indicating that future developments within Calavera Hills should be developed a little differently in terms of
the variety.
Commissioner White clarified that the discussion she had with Mr. Milich was that she was under the
impression that the company was designing other master planned communities within Carlsbad and that
she hoped that with master communities going forward in the future they would be more conscious of
architectural variety. She said her remarks stem from her feeling that there is perhaps not enough variety in this project, but was not directed towards specifically changing what is on the board right now for
Calavera Hills. They were directed more toward future design.
Planning Commission Mint. - November 20,2002 Page 5
Commissioner Segall said he wanted some discussion with the Commission relative to the variety issue
Commissioner White said she was looking at the notes about the design elevations for X, K, and W. X
and W are across each other from College and it looks as if half the houses in both of these
developments are going to be two styles and the other half is going to be split among four styles. X and W,
which face each other, have six styles interspersed, but it appears half of them are going to be the same
two styles, Santa Barbara and Spanish Colonial. She said that‘s what we’re concerned with.
Mr. Milich said he doesn’t disagree with their concern and there are a couple ways to handle it, as Mr.
Munoz mentioned. He said another option would be to put in a condition the same way they did with the rear elevations and say something different has to be done to the front elevations. He said they would
have no problem with that. He said they would like approval tonight to move the project forward and they’re confident that either Brookfield or themselves would come back with even more differentiation on
these elevations. They would have no problem going through a process with either the Planning Director or back to the Commission and provide them with further articulation, maybe even a different style on
Village W, to assure them that it’s going to look different than the village across the street. He said when
they did this four or five years ago, in advance of knowing the market, it didn’t make sense to come up
with a lot of different architecture and styles. They felt confident that when they got ready to build the
units, coming up with different architecture would happen naturally.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Wayne if they are approving the elevations they’re looking at tonight as
part of the PUD process and if they hold the applicant to these designs or are they free to make any
changes. She asked if the discussion on elevations is relevant to what’s before them. Mr. Wayne replied
that the elevations are approved as part of the PD permit. The Commission is approving exhibits and the
exhibits make up the permit. The way Staff views substantial conformance is twofold. There are two tests
they run on a project and they make minor changes. One of them is a numerical type of test - is it getting
bigger or is it getting smaller. Is it changing its location. The other test is how it looks. If it looks substantially like what you approved, that’s okay and it can shrink or it can increase in size and still meet
the code requirements. But if it looks different, we don’t call that substantially conforming because after
the housing project is developed, the Commissioners would go out in the field and look at it and say it
doesn’t look anything like they approved. We won’t take that responsibility on ourselves so that‘s why Mr.
Munoz said in all likelihood if they’re going to make the houses look different, that’s going to come back
through a process of amendment before the Planning Commission. They can change slightly, but if they
change substantially we require them to do an amendment.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Milich if Brookfield chooses to build one of the villages or he decides to
change them due to market forces, would he be willing to come back before the Planning Commission
with an amendment to the PUD. Mr. Milich said yes.
Chairperson Trigas asked if they could indicate that they want it changed to make more variations in their
elevations. Mr. Wayne said it‘s the Planning Commission’s discretion and this is a hot Planning
Commission issue and one that should not be delegated to Staff. He recommended that if this issue is on
the minds of all the Commissioners, then they have it brought back to this body.
Chairperson Trigas asked if they would then have an amendment to the motion if the Commission desires
to have changes brought back which would create more of a variation in the site elevation. Commissioner Segall said they would, but they would have to look at it and compare it to already
approved villages that would not be part of this amendment. In order to do it they would have to see the
whole thing but they’re only going to address this one. He said he hopes the applicant understands the concerns and goes through the other previously approved developments and makes sure there is enough
variation so that when driving from one village to another you have a completely different feel and that
you’re not in this massive development.
Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Wayne if this could be handled with a condition or if a motion is
needed to continue it until they come back. Mr. Wayne said Staff would recommend the latter. He said once you approve this you put it back in the hands of the substantial conformance process and there’s enough concern that it actually belongs back before the Commission. There’s no guarantee that Brookfield is going to participate in W or X. The only one you have jurisdiction over is W and you should
make your decision on W. If you have a real concern with the elevations you could always continue the PUD and if you have no concerns on the Tentative Map you could take action on it and let it go forward.
Planning Commission Mini November 20,2002 Page 6
There’s a process that is very time consuming for the developer. He has to take the Tentative Map and
satisfy all the conditions of it before he can final it and then start the fine grading. You could approve the
Tentative Map and continue your decision on the architecture with solid direction to the applicant of their
expectations.
Commissioner Segall asked if the applicant would agree to that. Mr. Milich said they would, as a last effort
to get approval, but asked why it wouldn’t be possible to approve the PUD, and come back with the
architecture at a later date.
Ms. Mobaldi said she would not recommend the latter approach because consistency with the master plan
in terms of providing adequate architectural variety is one of the findings they’re making for the PUD
permit, so she would not suggest that they approve the permit and then try to add variety later.
Commissioner White said her concern is W and X next to each other. When talking about the possibility of an amendment and some more variety she wanted to know what Mr. Millich is thinking in terms of
changing the elevations. Would he bring in another style or possibly change a floor plan. She wanted to
make sure they have some understanding of what is reasonable in his opinion, what he’s thinking in terms
of if he had an amendment to come back and show them new architecture, versus what they might be
thinking about.
Mr. Milich said they would be addressing the elevations and would be coming up with what they hope the
Commission would agree would be significant variation. It probably would be a different style on at least
some of the homes. He said if the Commission wants, they could agree to come up with different floor
plans. They couldn’t say how different tonight because they have some constraints due to the lot sizes
and the PD ordinance in terms of articulation. If they had to they could agree to hire a different architect
and come up with different plans. He said he didn’t know if the floor plans would drive as much of a
concern as just making sure the elevations are different and he’s very confident they will be able to handle
that.
Ms. Mobaldi added that if they approve the Tentative Map tonight then they would be approving the lot
sizes as proposed, so as Mr. Milich said, to an extent that’s going to drive the footprint of the houses that
can be put on the lots.
Commissioner Segall asked for clarification of what they’re being advised to do. Ms. Mobaldi replied that if they’re primarily looking to change exterior articulation, they could probably approve the Tentative Map
and postpone approval of the Planned Unit Development permit. If they’re actually asking Mr. Milich to
consider redesigning the homes so they have a totally different floor plan and might need to be bigger or
smaller, that would relate to lot size and lot size is determined by the Tentative Map, so then she would
recommend to postpone map approval as well to allow maximum flexibility.
Commissioner Segall asked if the completion of College and Cannon is going to be in part with this
development. Ms. Mobaldi said she believes it is. Commissioner Segall said he thinks it‘s in their interest
to move forward but have the elevations come back before them. Chairperson Trigas added that she
didn’t think they were as concerned about the lot sizes as the elevations.
Mr. Wayne said that the construction of College and Cannon is set with the already approved Master Plan
and the Master Tentative Map so the grading for College is really part of the grading for the Master Tentative Map, not the individual planned area tentative maps. All that‘s going to happen with these maps
is that they refine the grading and the pad, so there’s not going to be a significant amount of grading
associated with each one of these villages.
Commissioner Segall stated he would support approval of the site plan, but continue the PUD and ask that
it come back with new or improved elevations.
Commissioner White agreed with Commissioner Segall.
Commissioner Heineman also agreed.
Commissioner Whitton said he believes they should approve the Tentative Tract Map and continue the PUD. He said he didn’t think any of them were looking for changes in the floor plan.
Planning Commission Min, 9 November 20,2002 Page 7
Commissioner Segall asked if they could add the rear elevation condition. Mr. Wayne said that’s probably
a condition on the PUD which is coming back. He added that he thinks the applicant has heard them loud
and clear.
MOTION
ACT1 ON :
DISCUSSION
None.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 531 1, recommending
adoption of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5312 for approval of Tentative Tract Map
CT 01-05, including the Errata Sheet presented this evening, based upon the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein and continue the Planned
Unit Development Permit PUD 01-06 to a date uncertain.
6-0-0
Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Segall, White, and Whitton
None
None
RECESS
Chairperson Trigas called a recess at 655 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson Trigas called the meeting back to order at 7:02 p.m.
Chairperson Trigas reminded the audience that public rules of testimony would be enforced and public
testimony should be on the specific changes to the project and recommended findings and conditions.
Repeat testimony should not be given due to the high number of requests to speak.
Chairperson Trigas asked Mr. Wayne to introduce Agenda Item #le
1. CUP 01 -1 2 - CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL - Request for approval of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) for a private school located at 3016 Highland Drive on a 0.7-acre lot. The site is located at
the southeast corner of the intersection of Highland Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive in the R-l-
10,000 zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
Mr. Wayne introduced Agenda Item #1 and stated that Barbara Kennedy would make the presentation,
assisted by David Rick. He said the Commission’s action is final unless appealed to the City Council.
Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner, stated that the project was presented at the October 2, 2002
Planning Commission hearing with a recommendation for denial. The motion for denial failed and a
second motion was made and approved for Staff to return to the Planning Commission with a resolution of
approval for the CUP and to return with the findings and associated conditions for the Planning
Commission to decide upon. The new resolution adds certain project specific conditions that the applicant
proposed in order to ensure safety and land use compatibility with the neighborhood. She explained the
following conditions of approval.
0 Condition #16 states that all plant materials around the perimeter of the parking area shall be installed
from specimen sized containers so that immediate screening of the parking area can be achieved.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 DRAFT June 4,2003
4. PUD 01-06 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W - Request for approval of a Planned Unit
Development Permit to allow the construction of a 1 14-unit single-family development within
Village W of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, on property generally located east of future College
Boulevard, south of the College BoulevardKarlsbad Village Drive intersection, in Local Facilities
Management Zone 7.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 4 and stated that Senior Planner, Eric Munoz, would make the presentation.
Chairperson Baker opened the public hearing on Item 4.
Senior Planner, Eric Munoz, presented the Staff Report stating that last November the Planning
Commission considered Village W within the Calavera Master Plan. He described the site as shown on
an overhead diagram. This project was brought forward to the Commission with the tentative tract map
and a Planned Unit Development. At that time the Commission did not support the architectural proposal
because the core concern was that there was too much architectural similarity between the single-family
villages within Calavera Hills, specifically between Villages X and W. Mr. Munoz pointed out on the
Calavera Hills vicinity map that Villages X and W straddle College Blvd. Village W on the east side of
future College Blvd is being brought back before the Commission for architectural review. Village X
received its PUD and tentative track map recommendation for approval by the Commission. Village W
has a different architectural style emphasizing the Spanish Colonial, Craftsman, and Italian Rustic styles.
Previously, there were Spanish Colonial, Santa Barbara, and Monterey styles. The proposed styles have
more diversity. Staffs review centered on the following two questions: (1) is this architectural proposal
substantially different from Village X, and (2) does the proposed architecture comply with all the Master
Plan and PUD requirements? Staff concluded that it does. There is a slight increase in the amount of
single-story and reduced second-story units. If the Commission approves this proposal, this PUD will
rejoin with the tentative tract map that has been on hold since last November. The two will rejoin and go
on to the City Council in July for final approval.
Chairperson Baker invited the applicant to make a presentation.
Brian Milich, Corky McMillin Companies, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, 91 950, explained that the
reason that it has taken such a long time for the company to come back to the Commission with a revised
plan is that through their partner, Brookfield Homes, they hired a different architect to redesign these homes. It has resulted in a substantially different architecture, which was the goal. The architectural
styles, the square footage, the building massing, garage placement, entry features, window placement
and number of windows are different in this proposal. With these changes there are now three different
architects and, thus, three distinct architectural styles; four if the multi-family products are included.
Previously, the project was all designed by one architect. That has been modified in Villages W and K. It
meets all the requirements in the Master Plan and provides the single-story requirements in the Master
Plan, both on a community-wide basis and on a neighborhood basis.
Commissioner Segall thanked Mr. Milich for coming back to the Commission with the new plans. He
asked about the rear elevations in Village W, in particular if the enhancements discussed by the
Commission had been added. Mr. Milich confirmed that they have been enhanced as suggested by the
Commission.
Commissioner Segall asked when construction would begin on this project if it is approved by the City
Council in July. Mr. Milich stated that the timetable for Villages X and W would be to start the model
homes by the end of 2003 at the earliest. The model homes for the other neighborhoods will be started
within the next 35-40 days.
Commissioner Segall asked what the status is on construction of College Blvd and Cannon Road and if
that would delay the start of building. Mr. Milich replied that that is not delaying it, but Villages X and W
are at the tail end of the project and are dependent upon the construction of College Blvd and Cannon
Road, both in terms of physical access and the limit in terms of how many units can be built before the
road is completed. The road is well under construction. It has been graded to El Camino Real, although
there are still some segments that haven’t been graded. Their schedule shows that they would be
finished with the project by the end of the second quarter of 2004.
Planning Commission Minutes June 4,2003 Page 8
Commissioner Dominguez stated that Mr. Munoz mentioned that some substantive changes in the
architectural design had been made and that some single-story product had been added. Mr. Milich
clarified that a home or two were added to the mix. They have a requirement that overall 10% of the total
number of units in Calavera Hills be single-story units. There are currently 10%. In terms of the number
of single-story or modified single-story homes in Village W, there are a couple more homes than the
requirement. The applicable Master Plan requirement is 20% and there are 28%.
Commissioner Whitton asked if the garage in the full two-story house plan with the three-car garage is
really a full three-car garage. Mr. Milich stated that he would have to look at the plans to answer that
question accurately. He said that there are at least two full-size standard spaces in it. It may be that the
third space is a substandard or a compact space. He said the requirements in the ordinance have been
met for off-street parking and covered-space parking.
Mr. Munoz stated that the plan has just under three standard spaces in it, with the idea that it has a third-
car option. Three small cars would fit there, but three large cars would not. Two standard cars for certain
will fit in the garage.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that there was an article in the San Diego Union about a builder that
had a standard-size Mustang that didn’t fit into the additional parking space in their garage. Mr. Milich
thought that that article referred to a two-car garage, whereas in this case there would be two full-size
standard spaces with a third space somewhat smaller than the standard space requirement.
Commissioner Heineman stated that the new plans appear to have larger windows. Not more windows,
but larger ones. Mr. Milich confirmed that there are both more and larger windows in the current
proposal. Their direction to the architect was to make these look different than the existing architecture,
both interior and exterior. Commissioner Heineman remarked that the architect did an effective job.
Commissioner Whitton asked about the center green strip in the project and who would be responsible for
watering that area. Mr. Milich explained that the homeowners would be responsible for the irrigation of
the part of the slope that they own. The Homeowner’s Association would maintain the slope because of
the size of it, but they felt that Homeowner’s Associations tend to over water and they wanted to give the
homeowners more control of their own backyards. The actual irrigation lines will be connected to the
homeowner’s water meter. Commissioner Whitton asked where the property line goes. Mr. Milich stated
that it goes to the top of the slope. The homeowners get the benefit of not having to pay for that
maintenance, but they are paying for the water that is irrigating the slope. Commissioner Whitton stated
that the homeowners could decide not to water the slope. Mr. Milich noted that the CC&Rs would require
them to properly maintain that area.
Chairperson Baker asked if McMillin is installing the irrigation lines. Mr. Milich answered that they were
installing the irrigation lines and landscaping the slope. Chairperson Baker noted that the homeowners
would have no option of whether to water the slope or not. Mr. Milich stated that in theory the
homeowners could turn the water off, but the CC&Rs would require them to water that area. He didn’t
think that it would be in their interest to turn the water off on a slope that they owned and would be looking
at. The slope drains directly into their rear yards, so the intention was to give the homeowners control of
how much water to put on it. Originally, it was designed so that the homeowners would maintain both the
slope and the irrigation, but the Staff felt that because the area was so large that they may not provide
adequate maintenance. Hence, this compromise was reached.
Chairperson Baker opened public testimony and invited those who would like to speak to the podium.
Seeing no one, Chairperson Baker closed public testimony.
Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Munoz if this arrangement for sprinklering has been done on any other
City project. Mr. Munoz said that he was not aware of any other instance like this. Commissioner Segall
asked if Staff was supporting this arrangement. Mr. Munoz stated that Staff is trying to make sure that
the maintenance for the planting would be done by the HOA rather than by the individual homeowner.
Commissioner Segall noted that watering is part of maintenance. Mr. Munoz clarified that he meant
planting maintenance by the HOA. Irrigation maintenance is proposed to be done by the individual
homeowner, which is a new approach, to which Staff is neutral. Commissioner Segall countered that it
Planning Commission Minutes June 4,2003 Page 9
seemed strange to him because some people may under water and others may over water the slope and
no one is really responsible for monitoring it.
Commissioner Heineman agreed with Commissioner Segall. As manager for 15 years of a Homeowner’s
Association with 126 homes, he stated that he couldn’t imagine what would happen if the individual
homeowners were responsible for watering the common area. It would not happen. With 115
homeowners responsible for the rear lots, even though the Association is providing the planting, it could
be a terrible problem. He stated that on the basis of his experience, he did not think that arrangement
would work.
Commissioner Whitton wanted to go on record that he thought that this was an unwarranted burden on
the homeowner to be watering a common area. He felt the Homeowner’s Association should take care of
that area and its expense.
Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Milich if they would be willing to switch that responsibility to the HOA.
Mr. Milich stated that they would alter that requirement if the Commission wanted it changed. He clarified
that it would be 20 homes that would be involved, not all 11 5.
Commissioner Heineman cautioned that no matter how nice the homeowners are, some of them will not
water and some of them will over water. He stated that he sees that on 126 lots every day.
Chairperson Baker asked to hear from Mr. Wojcik on this issue before the Commission decides how best
to handle it.
Mr. Wojcik clarified that the area being discussed is not a common area. The slope belongs to individual
homeowners. The reason that there has not been something like this before is that typically when the
slopes are in the rear yards, the City allows the homeowners to irrigate and maintain them completely. In
this situation, however, Staff felt that because those slopes were visible from the public street, this
approach would be reasonable. Staffs concern is with the maintenance of the landscaping.
Chairperson Baker asked who is responsible for planting the slope. Mr. Wojcik stated that the initial
planting of the slope would be done by the developer.
Commissioner White asked if a lot has property that goes to the top of the slope, will there be a backyard
fence to separate the usable lot from the unusable slope area. Mr. Milich replied that if there is no
retaining wall, then the fence goes 15 feet past the toe of the slope into the slope, so that the homeowner
can put in a retaining wall to expand the rear yard if so desired. Essentially the easement starts about 15
feet into the slope where there is no retaining wall. There will be gates through that fence so that if the
homeowner or the Association needed to enter and go onto the slope, they could do that as well.
Commissioner White asked if every lot would have a gate. Mr. Milich confirmed that they would. The
slope has an easement to the Association-controlled area, which is not open to the Association in
general.
Commissioner Whitton noted that when he asked where the back end of the lot ends, he understood the
answer to be that the back end of the lot ends at the top of the hill, which makes the open space on the
other side of the owner’s property. Mr. Milich clarified that the slope is owned by the homeowner, but the
homeowner does not have full access to all of that property. There will be a fence a short way up that
slope, even though the homeowner owns beyond the fenceline, that area will have an easement across it
for the Association to maintain. There won’t be fences running perpendicularly up and down the slope indicating each side property line, although the property lines will run up and down that slope.
Commissioner Whitton stated that he believes that property should be watered by the HOA and not the
homeowners themselves.
Commissioner Montgomery reiterated that with a fence part way up the slope, the homeowner will
maintain all that portion of that property and part way up the slope, up to the fence, and the other side of
the fence will be maintained by the HOA. Mr. Milich acknowledged that it is an unusual situation driven
by the fact that Staff felt that is was important because of the size and visibility of the slope, that it be
maintained by the Association and not by the individual property owners. Originally the intent was that
Planning Commission Minutes June 4,2003 Page 10
the individual property owners would maintain their rear yards including the slope with fences running up
the slope, making clear what their responsibility entailed. The concern was that there might be
inconsistencies in the maintenance of that slope between one property owner and the next. The
applicant expressed concern that if the HOA completely maintained the slope, it might be over watered.
Since it isn’t a true common area in that it’s not open to everyone, Mr. Milich thought that it would be
logical to have the Association maintain the landscaping, but have the homeowner provide the water and
somewhat control that water. Commissioner Montgomery stated that he felt that the fenceline may be the
problem. If the fenceline wasn’t there, and the entire slope was owned and accessible to the property
owner, there may be a greater inclination for the homeowner to maintain the whole area. Mr. Milich
responded that they did want to allow some ability for the homeowner to expand the rear yard by putting
in a retaining wall, so they proposed the fence to go in 15 feet from the toe of the slope.
Commissioner Heineman stated that he had erroneously assumed that that was common area.
Regardless, he agreed with Commissioner Whitton in feeling that one entity should be responsible for
maintaining those backyards. He shared that he has seen too many instances of well meaning
homeowners where one over waters his yard and another under waters his yard. This is why one group
is assigned to cut grass, for example, to maintain consistency.
Chairperson Baker noted that Mr. Milich would be amenable to changing this arrangement if the
Commission felt strongly about it. An Amendment could be made when the motion for this Item is made.
Mr. Milich confirmed that they are amenable to making this change, but that they would like to retain the
opportunity to allow the flat areas of the rear yards to be expanded with the construction of a retaining
wall. He did not know if that would cause an issue with the fence being a portion up the slope. They are
trying not to restrict the homeowners from having that option.
Chairperson Baker asked Mr. Munoz and Mr. Wojcik if they saw any issue with that. They responded that they did not.
Chairperson Baker asked Ms. Mobaldi how she would advise the Commission to make those changes.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that Staff could be directed to delete the notation to it on the Exhibit that the individual
homeowners will water, and change it to maintenance and watering by the HOA. Chairperson Baker
asked if it should be part of the motion or did they need a motion to direct Staff to delete that.
Mr. Munoz recommended that it be part of the motion for Lots 75 - 93 and that conforming mylars be
submitted for the whole balance of the project exhibits, and then they can capture revised exhibits that
would take that note off as Ms. Mobaldi stated.
Mr. Neu added that the references to this arrangement appears to be on Exhibits K and L in the
preliminary landscape plan. He thought that by including in the motion some reference to revising those
exhibits, or the exhibits in general, to reflect the Commission’s desire would be appropriate.
Chairperson Baker called for a motion for an amendment.
ACTION : Motion by Commissioner White, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission direct Staff to revise Landscaping Exhibits K and L to reflect the
Commission’s desire to have the Homeowner’s Association maintain as well as irrigate the rear yards of Lots 75-93.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Montgomery stated that specifically that area under consideration is between the fenceline
and the upper slope. Chairperson Baker stated that the fenceline will still go 15 feet into the slope.
Commissioner Montgomery reiterated that the maintenance water is from the fenceline to the top of the slope. Chairperson Baker asked if there was anyone who was unclear about this Amendment. There
was no one. Mr. Neu again confirmed that it would be Lots 75-93 that would be affected.
Planning Commission Minutes June 4,2003 Page 11
Commissioner Whitton asked if there would be any consideration to moving the fenceline on the
developer’s side. Chairperson Baker stated that she thought that Mr. Milich would be agreeable to this
amendment as it stands. Mr. Milich concurred.
Chairperson Baker called for a vote.
VOTE: 7-0
AYES:
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, White and Whitton
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner White, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5420 recommending
approval of the Planned Unit Development Permit 01-06 as amended based
upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
Chairperson Baker called for a vote.
VOTE: 7-0
AYES:
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, White and Whitton
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, July 8,
2003, to consider a request for approval of a Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map,
and Planned Unit Development within Village W of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, on
property generally located east of future College Boulevard, south of the College
Boulevard/Carlsbad Village Drive intersection, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7
and more particularly described as:
Portion of Lots “D” and “J” of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map 823, filed in the Office of the San Diego County
Recorder on November 6, 1896, also being Lot 2 of Carlsbad Tract
NO. 00-02.
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 July 3, 2003. If
you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760)
602-4608.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Negative Declaration, Tentative
Tract Map and Planned Unit Development, 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 Planned Unit Development 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, Attn: City
Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public
hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 01-05/PUD 01-06
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
PUBLISH: June 27,2003
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CO U NC I L
,SITE
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
CT 01-051PUD 01-06
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST
801 PINEAVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OFVISTA
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 WORKSlCOMMUNlTY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
ERIC MUNOZ
06/12/2003
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DlST
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
VALLECITOS WATER DlST
201 VALLECITOS DE OR0
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
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
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC W ORKS/ENG I NEE RING
DEPT
ENClNlTAS SCHOOL DlST
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
0 LIVEN HA1 N WATER D I ST
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
ATTN TED ANASIS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTH 0 Rl TY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUN IC1 PAL WATER DISTRICT
. . - -. . . a AERYB Address Labels Laser 5160@
THOMAS P PERFETTO
2969 LEXINGTON CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6564
XESIDUAL T LALLO
2963 LEXINGTON CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6564
SHARON M LUTHER
19524 REDWOOD GLN CASTRO VALLEY 94546-3518
ALEXANDRIA BRAVA
2976 LEXINGTON CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6565
SANDRA R TOLLACK
2979 LEXINGTON CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6565
WADDY E STEPHENSON
2985 LEXINGTON CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6565
MARNI L WALKER
2995 LEXINGTON CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6565
ANN B HARRISON
2956 LANCASTER RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6569
CLYDE E & LINDA HORNER
2964 LANCASTER RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6569
ENGLESON 3502 CELINDA DR CXRLSBAD CA 92008-2768
ANDRE 0 CHMIELEWSKI ALFRED0 D DONOVAE
2967 LEXINGTON CIR 2965 LEXINGTON CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6564 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6564
DAVID M & PAULA LEMKUIL JOSEPH D & KRISTI PAYNE
2986 LEXINGTON CIR 681748 LAIE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6565 WAIKOLOA HI 96738-5122
DAVID G THOMPSON MARY DEMEO
2980 LEXINGTON CIR 1330 OAK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6565 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1931
MAULTSBY RANDOLPH C ADAMS
PO BOX 70 2977 LEXINGTON CIR
CASHIERS NC 28717-0070 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6565
PETER J BURINSKAS ROBERT P & TAMARA IRWIN
2981 LEXINGTON CIR 10988 BAROQUE LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6565 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-3006
ERNEST C ALCANTARA STEPHANIE A GROSS
1020 S DITMAR ST 2993 LEXINGTON CIR
OCEANSIDE CA 92054-5007 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6565
GILBERT JOHN C SPERO
3465 CHARTER OAK DR 2954 LANCASTER RD CARLSBAD CA 92008-2008 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6569
JULIE A RICHTER SANDRA K STAMPER
2958 LANCASTER RD 2962 LANCASTER RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6569 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6569
STEPHEN A BELGUM OLIVER J BLOCK
16002 FANTASIA LN 2968 LANCASTER RD
HUNTINGTON BE 92649-2206 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6570
GILBERT LAURENCE NAUM & NAUHADE DAOU
2972 LANCASTER RD 2967 LANCASTER RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6570 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6569
EARL V GREEN BENNARD M KOUNS KATHLEEN M CHANDLER
2965 LANCASTER RD 1340 LAS FLORES DR 2700 GREEN OAK CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6569 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1031 LEWISVILLE TX 75077-8661
KIM STEIER SHAHRYAR ROKNI TR ENVIRONMENTAL
2957 LANCASTER RD 2955 LANCASTER RD 7879 EL CAJON BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6569 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6569 LA MESA CA 91941-3623
STATE OF CALIF CARLSBAD UNIF MONTE L & LUISA BIBLE 3734 SADDLE DR
ELES C 90017-1466 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6574
SEAN M 'PIROUZFAR GERALD W FLECK PIJUSIN K DEWANJEE
3738 SADDLE DR 3742 SADDLE DR 3746 SADDLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6574 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6574 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6574
F.ICHARD E BISHOP LUIS F CAMOLAS ABDOLHAMID KARIMI
3750 SADDLE DR 3754 SADDLE DR 3758 SADDLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6574 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6574 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6574
THOMAS M & MARY AYKROID JACK A & JOY GORZMAN PIERRE R & JODI BRETON
3762 SADDLE DR 3766 SADDLE DR 3763 SADDLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6574 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6574 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6576
GARY & CAROL RAMOS JOSE M & ANGELA DUENES RICHARD C PYLE
3759 SADDLE DR 3755 SADDLE DR 3751 SADDLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6576 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6576 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6576
MARVIN K JOHNSON MICHAEL B & KAREN KLEIN WILLIAM J SCHILDGE
3747 SADDLE DR 3732 CAVERN PL 3752 CAVERN PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6576 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6585 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6585
ALAN & ANNETTE CROSS DENNIS 0 SHAY TR VANPESKI
3756 CAVERN PL 3760 CAVERN PL 3764 CAVERN PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6585 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6585 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6585
MARIO A CARZO CALAVERA HILLS MASTER A CYPRESS VALLEY L L C
3761 CAVERN PL 2727 HOOVER AVE 2727 HOOVER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6587 NATIONAL CITY 91950-6625 NATIONAL CITY 91950-6625
C.4PE AT CALAVERA HILLS
3900 HARNEY ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92110-2825
*** 61 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 approval of a Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, and Planned Unit
development within Village W of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, on property generally located
east of future College Boulevard, south of the College Boulevard/Cilrlsbad Village Drive
intersection, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7 and more particularly described as:
Portion of Lots “D” and “J” of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map 823,
filed in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder on November 6,
1896, also being Lot 2 of Carlsbad Tract No. 00-02.
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 [DATE]. If you have any
questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit
Development Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very
short. If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development 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 Ol-OS/PUD 01-06
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
PUBLISH: [DATE}
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
SITE
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W
CT 01-OS/PUD 01-06
c
Village W•Calavera Hills Master Plan•Allows up to 121 SF homes•Proposing 114 SF homes
W - Architectural ReviewSingle Story Units: 11Reduced Two Story Units: 21Two Story Units: 82
W - Architectural ReviewItalian Rustic Units: 46Spanish Colonial: 32Craftsman: 36
Village WComplies With:•Calavera Hills Master Plan•City General Plan•Local Facilities Management Plan•Affordable Housing (Village Y)•Architectural Criteria/Guidelines
Village WVillage WPlanning Commission Action •November 20, 2002 – CT (CT 01-05) recommended for Council approval.•November 20, 2002 – Architecture rejected (PUD 01-06)•June 4, 2003 – Architecture Recommended for Council Approval by Planning Commission (PUD 01-06)
VillageW•Planning Commission and Staff recommend approval of Village W•CT 01-05/PUD 01-6 within the Calavera Hills Master Plan