HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-13; City Council; 17458; Villages of La Costa Neighborhoods 3.10 & 3.11CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
Project Applications Ad m in is tra tive
Approva Is
PUD 02-01 (A)
TITLE: -
VILLAGES OF LA COSTA NEIGHBORHOODS 3.10 AND
3.1 1
PUD 02-01(A)
Reviewed by and
Final at Planning
Commission
To be reviewed -
Final at Council
X
DEPT.HD. !!!$k
CITY ATTY. a-
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2004-011 , APPROVING Planned Unit
Development Amendment PUD 02-01(A) for Villages of La Costa Neighborhoods 3.10 and 3.11 as
recommended for adoption and approval by the Planning Commission.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On November 19, 2003, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for this residential
project. Since the Planned Unit Development Amendment is for more than 50 homes, the Planning
Commission has made a recommendation to the City Council for its action.
The project is Villages of La Costa Neighborhoods 3.10 and 3.1 1 and consists of approval of
architecture and plotting for 81 single-family dwelling units. The lots for these neighborhoods were
created through Tentative Map CT 02-02 and Planned Development Permit PUD 02-01 , approved by
the City Council in November 2002. As the minimum lot size for these neighborhoods is 6,000
square feet, a Planned Development Permit was required.
The Planning Commission discussed the merits of the application, and voted 7-0 to recommend
approval of the project to the City Council.
A full disclosure of the Planning Commission’s discussion is included in the attached minutes. A
complete description and staff analysis of the project is included in the attached report to the
Planning Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Staff prepared initial studies for the project and concluded that no potentially significant
Impacts would result with the implementation of the project that were not previously examined and
svaluated in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Villages of La Costa Master
Plan MP 98-01 (EIR 98-07), dated October 23, 2001. EIR 98-07 evaluates the potential
snvironmental effects of the development and operation of the “Villages of La Costa Master Plan”
2nd associated actions inclusive of the proposed planning area reviewed here.
The City Council certified EIR 98-07 on October 23, 2001. At that time CEQA Findings of Fact, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were
3pproved. All mitigation measures contained in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program from EIR 98-07 applicable to the proposed Planning Area projects have been completed,
ncorporated into the project design or are required as conditions of approval for the project. The EIR
38-07 “Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
Drojects covered by the Villages of La Costa Master Pian Final Program EIR.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,458
The proposed project would have no effects beyond those analyzed in the program EIR, as they are
a part of the program analyzed earlier. This project is within the scope of Final Program EIR 98-07
and no further CEQA compliance is required. EIR 98-07 and the respective initial studies for each
application are available at the Planning Department.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impacts have been identified.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2004-011
2. Location Map
3.
4.
5.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5504
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 19,2003
Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 19, 2003.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Sairna Qureshy, (760) 602-461 9, squre@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
d
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-011
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
APPROVE BUILDING FLOOR PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF REALIGNED
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD, ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH
SIDES OF CAMINO JUNIPERO, WITHIN THE LA COSTA OAKS
SOUTH VILLAGE, NEIGHBORHOODS 3.10 AND 3.11 OF THE
VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 11.
CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA NEIGHBORHOODS
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PUD 02-01 (A) TO
PLOTTING FOR 81 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES
3.10 AND 3.1 1 OF LA COSTA OAKS SOUTH
CASE NO.: PUD 02-01 (A)
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on November 19, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law to consider a Planned Unit Development Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the thirteenth day of
, 2004, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Planned Unit January
Development Amendment, and at the time received recommendations, objections, protests,
comments of all persons interested in or opposed to PUD 02-01 (A); 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 recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of
Planned Unit Development Amendment PUD 02-01(A) is approved by the City Council and that
the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 5504, on file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by reference, are the
findings and conditions of the City Council.
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
3. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial
Review" shall apply:
"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 13th day of January , 2004, by
following vote, to wit:
AYESCouncil Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard
NOES: None
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Resolution No. 2004-011 -2-
the
R SITE
VILLAGES OF LA COSTA -
OAKS NEIGHBORHOODS 3.10 AND 3.11
PUD 02=01(A) 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. 5504
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO PLANNED
BUILDING FLOOR PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND PLOTTING
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PUD 02-01(A) TO APPROVE
FOR 8 1 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF RE-ALIGNED RANCHO
SANTA FE ROAD, ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF
CAMINO JUNIPERO, WITHIN THE LA COSTA OAKS SOUTH
VILLAGE, NEIGHBORHOODS 3.10 AND 3.11 OF THE
VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 1.
CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA-NEIGHBOR-
HOODS 3.10 AND 3.11 OF LA COSTA
OAKS SOUTH
CASE NO.: PUD 02-0 1 (A)
WHEREAS, Warmington Homes California, “Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Real Estate Collateral
Management Company, “Owner,” described as
Lots 1 through 81 of City of Carlsbad Tract CT 02-02, Villages
of La Costa - La Costa Oaks South, Neighborhoods 3.10 and
3.11, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to map thereof No. 14624, filed in the
office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, on July 7,
2003 as file no. 2003-0802826
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Plan as shown on Exhibits “A” - “JJ” dated November 19, 2003, on file in the Planning
Department, VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - NEIGHBORHOOD 3.10 and 3.11 OF LA
COSTA OAKS SOUTH - PUD 02-01(A) as provided by Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of November 2003,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
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
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Planned Development Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VILLAGES OF LA COSTA -
02-01(A) based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
NEIGHBORHOODS 3.10 AND 3.11 OF LA COSTA OAKS SOUTH - PUD
Findings:
1. That the proposed project complies with all applicable development standards included
within Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in that the development of single-
family homes on minimum 6,000 square foot lots is consistent with the Villages of La
Costa Master Plan development standards. The Master Plan is the adopted
document, which governs any development within the Villages of La Costa.
2. That the proposed project’s density, site design and architecture are compatible with
surrounding development, in that the subject site is currently subdivided into 81
single-family residential lots, a minimum of 6,000 square feet. The proposed
building floor plans, elevations and plotting is consistent with the site as the
proposed homes meet all the development standards of the Villages of La Costa
Master Plan.
3. The Planning Director has determined that:
a. the project is a subsequent activity of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan for
which a program EIR was prepared, and a notice for the activity has been given,
which includes statements that this activity is within the scope of the program
approved earlier, and that the program EIR adequately describes the activity for
the purposes of CEQA); [ 15 168(c)(2) and (e)]; and
b. this project is consistent with the Master Plan cited above; and
c. the Villages of La Costa Master Plan EIR 98-07 was certified in connection
with the prior plan; and
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as significant
in the prior EIR; and
PC RES0 NO. 5504 -2- 7
1
4
L
L
t
r I
E
s
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e. none of the circumstances requiring a Subsequent EIR or a Supplemental EIR
under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 162 or 15 163 exist; and
f. the Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Villages of La Costa Master Plan EIR 98-07,
which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project, have been incorporated into
this Subsequent Project.
4. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11 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.
5. 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:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of
building permits.
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 Development Permit Amendment.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Planned Development Permit Amendment 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
-3- 8 PC RES0 NO. 5504
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.
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 Planned Development Permit
Amendment, and (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein. This
obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if
the City’s approval is not validated.
Developer shall submit to the Planning Department a reproducible 24” x 36” mylar
copy of the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making
body.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Encinitas Union Elementary and San Dieguito Unified High School
Districts 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 11 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 18 months from the date of project approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permit, 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 Planned Development Permit Amendment by Resolution
No. 5504 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.
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.
PC RES0 NO. 5504 -4- 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
The Developer shall implement and comply with all applicable mitigation measures
required by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program certified with the Final
Program EIR for the Villages of La Costa Master Plan - EIR 98-07, as contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5010.
Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units as stipulated in the First
Amended and Restated Affordable Housing Agreement (dated February 21, 2003)
between Real Estate Collateral Management Company and the City of Carlsbad
concurrent with the project’s market rate units, unless both the final decision making
authority of the City and the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to
an alternate schedule for development.
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 11, 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.
If satisfaction of the school facility requirement involves a Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District or other financing mechanism which is inconsistent with City Council
Policy No. 38, by allowing a pass-through of the taxes or fees to individual home buyers,
then in addition to any other disclosure required by law or Council policy, the Developer
shall disclose to future owners in the project, to the maximum extent possible, the
existence of the tax or fee, and that the school district is the taxing agency responsible for
the financing mechanism. The form of notice is subject to the approval of the Planning
Director and shall at least include a handout and a sign inside the sales facility stating the
fact of a potential pass-through of fees or taxes exists and where complete information
regarding those fees or taxes can be obtained.
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.
Developer shall post a sign in the sales office in a prominent location that discloses which
special districts and school districts provide service to the project. Said sign shall remain
posted until ALL of the units are sold.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice
that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from
McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and
the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales and/or rental offices
associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be
PC RES0 NO. 5504 -5- la
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.
approved by the Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the Planning
Department ) .
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the Villages of La Costa Master Plan and shall require review and approval of the
Planning Director prior to installation of such signs.
The Developer shall comply with all the conditions set forth by CT 02-02 in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5283 incorporated by reference herein.
Construction shall begin on common recreation Lot 190 located in Neighborhood
3.10 and common recreation Lots 87 and 186 located in Neighborhood 3.11 prior to
the occupancy of the first unit in Neighborhoods 3.10 and 3.11 and shall be
approved for use prior to the occupancy of the 41st unit in Neighborhoods 3.10 and
3.11.
Enpineering
General
23.
24.
25.
26.
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.
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 and a sidewalk underdrain on
each residential lot to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or street to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance
with Engineering Standards.
FeedAgreements
27. 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 and/or to the formation or annexation into an
additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be
on a form provided by the City Engineer.
...
PC RES0 NO. 5504 -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
Grading
28. 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.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
plan, a precise grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and
obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building
permits for the project.
29.
DedicationsAmprovemen ts
30.
31.
32.
33.
Prior to issuance of any development permits, improvements necessary to serve the
proposed development shall be designed, secured and construction completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Necessary improvements include, but are not
limited to the sewer lines, reclaimed and potable water lines, and roadway and
signal improvements all as shown on tentative tract maps CT 99-04 and CT 02-02.
Prior to issuance of a precise grading permit, City drawing number DWG 399-6 and
DWG 397-1B shall be construction changed to show relocation of sewer laterals,
water laterals, and driveways as necessary to support development of the homes as
shown on the subject PUD 02-01(A) site plan.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit for City approval a “Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP).” The S WPPP shall be in compliance with current requirements and provisions
established by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board and City of Carlsbad Requirements. The SWPPP shall address measures to reduce
to the maximum extent practicable storm water pollutant runoff during construction of
the project. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall:
a.
b.
c.
include all content as established by the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board requirements;
include the receipt of “Notice of Intent” issued by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board;
recommend source control and treatment control Best Management Practices
(BMPs) that will be implemented with this project to avoid contact or filter said
pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging
to City right-of-way or natural drainage course; and
establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special
considerations and effort shall be applied to employee education on the proper
procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants.
d.
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 demonstrate compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban
Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP), Order 2001-01 issued by the San Diego Region
la PC RES0 NO. 5504 -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
of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Municipal
Code. The SWMP shall address measures to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from
storm water, to the maximum extent practicable, for the post-construction stage of the
project. At a minimum, the SWMP shall:
a.
b.
c.
identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concern;
identify the hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies
that could be impacted by this project;
recommend source controls and treatment controls that will be implemented with
this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the
maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way;
establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special
considerations and effort shall be applied to resident education on the proper
procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants; and
ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity; and
identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not
exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities to the maximum extent
practicable.
d.
e.
Code Reminder:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following:
34.
35.
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.
Some improvements shown on the site plan and/or required by these conditions are
located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient title or
interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or interest.
The Developer shall immediately initiate negotiations to acquire such property. The
Developer shall use its best efforts to effectuate negotiated acquisition. If unsuccessful,
Developer shall demonstrate to the City Engineer its best efforts, and comply with the
requirements of the Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 20.16.095 to notify and enable the
City to successfully acquire said property by condemnation.
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
“feedexactions.”
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
PC RES0 NO. 5504 -8- 13
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
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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th, day of November 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
R, Chairperson
PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOE~MILLE~
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5504 -9-
EXHIBIT 4
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
9,2003
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: August 4, 2003
Project Planner: Saima Qureshy P.C. AGENDA OF: November
ST.
Project Engineer: John Maashoff
JBJECT: PUD 02-01(A) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - NEIGHBORHOODS 3.10
AND 3.11 OF LA COSTA OAKS SOUTH - Request for a determination that
the project is within the scope of the previously certified Villages of La Costa
Program EIR and that the Program EIR adequately describes the activity for the
purposes of CEQA; and to recommend approval, pursuant to Section 7.2.7 of the
Villages of La Costa Master Plan, of an amendment to Planned Development
Permit, PUD 02-01, for building floor plans, elevations and plotting for the
development of 8 1 single-family detached homes located within Neighborhoods
3.10 and 3.1 1 of the La Costa Oaks South. The project site is located on the east
side of re-aligned Rancho Santa Fe Road, on the north and south sides of Camino
Juniper0 and within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5504
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Planned Development Permit Amendment (02-01 (A)),
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The proposed project includes approval of architecture and plotting for 8 1 single-family dwelling
units located in Neighborhoods 3.10 and 3.1 1 of the Oaks South Village of the Villages of La
Costa Master Plan. The lots for this neighborhood were created through Tentative Map CT 02-
02 and Planned Development Permit PUD 02-01, approved by the City Council in November
2002. The minimum lot size for these neighborhoods is 6,000 square feet and, therefore, a
Planned Development Permit was required. Architecture for the units was not proposed at that
time and pursuant to Section 4.6.4 of the Master Plan, could subsequently be processed through
an amendment to the Planned Development Permit. The applicant is now proposing architecture
and plotting for the subject neighborhoods. The proposed homes consist of three floor plans
ranging in size from 3,632 to 4,089 square feet. Each floor plan has three elevation styles and
the project has a total of twelve color schemes. The project complies with all City standards
including the Villages of La Costa Master Plan and all necessary findings can be made for the
approval being requested. City Council action is required as the subdivision contains more than
50 residential units.
PUD 02-01(A) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - NEIGHBORHOODS 3.10 AND 3.1 1 OF LA
COSTA OAKS SOUTH
November 19,2003
Plan No.
1
2
3
111.
1st Floor 2nd Floor Living Area Garage Total Bldg. Elevation Styles
Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft.
1,539 1,593 3,132 492 3,624 ItaliadTuscan,
(2 car> Craftsman Bungalow,
European Country
1,832 1,549 3,381 652 4,033 Spanish Colonial,
European Country
(3 car) Craftsman Bungalow,
1,719 1,746 3,465 680 4,145 Santa Barbara,
(3 car> Craftsman Bungalow,
European Country
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Background
On October 23, 2001, the City Council certified the Final Program EIR, approved the Master
Plan, a Master Tentative Tract Map and related applications for the Villages of La Costa project.
The Villages of La Costa Master Plan establishes the permitted uses, development standards, and
design criteria for each neighborhood as well as the development review process to be utilized.
Master Tentative Tract Map CT 99-04 subdivided the area into open space areas and established
neighborhood development area boundaries. Tentative Tract Map CT 02-02 and Planned
Development Permit PUD 02-01, approved by the City Council in November 2002, created the
lots for Neighborhoods 3.10 and 3.11. A final map has recorded for the Oaks South area,
grading and improvement plans have been approved. Grading and street improvements are
presently ongoing.
Proiect Description
The project site, Neighborhoods 3.10 and 3.1 1 of the La Costa Oaks South Village of the
Villages of La Costa Master Plan, is located on the east side of re-aligned Rancho Santa Fe
Road, north of Neighborhoods 3.12 and 3.13 and south and west of Open Space Area 3.B within
Local Facilities Management Zone 1 1. The subject neighborhoods contain 81 single-family
residential lots, approved by the City Council in November 2002 through CT 02-02PUD 02-01.
Architecture and plotting were not part of the previous approval. The Master Plan provides for
architectural review of the units through the processing of an amendment to the Planned
Development Permit. The applicant has now applied for the review and approval of building
floor plans, elevations, and plotting. Pursuant to the Master Plan, three different floor plans are
proposed ranging in size from 3,632 square feet to 4,089 square feet. Each plan is two stones
high with two-car garages for Floor Plan 1 and three car garages for Floor Plans 2 and 3. Each
floor plan is proposed with three different elevation styles to create a variety of faqades in the
Neighborhoods. The following table provides a summary of square footage and elevation styles:
PUD 02-01(A) -VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - NEIGHBORHOODS 3.10 AND 3.1 1 OF LA
COSTA OAKS SOUTH
November 19,2003
Page 3
To determine compliance with the provisions of the Master Plan, an amendment to the Planned
Development Permit is required for the development of homes on lots with a minimum area of
less than 7,500 square feet.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the standards contained in the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. The project’s
compliance with the Master Plan is discussed in detail in the section below.
Villages of La Costa Master Plan (MP 98-01(B))
The project is within the La Costa Oaks South area of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. The
Master Plan maps and text define the allowable type and intensity of land uses in each village
and provides detailed development and design standards, development phasing and timing, and
the method by which the Master Plan will be implemented.
The subject neighborhood was divided into 81 residential lots through CT 02-02 and PUD 02-01
and compliance with the Master Plan standards related to the subdivision was analyzed at that
time. The current application is for the approval of building floor plans, elevations and plotting
of the units.
An overall goal of the Master Plan is to create a balanced, open space oriented residential
community. The development standards contained in the Master Plan support this goal by
describing the design elements that are shared by all neighborhoods within the three Master Plan
Villages. The following table shows compliance of the proposed project with the Architectural/
Site Planning Design standards and guidelines, contained in the Master Plan.
Front Yard Setback 15’ minimum, 20’ neighborhood
A porte cochere or arbor structure is allowed within the front yard setback to accommodate applicable alternate garage
configurations. The cover cannot exceed 200 square feet in size
and must have a 5’ minimum setback from property line.
Rear Yard Setback
(4.6.2.B.2.e) For lots with Min. 6,000 SF lot: 15’ minimum setback
Minimum rear yard area shall be 15’ by 15’
nce Table
Compliance
Neighborhood Average Front Yard Setback = 26.59’
All lots comply. Refer to the attached
‘Individual Lot Compliance’ table for
each lot’s compliance.
All lots comply with minimum 15’
setback.
All lots provide the required 15’ by 15’
usable rear yard area.
PUD 02-01(A) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - NEIGHBORHOODS 3.10 Ah9 3.11 OF LA
COSTA OAKS SOUTH
November 19,2003
TA-tandards Compliance
Standard
The standard minimum lot width for Neighborhoods 3.10 and
3.1 1 is 50 feet. Therefore the required combined minimum side
yard for each lot within the neighborhoods shall be 25% of the lot
width (1 2.5 feet).
Minimum of 5’ per side
Maximum setback does not need to exceed 20’ in aggregate
Lots at the end of cul-de-sacs may reduce each side yard to 5’
At least 50% of the units in each neighborhood shall have one
side elevation where there are sufficient offsets or cutouts so the
side yard setback averages a minimum of 7’.
10’ minimum
All main and accessory buildings that are developed on hilltops
and/or pads created on downhill perimeter slopes of greater than
15’ in height shall be setback so that the building does not intrude
into a .7’ horizontal to 1’ vertical imaginary diagonal plane that is
measured from the edge of slope to the building.
For all buildings, which are subject to this slope edge building
setback standard, a profile of the diagonal plane shall be
submitted with all other development application requirements.
Lot widths vary from 50’ to 70’
For 6,000 SF lots: required width is 50’ minimum
For 2-story units: 40% of net pad area
The Coverage shall include:
Garages and the perimeter area of a basement.
The Coverase shall exclude:
Exterior structures such as covered porches
Permanent structural elements protruding from buildings
such as overhanging balconies that project less than 8’
from the building
Porte cocheres not exceeding a length of 22’ and a width
of 8’
Roof eaves extending less than 30” from the face of any building ’
Awnings
Open parking areas
Structures under 30” in height Masonry walls not greater than 6’ in height (wing-walls,
planter walls, grade separation retaining walls).
able Continued
Compliance
The combined minimum side yard for
each lot within the neighborhood is 12.5
feet.
Refer to the attached “Individual Lot
Compliance” table for each lot’s
compliance. All lots comply.
All street side setbacks comply with the
IO feet minimum.
All proposed units will meet the required
slope edge setbacks.
The following are each plan’s minimum
distance required from the top of slope:
Plan 1: 15.5’
Plan 2: 14.4’
Plan3: 15’
See the Slope Edge Building Setback
exhibit on the site plans.
All lots are at a minimum 50’ wide.
All plans are two story; therefore, they
can only cover 40% of the net pad area.
Refer to the attached “Individual Lot
Compliance” table for each lot’s
compliance. All lots comply.
PUD 02-01(A) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - NEIGHBORHOODS 3.10 AND 3.11 OF LA
COSTA OAKS SOUTH
November 19,2003
Pane 5
Guideline (VLCMP Reference)
Building Height
(4.6.3.B. I)
Front Building Planes
(4.6.3.B.4.e &
4.6.3.B.4.f)
Rear Building Planes
(4.6.3.B.4.g)
Front Building
Elevations
(4.6.3.9.6)
Side & Rear Elevations
(4.6.3.B.7)
Elevations Fronting
Circulation Element
Roads (4.6.3.A.l .a)
Floor Plans
(4.6.3.B.5.c &
4.6.3 .B.5 .d)
Single-Story Units
(7.7.3.14.0 &
4.6.3.B.4.1)
Two Story Units
(4.6.3.B.4.n &
4.6.3.BS.b)
4BLE 2 - Development Standards Compliance
Standard
Maximum of 30’ and 2 stories.
50% of units in the neighborhood must have 18 inch offset planes
with a minimum of IO’ between front and rear planes.
Each plane shall be a minimum of 30 square feet.
4 separate building planes for lots with a frontage greater than
45’.
50% of units in the neighborhood must have 18 inch offset planes
with a minimum of 3’ between face of the forward-most plane
and rear planes.
Each plane shall be a minimum of 30 square feet.
3 separate building planes for lots with a 45’ of frontage or less.
4 separate building planes for lots with a frontage greater than
45’.
Front building faqades shall incorporate a minimum of 4 varieties
of design elements to create character and interest to the home.
These elements vary depending on the architectural style used.
Minimum of 2 elements of enhanced architectural detailing
incorporating good design is required for side & rear elevations
adjacent to public/private roads.
Homes adjacent to circulation element roads are required to
receive special attention to detailing on the elevation fronting the
roads. This will include window detailing equal to or better than
that of the front elevation. The introduction of additional wall
planes and balconies, where noise standards allow, is encouraged.
Minimum of 3 per neighborhood
Minimum of 3 front elevations shall be provided for each floor
plan.
For neighborhoods on ridgelineshilltops that are visible from a
circulation element roadway, at least 20% of the units shall be
single-story.
Single-story shall be defined as a plateline maximum of 15’, (10’
preferred).
Must include some single-story features.
The second-story must not exceed 80% of the first-story square
footage, including all garage area.
able Continued
Compliance
Plan 1 = Two Stories, 24’
Plan 2 = Two Stories, 24’4’’
Plan 3 = Two Stories, 24’”’’
The details are shown on the architectural
plans, building plane exhibit. All units
comply.
Plan 1 = 4 Planes
Plan 2 = 4 Planes
Plan 3 = 4 Planes
The details are shown on the architectural
plans, building plane exhibit. All units
comply.
Plan 1 = 4 Planes
Pian 2 = 5 Planes
Plan 3 = 7 Planes
All elevation styles comply. Refer to the
attached “Building Elevation Design
Elements” table.
All elevation styles comply. Refer to the
attached “Building Elevation Design
Elements” table.
Please refer to the attached “Building
Elevation Design Elements” table for
details on various design elements
incorporated for each elevation type.
The proposed project includes three floor
plans with three elevation types for each
plan.
Not Applicable. Neighborhood has not
been designated with a ridgeline or hilltop that is visible from a circulation
element roadway by the Master Plan.
All floor plans comply.
Plan 1: 77.2% of 1% floor
Plan 2: 57.1 % of 1” floor
Plan 3: 73.7% of 1‘‘ floor
PUD 02-01 (A) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - NEIGHBORHOODS 3.10 AND 3.1 1 OF LA
COSTA OAKS SOUTH
November 19,2003
Page 6
1
Guideline
(VLCMP Reference)
Where (3) Two Story
Units occur in a row-
with less than 15 fi
between homes-
(4.6.3.B.4.b)
Where (3) Two Story
Units occur in a row
with 15 ft to 20 ft
between homes-
(4.6.3.B.4.c)
Single-Story Elements
(4.6.3.B.4.d)
Entries, Front Porches,
Courtyards, & Balconies
(4.6.3.B.9,4.6.2.B.2.f&
4.6.2.B.3)
Projections
(4.6.2.B.3)
Recreation Areas
iBLE 2 - Development Standards Compliance ’
Standard
One of the units must have a single-story building edge at least
IO’ deep and shall run the length of the building.
Single-story shall be defined as a plateline maximum of 15’
One of the units must have a single-story building edge at least 5’
deep and shall run the length of the building.
Single-story shall be defined as a plateline maximum of 15’
33% of units within a Neighborhood must have a single-story
element, with a minimum depth of 3’, that is 40% or greater than
the front elevation width. Porches and porte cochere elements
qualify.
25% of the units must have either a porch at least 5’ deep, across
33% of the width of the dwelling, or a courtyard or balcony,
whichever is consistent with the architectural style.
Porches require a minimum front yard setback of IO’.
Porches shall have a minimum depth and length of 5’.
A variety of roof elements (gables, shed, etc.) shall be provided
over porches. A balcony above a porch may also serve this
purpose.
The front and sidewall of porches shall be open except for
required and ornamental guardrails. These features shall qualify
as a plane for the purposes of the architectural guidelines.
Buildings on comer lots should consider having the porch wrap
around the side of the building.
Non-enclosed and non-habitable porches and balconies may
encroach up to 5’ and 8’ respectively into the required front yard
setback.
Fireplace structures not wider than 8’, cornices, eaves, belt
courses, sills, buttresses, and other similar architectural features
projecting from the building may intrude up to 2’ into the
required setbacks.
Common recreation areas:
Are required for neighborhoods with lot sizes less than
7,500 square feet
Shall begin construction prior to the occupancy of the first
unit and approved for use prior to the occupancy of 50% of
the units
‘able Continued
rnmnliance -~ ~~ Plan 1 and 3 both incovorate a single-
story building edge that is at least 10’
deep and runs the length of the building
and are plotted where there are 3 units with less than 15’ between them.
Plan 1 and 3 both incorporate a single-
story building edge that is at least IO’
deep and runs the length of the building
and are plotted where there are 3 units
with 15’ to 20’ separation between them.
The architectural plans show Plans 2 & 3
include a single-story element that is
greater than 40% of the width and a min.
of 3’ deep. Plans 2 & 3 make up 68% of
the overall unit mix.
The following plan and elevation types
comply by incorporating a porch,
balcony or courtyard. Please refer to the
enclosed architecture plans and site plan
for specifics:
European County - Balcony
Italian - Balcony
Craftsman - Porch
Craftsman - Balcony/Porch
Spanish - Courtyard
European - Porch
Santa Barbara - Balcony
Craftsman - Balcony
No projections extend into the side
setback more than 2’ nor are any
fireplace projections greater than 8’ in length. All plans comply.
Common recreation areas located within
the neighborhoods are Lot 190 in
Neighborhood 3.10 and Lots 87 and 186
within 3.1 1.
A construction change is currently in
process for the improvements of these
lots.
A condition is included in Resolution No.
5504 to ensure compliance with the
Master Plan requirements.
PUD 02-01(A) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - NEIGHBORHOODS 3.10 AND 3.1 1 OF LA
COSTA OAKS SOUTH
November 19,2003
1
Guideline
(VLCMP Reference)
Resident Parking
(4.6.2.B.4.a)
Garage Criteria
(4.6.2.B.2.b, 4.6.3.B.4.h,
& 4.6.3.B. 13)
Roofs
(4.6.3.B.4.k &
4.6.3.B.8)
Colors
(4.6.3.B.12)
LBLE 2 - Development Standards Compliance Table Continued
Standard
Minimum 2-car garage with interior measurements of 20’ by 20’.
Two 1-car garages each having interior measurements of 12’ in
width by 20’ in length may be provided as an alternative.
20’ minimum setback from the property line where garage doors
face the street.
Side-loaded garages must maintain a 15’ setback from property
line. They also must be designed to appear as a livable portion of
the home.
Projects with three-car garages shall be a mix of two door
garages, three door garages, and offset two door garages (2 planes
separated by at least 18 inches).
A variety of garage configurations should be used within each
neighborhood to improve the street scene.
(See VLCMP 4.6.3.B.13.g for examples of garage configurations)
Roll-up garage doors are required.
Architectural projections may encroach into the setback a
maximum on 18” for garages. However, the projection shall not
extend to the second story living space.
Varied building roof heights and roof massing shall be
incorporated into unit designs for each master plan neighborhood.
Changes in roof direction shall be provided to create diversity and
interest.
Roof planes of units located at the top of slopes should attempt to
parallel the slope.
A variety of roof colors shall be used within each neighborhood.
Minimum roof pitch of 3: 12
Colors should be consistent with the architectural style selected.
Warm, earth tones are preferred, however other color
combinations are acceptable depending upon architectural style.
Within each neighborhood, a minimum of 3 different exterior
color schemes shall be used for each floor plan within the same
architectural styles.
In all master plan neighborhoods, adjacent units within the same
architectural style shall not utilize the same color scheme.
However, similar or same colors may occur within different color
schemes. “Adjacent“ includes units on either side of the subject
unit as well as those directly across the street.
Compliance
All plans include at a minimum one 2-car
garage with an interior measurement of
20’x20’.
All setbacks for garages that face the
street are greater than 20’. All side-
loaded garages have a setback of at least
15’ and they appear as livable portions of
the homes.
All 3-car garages are a combination of
side and front loaded.
All garage doors are roll-up sections.
A variety of roof forms and massing are
proposed with changes in direction and
pitches. See elevations and roof plans for
compliance.
Various roof colors are proposed and
shown on color palettes.
Typical roof pitches:
Plan 1: 4:12
Plan 2: 4:12,6:12
Plan 3: 4:12,6:12
The plotting of color schemes as shown
on the plotting site plan complies with
these requirements.
The project incorporates 12 color
schemes for 9 elevation styles.
PUD 02-01(A) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - NEIGHBORHOODS 3.10 AND 3.1 1 OF LA
COSTA OAKS SOUTH
November 19,2003
Page 8
TABLE 2 - DeveloDment Standards Comdiance Table Continued
Window Detailing
(4.6.3.B. 10)
Standard
Each Neighborhood shall contain one or more of the following
Architectural Styles:
Santa Barbara Mediterranean
Craftsmen Bungalow
Spanish Colonial
Monterey Ranch
ltalian/Tuscan
European Country
California Contemporary - (limited to neighborhoods with
a minimum lot size of 9,000 SF)
50% of exterior openings (doors/windows) in the front of each
unit shall be recessed or projected a minimum of 2 inches or shall
be trimmed with wood or raised stucco. Colored aluminum
window frames shall be used (no mill finishes).
The chimney and chimney cap shall be in scale with the size of
the structure
2-chimney limit for dwelling units on lots less than 7,500 SF.
The design of the windows shall include one or more of the
following features:
Deeply recessed Exterior wood trim
Paned windows Accent colors on shutters
Decorative window or other elements
ledges Arched elements
Accent and varied shape Shutters
windows Raised stucco trim
Window boxes and around windows
planters with Window lintels
architecturally evident
supports
windows surrounds
Compliance
The plans include the following
Architectural Styles:
0 Santa Barbara Mediterranean
Craftsman Bungalow
Spanish Colonial
0 Italian/Tuscan
European Country
The windows and doors on front
elevations are recessed a minimum of 2”
and are trimmed with either wood or
raised stucco.
All chimneys and caps are in scale with
the size of the structures.
All plans have a maximum of 2
chimneys.
The design of the windows includes the
following:
Recessed windows
Paned windows Accent and varied shape windows
Exterior wood trim surrounds
Accent colors on shutters or other
elements
Arched elements
Shutters
Raised stucco trim around
windows
The Master Plan requires that each front elevation shall incorporate a minimum of 4 enhanced
architectural design elements and side and rear elevations shall incorporate a minimum of 2 such
elements to create character and interest to the homes. The attached table, “Building Elevation
Design Elements,” shows which elements are used for each elevation and floor plans.
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 11 in the southeast
quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and the project’s
compliance with the adopted performance standards were analyzed and evaluated at the time of
approval of CT 99-04 and CT 02-02.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Staff prepared an initial study for the project and concluded that no potentially
significant impacts would result with the implementation of the project that were not previously
examined and evaluated in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Villages of
PUD 02-01(A) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - NEIGHBORHOODS 3.10 AND 3.1 1 OF LA
COSTA OAKS SOUTH
November 19,2003
Page 9
La Costa Master Plan (2000) MP 98-01 (EIR 98-07), dated July 16, 2001, T & B Planning
Consultants, Inc. EIR 98-07 evaluates the potential environmental effects of the development
and operation of the “Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000)” and associated actions inclusive
of the proposed neighborhood projects reviewed here.
The City Council certified EIR 98-07 on October 23,2001. At that time CEQA Findings of Fact,
a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
were approved. All mitigation measures contained in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program from EIR 98-07 applicable to Neighborhoods 3.10 and 3.1 1 have been
completed, incorporated into the project design or are required as conditions of approval for the
project. The EIR 98-07 “Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations” applies
to all subsequent projects covered by the Villages of La Costa Final Program EIR.
The proposed project would have no effects beyond those analyzed in the program EIR, as they
are a part of the program analyzed earlier. This project is within the scope of Final Program EIR
98-07 and no further CEQA compliance is required. EIR 98-07 and the initial study for this
project are available at the Planning Department.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5504
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Statement
Table “Individual Lot Compliance”
Table “Building Elevation Design Elements”
Reduced Exhibits
Full Size Exhibits “A” - “JJ” dated November 19, 2003
SQ:bd:mh
23
BACKGROC'ND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: PUD 02-0 1 (A)
CASE NAME: Villages of La Costa -Neighborhood 3.10 and 3.1 1 of La Costa Oaks South
APPLICANT: Warmington Homes, CA
REQUEST AND LOCATION: The uroiect includes approval of architecture and plotting for 81
single-family dwelling units located in Neighborhood 3.10 and 3.11 of the Oaks South Village of the
Villages of La Costa Master Plan. Minimum lot size for these neighborhoods is 6.000 square feet. The
lots were created with Tentative Map, CT 02-02 and Planned Development Permit, PUD 02-01. The
proiect site is located on the east side of re-aligned Rancho Santa Fe Road, on the north and south sides
of Camino Juniper0 and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 1.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 through 8 1 of City of Carlsbad Tract CT 02-02, Villages of La Costa -
La Costa Oaks South, Neighborhoods 3.10 and 3.1 1, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. State
of California, according to mau thereof No. 14624, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, on July 7.2003 as file no. 2003-0802826.
APN: Various Acres: 33.7 Proposed No. of LotsAJnits: 81
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RLM
Density Allowed: 0-4
Existing Zone: P-C
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Density Proposed: 2.2 and 2.6
Proposed Zone: P-C
Zoning General Plan
Site P-c RLM
North P-C os
South P-C RLM
East P-c os
West P-c RLM
Current Land Use
Mass grading for
development
HCP Preserve Area
Mass grading for
development
HCP Preserve Area
Mass grading for
development
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Encinitas Union ElementagdSan Dieguito Unified High Water District: Olivenhain
Sewer District: Leucadia
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity):
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
0 Negative Declaration, issued
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, Proiect is within the Scope of Program EIR 98-07 apuroved earlier
- City of Carlsbad
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following infomation MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project.cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fiatd organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit”
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a gomoration or uartners hip, include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Person
Title Title
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE T” 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
corp/part Warmington Homes C, L.k~.-fi~~
Address Address 701 Palomar Airport Road, Ste 300
Carlsbad, CA 92009
2. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (Le,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
corporation or uartnershb, 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 (”/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a wbliclv-
owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person
Title Title Company
Address Address 1903 Wright Place, Suite 180
corp/part Real Estate Collateral Management
Carlsbad, CA 92008
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 JP
3. NON-PROFIT OKGANIZATION 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 Profiflrust Non Profiflrust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business Wsacted with any member of City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? 0 Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
11 the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of applicanthte
Matthew C-~I iu Tingler, n\ President of Warmington
Print or type name of applicant
, President of Morrow
DeveloDment Homes. San DiePo Division
Print or type name of owner
Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant’s agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98
ATTACHMENT 5
Lot #
1
2
Individual Lot Compliance - Neighborhoods 3.10 and 3.11 of La Costa Oaks South
Setbacks (ft) Building
Average Side Yard Net Pad Coverage "
% of Net sq - Plan Elevation Color Front Rear Left Right Garage Porches Area (SF) Footage Pad
3 EC 8 15.00 15 46.9 7 21.1 9,132 2,399 26.3%
2RSC 4 20.90 19.7 5 8.8 22.9 16.9 6,839 2,484 36.3%
40
41
42
2 SC 4 29.40 31.4 5 9.2 22.7 29.2 6,791 2,484 36.6%
3RSB 5 61.38 42.1 20.2 7.7 72.2 13,547 2,399 17.7%
1FjI 10 33.15 23 5 10 66.7 13.9 6,333 2,031 32.1%
Lot #
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Setbacks Cft) Building
Average Side Yard Net Pad Coverage "
sq. YO of Net
Plan Elevation Color Front Rear Left Right Garage Porches Area (SF) Footage Pad
3 CR 2 28.05 29.3 5.1 7.4 30 6,229 2,399 38.5%
1 CR 6 33.63 29.7 5 11 59.7 13 5,675 2,031 35.8%
3 EC 7 25.50 27.7 9 10.7 28 6,151 2,399 39.0%
1 EC 12 32.07 26.7 5 11.3 57.8 16 5,857 2,031 34.7%
3 CR 4 25.53 22.8 5 7.5 28 6,220 2,399 38.6%
2 EC 3 34.38 19.6 5.1 7.4 34.5 24 7,620 2,484 32.6%
3 SB 2 29.59 25.8 11.7 7 28.9 8 569 2 399 28.0%
I I I Average Neighborhood
Setback:
I I I I I I I
26.59
ATTACHMENT 6
0 F z :
D
D z
I
i (r L c E i . c D
L L
49
I I- -
30
El
I
. :
.-?
I
33
9 U3HS 33s
m-
4 W
d 4
4 .
36
J r > z -
-1
0
--
I
I1 I:
-4 c
11 I
37
PLhN 4 OPTIDN
,
-- -LAN I
- LKA~TIPA~ nu-m~uw LA COSTA OAKS - CARLSBAD, CA
.
I
I
& I--
5
5
LA COSTA OAKS - CARLSBAD, CA f
1: WurmngtonHomawdorms :' Deslvl Development .Q
e: kT+s. YO cy 3. iv
.
c
39
I I I!
P
LA COSTA OAKS - CARLSBAD, CA
&T+&dLJ. io ,e 3. i4
LA COSTA
I.
OAKS - CARLSBAD, CA
ROO* 'LA<
1 - ----
!I
L AN
I 2
COO? ?LhN -.. .. - ..
3 F PLPU 1
3 r > z
II - 4
I e
.
--r
-
-t I i
--
n n
LA COSTA OAKS - CARLSBAD, CA
LW-3. io CJ- 3. hf
i
i
\
,I ' I
i
n
LA COSTA OAKS - CARLSBAD, CA
~q-3. f0 9 3. N
WamongtonHoms~
3erp Development
I I I I
I n
LA COSTA OAKS - CARLSBAD, CA
LT-3. IO cy 3.124
h'ammgtcn Homa Cahfmm
hLgn Developmt 48
,/ , Y
c
*
LA COSTA OAKS - CARLSBAD, CA
LV-3. IO cy 3. If
Wamun$$m Homsclllfmnu
Design Development
n
U
I____
I/1L
I
I'
3 r' > Z
N
l-
I I r-----
I E I
I
I
I
I I
I 11
?-AN 2
LA COSTA OAKS - CARLSBAD, CA
3.10 d-3.41
t i/
+
.) !'
t-
I ! I
-J n
r
D... i-i LA COSTA OAKS
I
I '3
I'
'C"i, I '- pi
- CARLSBAD, CA
t :
i j %E 6; ".
LA COSTA OAKS - CARLSBAD, CA
e7ys. f0 9 9. Af
W.mungmn Homn C&kmma
Dengn Development
LA COSTA OAKS - CARLSBAD, CA
Lq;#&d3. IO cy 3. II
W~mmg;m, Ho- Cahfoma
kl$n k*lopmem
I
i
-' I
C...
L -* ,. ..
DETAILS
LA COSTA OAKS - CARLSBAD, CA
&T+Us. 40 gf 3. 44
Warrmn~hon H- calrforma
-hcDRlgn
e (D
DET-AILS
A
DETAILS
LA COSTA OAKS - CARLSBAD, CA
&Y&dd3. YO 0 3. II
I-- 7 r----. -. .
WS gz ZE "P
ALTERVATWE ELEVATIONS
LA COSTA OAKS - CARLSBAD, CA
&?&@w&dS. 40 $9.41
W~HCUlWCdhlth
hlgn Lk'elopment
Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT w~BiT5 November 19,2003
5. PUD 02-01(A) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - NEIGHBORHOODS 3.10 AND 3.11 OF LA
COSTA OAKS SOUTH - Request for a determination that the project is within the scope of the
previously certified Villages of La Costa Program EIR and that the Program EIR adequately
describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA; and to recommend approval, pursuant to Section
7.2.7 of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan, of an amendment to Planned Development Permit,
PUD 02-01, for building floor plans, elevations and plotting for the development of 81 single-
family detached homes located within Neighborhoods 3.10 and 3.1 1 of the La Costa Oaks South.
The project site is located on the east side of realigned Rancho Santa Fe Road, on the north and
south sides of Camino Juniper0 and within Local Facilities Management Zone 11.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 5 and stated that Associate Planner, Saima Qureshy, would make the
presentation.
Chairperson Baker opened the public hearing on Item 5.
Associate Planner, Saima Qureshy, presented the Staff Report stating that Item 5 was a Planned
Development Amendment to allow the approval of building floor plans, elevations and plotting for
Neighborhoods 3.10 and 3.1 1 of the La Costa Oaks South of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. The lots for these neighborhoods were created through Tentative Map CT 02-02 and associated Planned
Development Permit 02-01 in November 2002. These neighborhoods contain a total of 81 single-family
detached homes with a minimum 6,000 sq ft lots. The applicant is proposing three floor plans for these
two neighborhoods and each floor plan has three different elevation styles with a total of 9 elevations and
12 different color schemes. Floor plans range from 3,100 sq ft to 3,400 sq ft. and are all two-story homes.
The applicant’s presentation will contain more details on rear elevations as requested by the Planning
Commission. Staff is recommending approval of this project.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that during the briefing he and Mr. Holzmiller had had a discussion on
whether the renderings offered would provide adequate direction for the Staff from the Planning
Commission to meet the request that had consistently arisen during the hearings. Ms. Qureshy stated
that at the previous hearing there was a direction that the Planning Director would be approving
enhanced elevations and most of the Commissioners felt comfortable with this level of detail and design.
Commissioner Segall stated that he didn’t know if this issue was apropos to this particular hearing or if it should be discussed after this Item. He proposed that a workshop be held fairly soon with the Planning
Commission, Staff, potential applicants, builders and developers to fully discuss issues, constraints, and
concerns and arrive at some consensus. Ms. Mobaldi stated that it was her understanding that the
developer had apparently offered to enhance his original renderings with additional articulation, therefore,
she suggested that the applicant address in his presentation what he had done to try to satisfy the
Planning Commission’s concerns, and if those renderings were satisfactory to the Commission, then they
could decide whether Staff needed additional direction. Chairperson Baker added that Commissioner
White, Mr. Neu, Mr. Holzmiller and she had had a meeting concerning this issue and that she would
provide a synopsis at the end of the meeting. Mr. Neu added that the Planning Commission’s reaction to
this application would provide direction on the other applications where authority had been delegated to
the Planning Director in terms of the enhanced rear elevations. Ms. Mobaldi stated that it would be
preferable to proceed with the hearing on this project and discuss these issues at another time.
Chairperson Baker invited the applicant to make a presentation.
Jack Henthorne, 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A, Carlsbad, stated that he was representing the applicant,
Warmington Homes. The Villages of La Costa Master Plan was approved by the City Council in October
of 2001. Within the Master Plan were a set of guidelines and standards that would guide the
development of this area of La Costa, including architectural guidelines. This project is a small lot
development less than 7,500 sq ft. The project Site Development Plan and architecture comply with all of
the design guidelines and standards contained in Chapter 4 of the Master Plan. From a site planning
standpoint, the project has front yards that exceed 26 ft in depth. Building coverages are within the 40%
standard established in the Master Plan and all the perimeter slope edges meet the Hillside Development
guidelines of the City. With regard to the architecture, there are three plan types ranging in size from
3,100 sq ft to 3,400 sq ft. This particular developer has included five architectural styles, even though the
Planning Commission Minutes November 19,2003 Page 5
Master Plan requires a minimum of three. The various plan types incorporate various mixes of these
architectural styles. The Master Plan requires that 50% of the units need to have four separate building planes in the front and rear elevations. The Master Plan also requires that each unit design incorporate a
minimum of four design elements for the front faqades and a minimum of two elements for the sides and
rear when they are adjacent to public rights-of-way. All of these units exceed these requirements, not just
those visible to the public. The matrix in the Staff Report notes how each of the 16 design elements are
incorporated into each of the elevations. Plan 1 is a European County style of architecture with the front
elements incorporated into the rear. All of the mullion windows contain multi-panes. Wood trim ledges
and accent windows have been incorporated. Mr. Henthorne presented in his slides each plan style and
graphically demonstrated how each element of each style was used on the front and back of each unit.
The window surrounds are consistent from front to back. The wood detailing is carried through on the
eaves. He discussed the Craftsman Bungalow style.
Commissioner Segall asked what the difference was between the European Country and the Craftsman
Bungalow styles, noting that they looked identical to him. Mr. Henthorne stated that there were a total of
nine different styles and 12 different color palettes, with some reversed. There are two out of nine
architectural styles that are very similar.
Chairperson Baker asked what type of material the shingle sidings were on the Craftsman Bungalow. Mr.
Henthorne stated that they were hardy plank.
Commissioner Segall asked if the openings in the two-car garages with the post in the center were nine-
foot or eight-foot openings.
Karen Mittel, Shier Architects, 2041 1 Birch, Newport Beach, stated that they tried to use nine-foot wide
garage openings to accommodate SUVs, trucks, and larger cars that are so common. Commissioner
Segall stated that eight-foot openings would not accommodate the rear-view mirrors on trucks and SUVs.
Chairperson Baker opened public testimony and invited those who would like to speak to the podium.
Seeing none, she closed public testimony.
DlSCUSSlON
Commissioner White stated that the rear elevations were perfectly adequate with the exception of the two
that Commissioner Segall noted. She stated that the project was very handsome.
Commissioner Whitton agreed with Commissioner White that the houses were very attractive and exactly
what the Planning Commission was looking for regarding front and rear elevations.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that he was very satisfied with the presentation for this project and that
Warmington Homes did a marvelous job in addressing the Planning Commission’s concerns pertaining to
the rear elevations.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that Mr. Arbuckle and Mr. Henthorne had conveyed the Planning
Commission’s concerns to the architect extremely well. He stated that they were beautiful designs.
Commissioner Heineman stated that they did a remarkable job, especially on the rear elevations and that
the illustrations show what can be done to portray three dimensions.
Commissioner Segall concurred with Commissioner Heineman that this type of presentation provided a
much clearer idea of what the houses would look like than the typical two-dimension plans. He stated
that black and white renderings all look the same and the detail cannot be seen. He stated that this
project has exceeded the kinds of enhancements he would like to see. He also noted that in this project
they were taking the reverse plans and putting them side by side, which gives enough diversity for the
street scene. He stated that he supported the project.
Chairperson Baker stated that Warmington Homes had done a fine job on this project and that the homes
were quite attractive and the rear elevations were fine. She thanked them for the color-coded site plotting
map.
Planning Commission Minutes November 19,2003 Page 6
Commissioner Dominguez asked if there would be any assurances that the garages would have nine-foot
openings. Mr. Henthorne replied that the plans did show that the garage openings were nine feet.
Chairperson Baker asked for a motion.
MOTION
ACTION : Motion by Commissioner White, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt .Planning Commission Resolution No. 5504 recommending
approval of Planned Development Permit Amendment (02-01 (A)), based on the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
VOTE: 7-0
AYES:
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, White and Whitton
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the
printer of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the City of Oceanside and
the City of Escondido, Court Decree number
171349, for the County of San Diego, that the
notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set
in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS, California
This 2d Day of January, 2004
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
%ti&--
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO
p.m. on Tuesday, January 13, 2004, to consider approval, pursuant to Section 7.2.7 of the
Villages of La Costa Master Plan, of an amendment to Planned Development Permit, PUD 02-
01, for building floor plans, elevations and plotting for the development of 81 single-family
detached homes located within Neighborhoods 3.10 and 3.1 1 of the La Costa Oaks South. The
minimum lot size for these neighborhoods is 6,000 square feet. The project site is located on
the east side of re-aligned Rancho Santa Fe Road, on the north and south sides of Camino
Juniper0 and within Local Facilities Management Zone 11 and more particularly described as:
Lots 1 through 81 of City of Carlsbad Tract CT 02-02, Villages of
La Costa - La Costa Oaks South, Neighborhoods 3.10 and 3.1 1,
in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to map thereof No. 14624, filed in the office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, on July 7, 2003 as file no.
2003-0802826
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after January 9, 2004. If you have
any questions, please call Saima Qureshy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4619.
If you challenge the amendment to the Planned 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, Attention: City
Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: PUD 02-01 (A)
CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - NEIGHBORHOODS 3.10 AND 3.1 1
PUBLISH: January 2,2004
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
c
SITE
VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - OAKS NEIGHBORHOODS 3.10 AND 3.1 1
PUD 02-OI(A)
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use ternpiate for 516?:
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL 701 ENClNlTAS BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENClNlTAS CA 92024 ENClNlTAS CA 92024
ENClNlTAS SCHOOL DlST
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DlST OLIVENHAIN WATER DlST SD COUNTY PLANNING
1960 LA COSTA AVE 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD STE B
CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENCINITAS CA 92024 5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
. 505 S VULCAN AVE
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SANDIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
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
SANDIEGO CA 92123
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
I. P. U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
ATTN TED ANASIS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHO RlTY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES DEPT
PUBLIC W 0 RKS/E N G I N E E R I N G MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
SAIMA QURESHY
1112012003
aAMRY@ Address Labels Laser 5160@
REAL ESTATE COLLATERAL M
STE 180
1903 WRIGHT PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DANIEL T SHELLEY
PO BOX 230985
ENCINITAS CA 92023
DAVIDSON COMMUNITIES
1302 CAMINO DEL MAR
DEL MAR CA 92014
SHEA HOMES
STE 200
10721 TREENA ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92131
CNLM
STE H
425 E ALVARADO ST
FALLBROOK CA 92028
WARMINGTON HOMES CA
STE 300
701 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
K HOVNANIAN COMPANIES
STE 21 1
380 STEVENS AVE
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
JACK HENTHORN & ASSOC
STE A
5365 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MAG PROPERTIES
3838 CAMINO DEL RIO N 22
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
PULTE HOMES
STE 200
4141 JUTLAND DR
SAN DIEGO CA 921 17
CENTEX HOMES
STE 101
1815 ASTON AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MORROW DEVELOPMENT
STE 180
1903 WRIGHT PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Villages of La Costa
PUD 02-01(A)
Oaks South Neighborhoods
3.10 & 3.11
Master Plan
Approved in 2001
Establishes
➤Permitted uses
➤Development Standards
➤Design Criteria
➤Development review process
LA COSTA OAKS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
La Costa Oaks South Neighborhood 3.10 & 3.11La Costa Oaks South Neighborhood 3.10 & 3.11
La Costa Oaks SouthLa Costa Oaks South
Neighborhood 3.10 & 3.11Neighborhood 3.10 & 3.11
Project InformationProject Information
➤➤33.7 Gross Acres33.7 Gross Acres
➤➤81 Single81 Single--Family Residential LotsFamily Residential Lots
––N. 3.10: 28 LotsN. 3.10: 28 Lots
––N. 3.11: 53 LotsN. 3.11: 53 Lots
➤➤6 Open Space Lots6 Open Space Lots
➤➤Min. 6,000 sq. ft. LotsMin. 6,000 sq. ft. Lots
PUD 02-01(A)
Approval of Architecture and Plotting
Three Floor Plans
➤Plan 1 - 3,624 sq. ft.
➤Plan 2 - 4,033 sq. ft.
➤Plan 3 - 4,145 sq. ft.
Three different elevation styles for each
floor plan
Twelve color schemes
Consistent with the Master Plan
Environmental Review
Evaluated in Final Program EIR
98-07
Proposed project determined to
have no effects beyond those
analyzed in EIR 98-07
Recommendation
That the City Council approve
PUD 02-01(A)