HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-03; City Council; 17491; Villages of La Costa Neighborhood 3.910 rl .rl a c, a, a
k 0 rcI
rn a, c, ? F: -4 c
a, a, 10
a a, a d a,
..
%
10 a
Io m 0 I
0 0 CJ
d z
c 0 .d c, 5 4 0 10 2
a a, CI 0, 0 a 4
z 0 F:
A G 2 3 0 0
..
2
AB# 17,491 TITLE:
MTG. 2-3-04 PUD 01-08(B)
DEPT. PLN&
VILLAGES OF LA COSTA NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9
DEPT. HD.
CITY MGR +%W
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Project Applications Administrative Reviewed by and
Approvals Final at Planning
Commission
PUD 01 -08(BI
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2004-036 , APPROVING Planned Unit
Development Amendment PUD 01-08(B) for Villages of La Costa Neighborhood 3.9 as
recommended for adoption and approval by the Planning Commission.
To be reviewed -
Final at Council
X
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On December 17, 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 Villages of La Costa Neighborhood 3.9 project consists of approval of building floor plans,
elevations and plotting for 90 single-family dwelling units. The project site is located on the west side
of re-aligned Rancho Santa Fe Road, on the east of Neighborhood 3.8 and within Local Facilities
Management Zone 11. The lots for these neighborhoods were created through Master Tentative
Map CT 99-04 and Planned Development Permit PUD 01-08, approved by the City Council in
October 2001. 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 5-0 (Dominguez and
Whitton absent) 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 staff 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
evaluated 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
environmental effects of the development and operation of the “Villages of La Costa Master Plan”
and 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
approved. 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,
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 Master Plan Final Program EIR.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,491
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 avaitable at the Planning Department.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impacts have been identified.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2004-036
2. Location Map
3.
4.
5.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 551 8
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 17, 2003
Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 17, 2003.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Saima 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. 2004-036
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
APPROVE BUILDING FLOOR PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PUD 01-08(B) TO
PLOTTING FOR 90 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RE-ALIGNED
RANCHOSANTAFE ROADANDONTHE EASTANDSOUTH
SIDES OF NEIGHBORHOOD 3.8, WITHIN THE LA COSTA
OAKS SOUTH VILLAGE, NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 OF THE
VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 11.
CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA-NEIGHBOR-
CASE NO.: PUD 01-08(B)
HOOD 3.9 OF LA COSTA OAKS SOUTH
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 December 17, 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 3rd day of
Februarv , 2004, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Planned Unit
Development Amendment, and at the time received recommendations, objections, protests,
comments of all persons interested in or opposed to PUD 01 -08(B); 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 01-08(B) is approved by the City Council and that
the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 5518, on file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by reference, are the
findings and conditions of the City Council, except as modified herein:
“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, planned commercial areas, and
streets.”
s
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 3rd day of Februarv , 2004, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis; Finnila; Kulchin; Hall and Packard
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTES~
Resolution No. 2004-036 - Page Two
-2-
EXHIBIT 2
/SITE
VILLAGES OF LA COSTA -
OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9
PUD 01=08(B) 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. 5518
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 01-08(B) TO APPROVE
FOR 90 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RE-ALIGNED RANCHO
SANTA FE ROAD, ON THE EAST AND SOUTH SIDE OF
NEIGHBORHOOD 3.8, WITHIN THE LA COSTA OAKS
SOUTH VILLAGE, NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 OF THE VILLAGES
OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 1.
CASENAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - NEIGHBOR-
HOOD 3.9 OF LA COSTA OAKS SOUTH
CASE NO.: PUD 01-08(B)
WHEREAS, I(. Hovnanian Companies of California, Inc., “Developer,” has
filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Real Estate
Collateral Management Company, “Owner,” described as
Lots 72 through 161 of City of Carlsbad Tract CT 99-04,
Villages of La Costa - La Costa Oaks South, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof No. 14379, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, on April 29,2002
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planned
Development Permit Amendment as shown on Exhibits “A” - “KK” dated December 17,2003,
on file in the Planning Department, VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9
OF LA COSTA OAKS SOUTH - PUD 01-08(B) as provided by Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th day of December 2003,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
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 -
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 OF LA COSTA OAKS SOUTH - PUD 01-08(B)
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 90
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. 5518 -2- 'I
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
e. none of the circumstances requiring a Subsequent EIR or a Supplementa
under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 162 or 15 163 exist; and
EIR
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
PC RES0 NO. 55 18 -3- g
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, notifring all interested parties and successors in interest that the
City of Carlsbad has issued a Planned Development Permit Amendment by Resolution
No. 5518 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. 55 18 -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
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. 55 18 -5- /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
20.
21.
21.
22.
approved by the Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the Plannins
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 99-04 in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5020 incorporated by reference herein.
Construction shall begin on common recreation Lot 165 located in Neighborhood
3.9 prior to the occupancy of the first unit in Neighborhood 3.9 and shall be
approved for use prior to the occupancy of the 45th unit in Neighborhood 3.9.
The applicant shall not plot Plan 3 with the same deck configuration in instances
where two or more Plan three units are located adjacent to each other.
En pineering
General
23.
24.
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.
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.
Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance
with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement on the Final Map
and in the CC&Rs:
“No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30
inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach
within the area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance
with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The
underlying property owner shall maintain this condition.”
The limits of these sights distance corridors shall be reflected on any
improvement, grading, or landscape plan prepared in association with
this development.
PC RES0 NO. 5518 -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
FeedAgreements
26. Prior to approval of any grading or building pennits 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.
Grading
27. 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.
28. 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 pemiit from the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building
permits for the project.
Dedications/Improvements
29.
30.
31.
Prior to issuance of any building permits, all improvements necessary to support
development as shown on Improvement Plan number DWG 397-1 and DWG 397-13
shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Prior to issuance of a precise grading permit, City drawing number DWG 397-1 and
DWG 397-1E 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 01-08 (B) site plan.
Developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed
pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best
Management Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level
prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to
and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be
limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following:
a. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
b. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
PC RES0 NO. 5518 -7- /a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
c. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
32. 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 SWPPP 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.
33. 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 Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order 2001-01 issued by the San Diego Region 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;
ensure long-term maintenance of all post construction 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.
f.
PC RES0 NO. 5518 -8- /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
34. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install street lights along all public and private street
frontages abutting and/or within the subdivision boundary in conformance with City of
Carlsbad Standards.
Code Reminder:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following:
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.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these 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 infomiation with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5518 -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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th, day of December 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Heineman, Montgomery,
Segall, and White
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Whitton and Dominguez
ABSTAIN: None
@- 1
ANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLzMILh?R
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5518 -10-
EXHIBIT 4 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: October 20, 2003
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 17,2003 Project Planner: Saima Qureshy
SUBJECT: PUD 01-08(B) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA-NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 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 01-08, for
building floor plans, elevations and plotting for the development of 90 single-
family detached homes located within Neighborhood 3.9 of the La Costa Oaks
South Village. The project site is located on the west side of re-aligned Rancho
Santa Fe Road, on the east of Neighborhood 3.8 and within Local Facilities
Management Zone 1 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 55 18
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Planned Development Permit Amendment, .PUD 01 -
08(B), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The proposed project includes approval of architecture and plotting for 90 single-family dwelling
units located in Neighborhood 3.9 of the Oaks South Village of the Villages of La Costa Master
Plan. The lots for this neighborhood were created through Master Tentative Map CT 99-04 and
Planned Development Permit PUD 01-08, approved by the City Council in October 2001. The
minimum lot size for this neighborhood 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 neighborhood. The proposed homes consist of three floor plans
ranging in size from 3,263 to 3,489 square feet. Each floor plan has three elevation styles and
the project has a total of thirteen 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 Planned Development Permit
contains more than 50 residential units.
PUD 01-08(B) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA-NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 OF LA COSTA OAKS
SOUTH
December 17,2003
Plan
No.
1
2
2x
Page 2
No. of 1st Floor 2nd Floor Living Area Garage Total Bldg. Elevation Styles
times Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft.
Plotted
(24.4%) (3 car Craftsman Bungalow,
optional) European Country
29 1,905 1,584 3,489 639 4,128 Spanish Colonial,
(3 2.2%) (3 car Craftsman Bungalow,
22 2,323 1,046 3,369 617 3,986 ItaliadTuscan,
optional) Italian
6 1,865 1,398 3,263 639 3,902
(6.6%) (3 car
optional)
111. 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, established
neighborhood development area boundaries and created lots for Neighborhood 3.9. A final map
has recorded for the Oaks South area, grading and improvement plans have been approved, and
improvements are presently ongoing.
Proiect Description
The project site, Neighborhood 3.9 of the La Costa Oaks South Village of the Villages of La
Costa Master Plan, is located on the west and north side of re-aligned Rancho Santa Fe Road,
south of Neighborhood 3.8 and west of Neighborhoods 3.10 and 3.11 within Local Facilities
Management Zone 1 1. The subject neighborhood contains 90 single-family residential lots,
approved by the City Council in October 2001 through CT 99-04PUD 01-08. 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 3,263 square feet to 3,489 square feet. A modified Plan 2 is included, referred to as Plan
2X, to address lots with unique layouts and small net pad areas. The Plan 2X has the same
layout as Plan 2 but has smaller square footage. Each plan is two stories high. Floor Plans 1 and
2 have two-car garages, with an option for a third car garage, while Floor Plan 3 has a three-car
garage. Each floor plan is proposed with three different elevation styles to create a variety of
faqades in the Neighborhood. The following table provides a summary of square footage and
elevation styles:
PUD 01-08(B) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA-NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 OF LA COSTA OAKS
SOUTH
December 17,2003
Page 3 *
3 33
(36.6%)
1,645 1,842 3,487 65 8 4,145 Spanish,
(3 car) Craftsman Bungalow,
European Country
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 90 residential lots through CT 99-04 and PUD 01-08
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.
PUD 01-08(B) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA-NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 OF LA COSTA OAKS
SOUTH
December 17,2003
Guideline
(VLCMP Reference)
Front Yard Setback
(4.6.2.B.2.a)
Rear Yard Setback
(4.6.2.B.2.e)
Side Yards
(4.6.2.B.2.c)
Street Side Setback
(4.6.2.B.2.d)
Slope Edge Building
Setback
(4.3.4)
Lot Width
(4.6.2.B. 1)
TABLE 2 - Development Standards Compl
Standard
15‘ minimum, 20’ neighborhood average
(See YLCMP for instructions about calculating averages)
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.
For lots with Min. 6,000 SF lot: 15’ minimum setback
Minimum useable rear yard area shall be 15’ by 15’
The standardminimum lot width for Neighborhood 3.9 is 50 feet.
Therefore the required combined minimum side yard for each lot
within the neighborhood shall be 25% of the lot width (12.5 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 suficient offsets or cutouts so the
side yard setback averages a minimum of 7’.
IO’ 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
nce Table
Compliance
Neighborhood Average Front Yard
Setback = 24.52’
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.
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
10 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: 15.4’
Plan 2 and 2X: 15.8’
Plan 3: 16.2’
See the Slope Edge Building Setback
exhibit on the site plans.
All lots are at a minimum 50’ wide.
PUD 01-08(B) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA-NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 OF LA COSTA OAKS
SOUTH
December 17,2003
I Guideline
(4.6.3.B.2)
I
Building Height
(4.6.3.B.1)
(4.6.3.B.4.e &
4.6.3.B.4.f)
I
(4.6.3.B.4.g)
Front Building
Elevations
(4.6.3.B.6)
(4.6.3.B.7)
TABLE 2 - DeveloDment Standards ComDliance Table
Standard P Corn liance
For 2-story units: 40% of net pad area
The Coveraee shall include:
Garages and the perimeter area of a basement.
The Coveraee 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).
Maximum of 30’ and 2 stories.
50% of units in the neighborhood must have 18 inch offset planes
with a minimum of 10’ 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 I8 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 fagades 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 publiciprivate roads.
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.
Plan 1 = Two Stories, 29’ - 6”
Plan 2 and 2X = Two Stories, 27’
Plan 3 = Two Stories, 29’
The details are shown on the architectural
dans, building plane exhibit. All units
:omply.
’Ian 1 = 5 Planes
’Ian 2 and 2X = 5 Planes
’Ian 3 = 4 Planes
fie details are shown on the architectural
ilans, building plane exhibit. All units
:omply.
’Ian 1 = 4 Planes
’Ian 2 and 2X = 4 Planes
’Ian 3 = 4 Planes
411 elevation styles comply. Refer to the
ittached “Building Elevation Design
3ements” table.
411 elevation styles comply. Refer to the
ittached “Building Elevation Design
3lements” table.
PUD 01 -08(B) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA-NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 OF LA COSTA OAKS
SOUTH
December 17,2003
TABLE 2 - Development Standards Compliance Table Continued
Guideline
(VLCMP Reference)
Elevations Fronting
Circulation Element
Roads (4.6.3.A. I .a)
Floor Plans
(4.6.3.BS.c &
4.6.3.BS.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.B.5.b)
Where (3) Two Story
Units occur in a row
with less than 15 ft
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)
Standard
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’, (1 0’
preferred).
Must include some single-story features.
The second-story must not exceed 80% of the first-story square
footage, including all garage area.
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.
L Please refer to the Corn attached liance “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: 35.6% of 1’‘ floor
Plan 2: 62.3% of 1’‘ floor
Plan 2X: 55.8% of 1” floor
Plan 3: 80% of I” floor
Plan 1 incorporates a single-story
building edge that is at least 10’ deep and
runs the length of the building and is plotted where there are 3 units with less
than 15’ between them.
Plan 1 and 2X incorporate a single-story
building edge that is at least 5’ 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 all the floor
plans having a single-story element that
is greater than 40% of the width and a
min. of 3’ deep.
PUD 01-08(B) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA-NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 OF LA COSTA OAKS
SOUTH
December 17,2003
Page 7
TABLE 2 - Development Standards Compliance Table Continued
Guideline
(VLCMP Reference)
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
Resident Parking
(4.6.2.B.4.a)
Standard
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 10’
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 corner 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
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.
I I Compliance
14.4 YO of the elevations incorporate a
iont porch (All elevation types for Plan
1).
36.7% of the elevations incorporate a
:ourtyard porch (All elevation types for
?Ian 3).
go projections extend into the side
ietback more than 2’ nor are any
ireplace projections greater than 8’ in
ength. All plans comply.
~~~~~~ ~~ Zommon recreation area located in
qeighborhood 3.9 is Lot 167.
4 condition is included in Planning
:ommission Resolution No. 55 18 to
mure compliance with the Master Plan
.equ irements.
411 plans include at a minimum one 2-car
;arage with an interior measurement of
!O’X20’.
PUD 01-08(B) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA-NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 OF LA COSTA OAKS
SOUTH
December 17,2003
Page 8
TI
Guideline
(VLCMP Reference)
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
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 build-ing roof heights and roofmassing 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 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, 6:12
Plan2: 4:12
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 13 color
schemes for 9 elevation styles.
a3
PUD 01-08(B) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA-NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 OF LA COSTA OAKS
SOUTH
December 17,2003
Page 9
7
Guideline
(VLCMP Reference)
Architectural Styles
Permitted
(4.6.3.C & 7.6)
Design Standards
(4.6.3.B.4.i &
4.6.3.B.5.e)
Chimneys
(4.6.3.B.11)
Window Detailing
(4.6.3.B.10)
iBLE 2 - Development Standards Compliance Table Continued
Standard
Each Neighborhood shall contain one or more of the following
Architectural Styles:
Santa Barbara Mediterranean
Craftsmen Bungalow
Spanish Colonial
Monterey Ranch
ItaliadTuscan
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:
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 include the
following:
Recessed windows
Paned windows
Arched elements
Shutters
Window lintels
Accent and varied shape windows
Window boxes and planters with
architecturally evident supports
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.
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 01-08(B) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA-NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 OF LA COSTA OAKS
SOUTH
December 17,2003
Page 10
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 Neighborhood 3.09 has 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. Location Map
3. Background Data Sheet
4. Disclosure Statement
5. Neighborhood 3.9 Location Map
6. Table “Individual Lot Compliance”
7.
8. Reduced Exhibits
9.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 55 18
Table “Building Elevation Design Elements”
Full Size Exhibits “A” - “KK” dated December 17,2003
SQ:bd:mh
BACKGROlrND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: PUD 01-08(B)
CASE NAME: Villages of La Costa - Neighborhood 3.9 of La Costa Oaks South
APPLICANT: K. Hovnanian Companies of California. Inc.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: The proiect includes approval of architecture and plotting for 90
single-family dwelling units located in Neighborhood 3.9 of the La Costa 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 Master Tentative Map, CT 99-04 and Planned Development Permit, PUD 01-08.
The proiect site is located on the west side of re-aligned Rancho Santa Fe Road, on the east of
Neighborhood 3.8 and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 1.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 72 through 161 of City of Carlsbad Tract CT 99-04, Villages of La
Costa - La Costa Oaks South, in the Citv of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. State of California,
according to map thereof No. 14379, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Dieno County, on
APN: Various Acres: 33.9 Proposed No. of LotsKJnits: 90
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RLM
Density Allowed: 0-4 Density Proposed: 2.7
Existing Zone: P-C
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Proposed Zone: P-C
Zoning
Site P-c
North P-C
South P-C
East P-c
West P-c
General Plan Current Land Use
RLM Mass grading for development
RLM Mass grading for development
RLM Mass grading for development
RLM Mass grading for development
RLM Mass grading for development
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Encinitas Union Elementadsan Dienuito Unified HiPh Water District: Olivenhain
Sewer District: Leucadia
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity):
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, Project is within the Scope of Promam EIR 98-07 approved earlier
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will requir
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in hs and an 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 comoration or Dartnership, include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
APPLICABLE W/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.)
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
Person COrp/Pafi K. ~WMAUIA~: bWlPAul€< or( fiLj6lfN14 IWG
Title Title @/A
Address Address 3bo STcVeJf RVE , I~LAU~ PE~CI~, ~4
72075 967C Zll
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 (ie, partnership,
tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a comoration or
partnership, include the names, titles, 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 publicly-owned
comoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page
may be attached if necessary.)
Person cOrp/part Real Estate Collateral Management ComDanv
Title Title
Address Address 1903 Wright Place. Suite 180
Carlsbad. CA 92008
2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-0894 27
3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonurofit orpanization or a trust, list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as a trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profiflrust Non Profiflrust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $20 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
c] Yes ix] No If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
ve information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. zc \’ vl, 7 I Q?
Signature of applicantdate
Agent for RECM; Fred M Arbuckle, President of Morrow Developmt tmer C. c~~~~~L
Print or type name of applicant
‘ 530 -0 3
nt’s agent if applicable/date
~~ ~ ~~ Print or type name of ownedapplicant’s agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 dl Page 2 of 2
I @I I i
VILLAGES OF LA COSTA OAKS SOUTH - NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 LA COSTA LOCATION MAP
Individual Lot Data
La Costa Oaks South
Neiahborhood 3.9
I I I Building It II I I I I Setbacks cftl
Average Side Yard Net Pad Covera e” I Plan I Elevation I Color I Front Rear Left Right Garage I Porch I Area(SF) I Sq. Footage ‘20, Net Pad
Neighbodmod 3.9
Section B Table 4
Page 1 of 2 ii1iam3 30
Lot #
areas. StruCbXes under 30 Inches In height and masonry walls wt Qrealer than 6 feel m haghl such as wing-walls. planter walls or grade-separabon retaining walls
Setbacks (ft) Building
Average Side Yard Net Pad Coveraae " Plan Elevation Color Front Rear Left Right Garage Porch Area (SF) Sq. Footage %of Net Pad
Neighborhood 3.9 Section B
Table 4
~age2of2 3 f 11/12/2003
- -
32
2::
33
: i.
/. I-
,' r; .
t. 1
.(
I'
t
,,. , ..
1-
.. 1; I
_>
X W n z
m
Y 9 Li cn
Q z
m
2
W
w w- a
x
3 cn
Y 0
t- W cn
B
a m
z
m
n
a
9 3
Q
w
W
W
3 cn
35
36
37
SaLON
38
39
t-- Eli -.
m
w
om M
-0 d
*****
l+
zo 4 n
..
m 9
z < w 9 5 U
VI
Y3
S
e
rl
no 4
CI
VI
4
I I ,_I
I
I--,
i IB
z 6 E m
b
cr( 6 d u
*it**
6
a
****
h
“4
6
E
5
I
I
P 4
m
53
-i Id
I' ' ~' t
ii
8
a
B d
****
W-
i
s
1
0 x CJ
ZQ 4
U
__ - - )F- ES OOO'9 KNV LO? 'NU4
+-
t kk,
I I
r------------l
0
m
VI
b4
4
ZO 6 n
.**.
f I i I
m
ZO
4 n
L
m
zo 6
U
6
a
8
VI
Planning Commission Minutes E)pHIBIT 5 DRAFT Page
December 17,2003
7. PUD 01-08(6) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA-NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 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 01-08, for building floor plans, elevations and plotting for the development of 90 single-family detached
homes located within Neighborhood 3.9 of the La Costa Oaks South Village. The project site is located on the west side of re-aligned Rancho Santa Fe Road, on the east of Neighborhood 3.8
and within Local Facilities Management Zone 11.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 7 and stated that Associate Planner, Saima Qureshy, would make the presentation.
Chairperson Baker asked Mr. Henthorne if he wished to continue with five Commissioners. He stated that
he did. Chairperson Baker opened the public hearing on Item 7.
Associate Planner, Saima Qureshy, presented the Staff Report stating that Item 7 was a project for the
approval of building floor plans, elevations, and plotting for Neighborhood 3.9 of La Costa Oaks South of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. This neighborhood is located west of realigned Rancho Santa Fe
Road and the lots for this neighborhood were created through Master Tentative Map CT 99-04 and associated PUD 01 -08 by the City Council in October of 2001. This neighborhood contains a total of 90
single-family detached homes with a minimum of 6,000 sq ft lots. The applicant is proposing three floor plans and each floor plan has three different elevation styles. There is a total of nine different elevations.
Floor plans for this project range from 3,200 to 3,489 sq ft. All the homes proposed are two stories and the project is consistent with architectural standards as contained in the Villages of La Costa Master Plan.
Staff is recommending approval of this project.
Chairperson Baker invited the applicant to make a presentation.
Jack Henthorn, 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A, Carlsbad, stated that he was representing the applicant, K. Hovnanian, in presenting Neighborhood 3.9 of the La Costa Master Plan. The Neighborhood 3.9 area
is a small lot development within the La Costa Oaks South. The project is a small lot development as a
result of the fact that it contains more than 50 units and it requires City Council approval. The project complies with all of the design guidelines and standards within Chapter 4 of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. As Ms. Qureshy indicated, the project is comprised of three different plans as well as an X
plan that is used in certain fit situations on restricted lots. There are three architectural styles per plan
and the project incorporates four out of the six architectural styles that are permitted for use within this
area. There are 13 color schemes that are utilized to further add differentiation and interest within the planned development area. The architectural product incorporates a variety of surface and roof materials
and textures to enhance the product. The average front yard setbacks exceed the minimums in the
Specific Plan at 24.5 feet. None of the building coverages exceed the maximums permitted under the
regulations in the Master Plan and they comply with the Hillside Development Ordinance of the City. The
project meets or exceeds all of the development criteria contained within the Master Plan that was approved by the City Council. There are four styles in the project including European Country, Spanish
Colonial, Craftsman Bungalow, and Italian Tuscan. Each one of the plans incorporates at least three of the four architectural styles. The Master Plan requires that 50% of the units have four separate building
planes. They incorporate a minimum of four design elements on the front facades and two for the sides and rears. That requirement is related to units that are viewed from public and private roads. In an effort to address concerns raised at previous Planning Commission hearings, they have attempted to
incorporate many of the front architectural elements into the rear elevations to provide enhancement. He demonstrated and discussed a representative sample of the architectural quality in the SDP with a PowerPoint presentation. He showed one of each style and showed all of the elevations. He stated that
the development team as well as the staff from the applicant’s company were present to answer questions.
Commissioner Segall stated that in looking at the Site Development Plan that there were probably nine
different groupings where the same plan was next to each other. He stated that he thought that in the plan that it was supposed to alternate and there wouldn’t be the same two floor plans next to each other.
69
Planning Commission Minutes December 17,2003 Page 19
Mr. Henthorn explained that the plan didn’t restrict floor plans being adjacent to each other, but rather the color palettes. He stated that it didn’t restrict architectural styles either, but that they were self-restricting
that. He stated that there were a number of instances where the same floor plan was plotted adjacent to another, but they were adding variations in elevation styles as previously discussed and agreed upon. He
stated that they were reversing floor plans that were adjacent to one another wherever possible. He said that there were three such situations that he knew about. Commissioner Segall stated that the previous
Site Development Plans that the Planning Commission had approved were not Planned Unit Developments. Mr. Henthorn stated that Warmington Homes was a project that would go to the City
Council in January, 2004. He further said that their first three projects ‘were not Planned Unit Developments and were final with the Planning Commission’s action. Commissioner Segall stated that
he thought that there wouldn’t be two floor plans next to each other as part of the Master Plan. Mr.
Henthorn stated that the Master Plan was consistent throughout. He stated that the floor plans and
architectural styles were not restricted, but color schemes were.
Commissioner Heineman observed that in the colored plan there were two or three instances in this development where there were Plan threes next to each other. Mr. Henthorn stated that those were the
same floor plans, but that there were three or four architectural styles for each plan and no two architectural styles would be next to each other.
Chairperson Baker noted that it was generally the Plan threes that were next to each other and asked if
Plan three was the largest home. Mr. Henthorne stated that Plan 2 and 3 were roughly the same square
footage. Ms. Qureshy stated that Plan 2 was the largest.
Commissioner White commented that having the Plan threes adjacent to each other would not be a
problem with regard to the front elevations because they were very different looking from one another, but
the rear elevations looked the same for all the different styles. Mr. Henthorn reviewed the differences in the styles for Plan three, including a number of deck options. Chairperson Baker asked what determined
which rear balcony was plotted where on any particular unit. Mr. Henthorne stated that the decks were options, but that the applicant would be willing to pre-plot them to ensure variations where those conditions exist.
Chairperson Baker opened public testimony and invited those who would like to speak to the podium. Seeing none, she closed public testimony.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner White stated that all three front elevations of all three plans were very well done and the
rear elevations for Plan 1 and 2 showed nice variety, but Plan 3 was not quite up to par with the first two plans. She stated that if the applicant was willing to pre-plot the balconies that she would prefer that.
Chairperson Baker asked if they should be pre-plotted for the whole development or just for the plans that were adjacent to each other. Commissioner White stated that they should avoid having two houses near each other that looked the same.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that it was a well-designed project and he was in favor of it. He stated that the applicant had gone beyond what the Planning Commission had been asking for in enhanced rear elevations.
Commissioner Heineman agreed with the previous comments and thought that the pre-plotting was a good idea. He stated that he was in favor of the project.
Commissioner Segall stated that he supported the project. He stated that there was a lot of integrity from the front to the back.
Chairperson Baker stated that the project looked great. She was in favor of pre-plotting the Plan threes
that were next to each other, but suggested leaving the balconies optional for the buyer throughout the rest of the development. All Commissioners agreed.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that it should be made a condition.
Planning Commission Minutes December 17,2003 Page 20
Commissioner Segall asked if the condition would mean that if a buyer wanted Lot 15 but it didn’t have a
balcony because the home next to it did have one, that the buyer couldn’t add one. Chairperson Baker stated that the buyer would have to buy a Lot elsewhere that had the balcony they wanted already
plotted. Commissioner Segall asked if the applicant was amenable to that.
Jim Highland, with K. Hovnanian, stated that in those situations they could pre-plot a balcony on either, it would just be a different balcony, because there were three different balcony options.
Commissioner Segall disclosed that both he and the applicant serve on the Chamber of Commerce Board
of Directors and they have not discussed this project.
Chairperson Baker called for a motion.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner White, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 551 8 recommending
approval of Planned Development Permit Amendment, PUD 01 -08(B), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, and also containing
the condition that on the Plan 3s the rear elevations and balconies will be pre-
plotted to ensure a mix where adjacent to each other.
VOTE: 5-0 AYES:
NOES: None
Baker, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall and White
Chairperson Baker closed the public hearing on Item 7.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
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 Proof of Publication 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 DAay of January, 2004
I
Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
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, February 3, 2004, to consider a 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 approve,
pursuant to Section 7.2.7 of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan, of an amendment to Planned
Development Permit, PUD 01-08, for building floor plans, elevations and plotting for the
development of 90 single-family detached homes located within Neighborhood 3.9 of the La
Costa Oaks South Village. The project site is located on the west side of re-aligned Rancho
Santa Fe Road, on the east of Neighborhood 3.8 and within Local Facilities Management Zone
11 and more particularly described as:
Lots 72 through 161 of City of Carlsbad Tract CT 99-04, Villages
of La Costa - La Costa Oaks South, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to map
thereof No. 14379, filed in the office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, on April 29, 2002.
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 30, 2004. If you have
any questions, please call Saima Qureshy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-461 9.
If you challenge the amendment to Planned Development Permit, PUD 01-08, 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: PUD 01-08(B)
CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9
PUBLISH: January 23,2004
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
VILLAGES OF LA COSTA -
OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9
PUD 01-08(B)
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST
701 ENClNlTAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC W ORKS/COMMU N ITY
SERVICES
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DlST
TIM JOCHEN
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 I03
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
SAIMA QURESHY
0 1 /06/2004
AVERY.3 Address Labels
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKSlENG I N EERl NG
DEPT
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DlST
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
OLlVEN HA1 N WATER D IST
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 AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
75
Laser 5160@
Smqth Feed Sheets-';
CNLM
STE H
425 E ALVARADO ST
FALLBROOK CA 92028
REAL ESTATE COLLATERAL M
STE 180
1903 WRIGHT PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DONALD G RUlZ
7310 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THE MORRIS FAMILY
7314 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAN C STOTTLEMYRE
7316 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HENRY J WATERSTRADT
7312 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID G BROCCOLI
7322 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RONALD L FARLEY
7318 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GERALD M HIRSCHORN
7320 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TIMOTHY D MILLIKEN
7326 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSEPH F GROSSHART
7328 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
M SCANLAN
7324 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TIMOTHY J STRIPE
STE 101
3088 PI0 PIC0 DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CLARK D DEARMOND
7330 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THE TURALBA FAMILY
7332 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROGER A NIEMEYER
3343 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TOM & LAURA RIDER
3341 FOSCAST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STANLEY MILAS
3339 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THE CHANG FAMILY
3337 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL W HOWARD
3335 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THE CANCELLIER FAMILY
3323 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHRISTOPHER T FEUGE
3340 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT L BOSTIC
3336 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THE LACKEY FAMILY
3338 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARD S PODGORSKI
7321 MUSLOLN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SCOTT V & SANDRA HOOK
7325 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PETER R OHNSTAD
7323 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT J ACCETTA
7319 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BONNIE BLACKFIELD
7317 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
J HEDRICK
43992 NORTHGATE AVE
TEMECULA CA 92592
16
Laser 5 16OS AVERYB Address Labels
._ -.. . .
PIERSON & CAROLINA BALL
3343 CASCA WAY A
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MATTHEW B HINKLEY
7312 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEONARD OBERMAN
7314 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ELIZABETH V ANDERS
7320 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSEPH & SlGLlA PlRAlNO
7316 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DARIN & LAURI LOESCH
7318 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PATRICK GRAVITT
7410 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT A COSGROVE
7420 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMAS W GONZALEZ
3326 CABO WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ADAM T & DIANA SPRAGG
3328 CABO WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAN I SOVINEE
3330 CABO WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARD G MINTON
3332 CABO WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DONALD R HARTLEY
3334 CABO WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES A & MARY CLARK
3336 CABO WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BETH L BILLSTEIN
PO BOX 1274
CARDIFF BY THE SEA CA 92007
THE SOUKUP FAMILY
7432 TRIGO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARD CORLESS
7436 TRIG0 LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES & KIRSTEN RECCE
7442 TRIG0 LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHEERMAN TRUST
7446 TRIG0 LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
T L & EDITH M RHODES TRUST
7452 TRIG0 LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMAS CHYNCES
7456 TRIG0 LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM & KAREN SlMS
7462 TRIG0 LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LASKI TRUST
3339 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BENJAMIN & JOANN PYNES
3337 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BCE DEVELOPMENT
33 S 6TH ST
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402
PETERHASKETT
3334 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARD &JULIE KOCH
3336 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NICOLSON TRUST
7445 TRIGO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ARKINZADEH TRUST
5006 AUGUST ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92110
SCOTT & DIANE KAATS
81 1 MORNING SUN DR
ENCINITAS CA 92024
Laser 5 160s AVERY@ Address Labels
ANNICKA B FABIAN
3329 CABO WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRIAN & SUSAN YORK
3323 CABO WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LORRAINE L CLARK TRUST
7466 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CENTEX HOMES
STE 101
181 5 ASTON AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MORROW DEVELOPMENT
STE 180
1903 WRIGHT PLACE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILLIAM H HAYS
3327 CABO WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GREGORY MURPHY
7450 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MAG PROPERTIES
3838 CAMINO DEL RIO N 22
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
AWE!?\'" Address Labels
WARMINGTON HOMES CA
STE 300
701 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NANCY J COLMER
71 57 ARGONAUTA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DIANNE VENNARD
7460 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
K HOVNANIAN COMPANIES
STE 211
380 STEVENS AVE
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
SHEA HOMES
STE 200
10721 TREENA ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92131
JACK HENTHORN & ASSOC
STE A
5365 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
1%
Laser 5 160@
Villages of La Costa
PUD 01-08(B)
Oaks South Neighborhood
3.9
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 3.9La Costa Oaks South Neighborhood 3.9
Project Information:Project Information:
➤➤CT 99CT 99--0404
➤➤90 Single90 Single--Family Residential LotsFamily Residential Lots
➤➤Min. Area for each lot is 6,000 sq. ft.Min. Area for each lot is 6,000 sq. ft.
PUD 01-08(B)
Approval of Architecture and Plotting
Three Floor Plans
➤Plan 1 - 3,369 sq. ft.
➤Plan 2 - 3,489 sq. ft.
➤Plan 2X - 3,263 sq. ft.
➤Plan 3 - 3,487 sq. ft.
Three different elevation styles for each
floor plan
Twelve color schemes
Consistent with the Master Plan
Plan 1 – European
Country
Plan 1 Plan 1 ––European CountryEuropean Country
Plan 2 –
Italian/Tuscan
Plan 2 Plan 2 ––Italian/TuscanItalian/Tuscan
Plan 2X – Spanish
Colonial
Plan 2X Plan 2X ––Spanish ColonialSpanish Colonial
Plan 3 – Craftsman
Bungalow
Plan 3 Plan 3 ––Craftsman BungalowCraftsman Bungalow
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 01-08(B)