HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-03; City Council; 17492; Kirgis tentative map appeald Id a, a 2
al c 4J
b, c -d 4J c rd Lc b,
10 4J c al E
0 5
a, Lc fd
h r4
0 4J
h a, c Lc 0 4J
5
2
2
+i 4J .d V
a, c c,
a a, 4J u a, Lc -d a
d -4 u c ? 0 V .. z 0 F 0 a
J 23 z 3 0 0
TITLE:
APPEAL: KlRGlS TENTATIVE MAP
GPA 03-01/ZC 03-01/LCPA 03-01
CT 02-06/PUD 02-02/CDP 02-05/HDP 02-01
AB# 17,492
MTG. 2-3-04
DEPT. PLN&
DEPT.HD. h#
CITY ATTY. @
CITY MGR a
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council UPHOLD the Planning Commission decision to DENY GPA 03-01/ZC 03-
OI/LCPA 03-011CT 02-06/PUD 02-02/CDP 02-05/HDP 02-01 - Kirgis Tentative Map Project and
DIRECT the City Attorney to prepare the documents.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The request is for the approval of a subdivision for five residential lots, one open space lot and one
private street lot. The proposal includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Local
Coastal Program Amendment to designate the open space lot as Open Space (OS) on the General
Plan, LCP and Zoning Maps, as well as a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Coastal
Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit.
The gross area of each residential lot is greater than 34,000 square feet (3/4 acre). Flat pad areas
for each lot are approximately % to % acres in size. All residential lots are accessed from a new,
gated private street which is located at the southern terminus of Twain Avenue.
The Planning Commission first heard the project on September 3, 2003. After a discussion of the
Commission’s concerns, the item was continued to November 5, 2003, thereby giving the applicant
the opportunity to modify the project design. The project was re-introduced to the Planning
Commission with no changes. However, the applicant did prepare a detailed model of the proposed
grading to illustrate the project and this was presented to the Commission. The Planning
Commission reconsidered the project and the model, but a motion to approve the project failed by a
vote of 34.
A resolution of denial was prepared and the Planning Commission adopted the resolution denying
the project on December 3, 2003 by a vote of 4-3. Although the project meets the technical
requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance as stated in the appeal form, the denial was
based on findings of excessive grading, excessive pad area for a hillside area, and the visual impacts
from grading which are inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance. In favor of the denial were
Commissioners Baker, White, Dominguez and Montgomery. Those Commissioners opposed to the
denial were Whitton, Heineman and Segal.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
A mitigated negative declaration was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Implementation of the project will potentially result in impacts to biological
resources, air quality, geology, soils and cultural resources. Mitigation measures have been
identified which, if implemented, will reduce those impacts to a level of less than significant. Since
the project was denied by the Planning Commission, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was not
adopted.
CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,492
Local Facilities Management Plan
Growth Control Point
Net Density
Special Facility Fee
FISCAL IMPACT:
8
1 dwelling per acre
0.91 dwelling per acre
N/A
Upholding the Planning Commission’s denial of the project will not directly result in fiscal impact to
the City. City services will not be required to be provided to a vacant site that would otherwise need
to be provided if the site were developed. Denying development of the site maintains the current
property valuation as a vacant parcel versus the increase in property value as it is developed.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2.
3.
4.
5.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5531
Planning Commission Staff Reports, dated December 3, 2003, November 5, 2003 and
September 3,2003
Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 3, 2003, November 5, 2003 and
September 3,2003
Appeal Form, dated November 5,2003.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Ch rister W estman, (760) 602-46 1 4, cwest@ci .carlsbad .ca. us
EXHIBIT 1
KIRGIS TENTATIVE MAP
GPA 03=0l/ZC 03=01/LCPA 03-01/
CT 02-06/PUD 02-02/CDP 02-05/HDP 02-01
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
EXHIBIT 2 i
I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5531
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AMENDMENT, TRACT MAP, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO SUBDIVIDE 2 1.9
ACRES INTO FIVE RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND TWO
COMMONLY OWNED LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED
NORTH OF FARADAY AVENUE AT THE SOUTHERN
TERMINUS OF TWAIN AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 8.
CASE NAME: KIRGIS TENTATIVE MAP
CASE NO: GPA 03-01/ZC 03-01/LCPA 03-01/CT 02-
06/ PUD 92-02/CDP 02-05/HDP 02-01
WHEREAS, Pergola, Inc., “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the
City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Kirgis 1996 Trust, “Owner,” described as
All that portion of Lot “F” of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, as shown on Partition
Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, on November 16,1896
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a General Plan Amendment,
Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tract Map, Planned Unit Development,
Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit, on file in the Planning
Department, KIRGIS TENTATIVE MAP; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of September 2003,
on the 17th day of September 2003, and on the 5th day of November 2003 hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment,
4
1
L
-
L
C -
t
r I
E
S
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Developmen
Permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
Ol/CT 02-06/PUD 02-02/CDP 02-0YHDP 02-01 based on the following
findings:
DENIED KIRGIS TENTATIVE MAP - GPA 03-01/ZC 03-01LCPA 03-
Findinm:
1. That the development proposal is not consistent with the intent, purpose, and
requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in tha the proposed hillside
alteration will result in substantial alteration of a natural topography with 61,000
cubic yards of cut and fill, with cuts up to 33 feet and fills up to 26 feet.
2. That the project design does not substantially conform to the intent of the concepts
illustrated in the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that the easterly project
pads are entirely created by fill, thereby elevating the pad above the existing
topographic elevation versus creating pads by averaging both cut and fill to
establish a pad elevation that is at the topographic midpoint, and in that the
westerly pads are larger than the minimum needed for a reasonable use of the
property and thereby creates significantly unnatural development contours.
3. That the project design and lot configuration does not minimize disturbance of hillside
lands, in that although no more than 25% of the gross site area is within the limits of
hillside alteration, development within the disturbed area is greater than necessary
for reasonable enjoyment of the property given the natural topography of the site.
4. Until the issues resulting in denial of the Hillside Development Permit are resolved
the Commission does not approve or recommend approval of the accompanying
discretionary actions.
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 impxition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
PC RES0 NO. 553 1 -2- 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
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 3rd day of December 2003, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Montgomery, and
White
Commissioners Heineman, Segall, and Whitton NOES:
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HO~MIL~ER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5531 -3- 6
EXHIBIT 3 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
Item No.
PC AGENDA OF: December 3,2003
SUBJECT: GPA 03-01/ZC 03-01LCPA 03-01/CT 02-06/PUD 02-02/CDP 02-05EIDP 02-
01 - KIRGIS TENTATIVE MAP- Return of documents
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5531,
based on the findings contained therein.
DENYING GPA 03-01/ZC 03-01/LCPA 03-01/CT 02-06/PUD 02-02/CDP 02-05/HDP 02-01,
11. INTRODUCTION
At your meeting November 5, 2003, the Commission voted to deny the Kirgis Tentative Map.
The attached Planning Commission Resolution contains the findings for denial.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 553 1
7
The City of Carlsbad Planning Departmem
P.C. AGENDA OF: November 5,2003
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: May 1,2003
Project Planner: Christer Westman
Project Engineer: Frank Jimeno
SUBJECT: GPA 03-01/ZC 03-01/LCPA 03-01/CT 02-06/PUD 02-02/CDP 02-05/HDP 02-
01 - KIRGIS TENTATIVE MAP - Request for a recommendation of approval
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to reconcile the zoning map to the General Plan map, and to approve
a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Coastal Development Permit
and Hillside Development Permit for the subdivision of 21.9 acres of land into
five residential lots, one open space lot and one private street, on property
generally located north of Faraday Avenue at the southern terminus of Twain
Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 8.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission APPROVE Planning Commission Resolution No. 5347
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5376,
5377 and 5378, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA 03-01, ZC 03-01, LCPA 03-01, and
ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5348, 5349, 5350 and 5351 APPROVING CT
02-06, PUD 02-02, CDP 02-05, and HDP 02-01, based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
11. BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the September 3, 2003 meeting in order to be heard by the full 7.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5347 (MND)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5376 (GPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5377 (ZC)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5378 (LCPA)
Planning Cornmission Resolution No. 5348 (CT)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5349 (PUD)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5350 (CDP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 535 1 (HDP)
Staff Report dated September 17,2003 with attachments
8
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
P.C. AGENDA OF: September 3,2003
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: May 1, 2003
Project Planner: Christer Westman
Project Engineer: Frank Jimeno
SUBJECT: GPA 03-01/ZC 03-01LCPA 03-01/CT 02-06/PUD 02-02/CDP 02-05/HDY 02-
01 - KIRGIS TENTATIVE MAP - Request for approval of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General
Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
reconcile the zoning map to the General Plan map, and to approve a Tentative
Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside
Development Permit for the subdivision of 2 1.9 acres of land into five residential
lots, one open space lot and one private street, on property generally located north
of Faraday Avenue at the southern terminus of Twain Avenue in Local Facilities
Management Zone 8.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission APPROVE Planning Commission Resolution No. 5347
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5376,
ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5348, 5349, 5350 and 5351 APPROVING CT
02-06, PUD 02-02, CDP 02-05, and HDP 02-01, based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
5377 and 5378, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA 03-01, ZC 03-01, LCPA 03-01, and
11. INTRODUCTION
The project is the subdivision of 21.9 acres into five residential lots, one open space lot, and one
private street lot. No homes are proposed at this time.
The application includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program
Amendment. The General Plan Amendment designates the project’s open space conservation lot
as Open Space. The zone change will reconcile the zoning to the General Plan as requiied by
State law. The Local Coastal Program Amendment will change the Local Coastal Program land
use and zoning maps to be consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan and Zoning maps.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The site has General Plan land use designations of Residential Low (RL) and Open Space (OS).
The property’s zoning is One Family Residential (R-1-30,000).
GPA 03-01/ZC 03-01/LCPA 03-01/CT 02-06PUD 02-02/CDP 02-O3/HDP 02-01 -
IURGIS TENTATIVE MAP
September 3,2003
The property is located adjacent to and accessed through Spyglass Hills, which is being
developed by Shea Homes. The property has not been previously developed. The property to
the west and south is part of the Veterans Memorial Park. No development plans have been
decided for the park property at this time. To the east is industrially zoned property developed
primarily with office uses. The site is a “standards area” as described in the draft Carlsbad
Habitat Management Plan, and therefore restricted to development within 25% of the gross area.
In this case, the five residential lots and private street are within 5.47 acres, and the single open
space lot makes up the remaining 16.43 acres.
The applicant has proposed the subdivision of 21.9 acres of land into five residential lots, one
private street lot, and one open space lot on property generally located north of Faraday Avenue
at the southern terminus of Twain Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 8. Lots exceed
30,000 square feet and are created by a stepped grading design because of the property’s
topography. The proposal includes the use of gates and private streets. Each lot will be sold
individually and then developed by the lot owner.
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards, and policies:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
General Plan;
Zoning Ordinance: R-1-30,000 (One Family ResidentiaV30,OOO square foot minimum lot
area);
Inclusionary Housing;
Planned Development;
Hillside Development;
Title 20: Subdivision Ordinance;
Local Coastal Program: Mello I1 Segment and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay
Zone; and
Growth Management.
The recommendation for the proposal was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with
the applicable City regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of the above
regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. General Plan
The following Table A identifies General Plan goals and objectives relevant to the proposed
project and indicates if the proposed project is in compliance with the goal or objective.
GPA 03-01/ZC O3-O1/LCPA 03-01/CT 02-06/PUD 02-02/CDP 02-O3/HDP 02-01 -
KIRGIS TENTATIVE MAP
September 3,2003
Page 3
ELEMENT
Land Use
USE, PROPOSED USES &
CLASSIFICATION, IMPROVEMENTS
GOAL, OBJECTIVE,
OR PROGRAM
Site is designated for RL 5 residential lots; <1 .O du/ac
at 0- 1.5 du/ac and Open
Space (OS).
Circulation
entirely within the RL designated
property and open space .
conservation within both RL and
OS designated property.
Access to residential lots is via New development shall
Housing
dedicate and improve all
public right-of-way for
circulation facilities
needed to serve the I develoument. I
Provision of affordable
housing.
The project will be conditioned
to pay the inclusionary housing
in-lieu fee.
driveways from a new private
street.
Open Space &
Conservation
Public Safety
Parks &
Recreation
Utilize Best
Management Practices
for control of storm
water and to protect
water quality.
Review new
development proposals
to consider emergency
access, fire hydrant
locations, and fire flow
requirements.
Ensure that parks are
developed prior to or
concurrent with need, as
defined by the Growth
Management Plan.
The project will conform to all
NPDES and Local Coastal
Program requirements.
No new safety service facilities
are needed to service the
subdivision. Fire hydrants will be
accessible as well as physical
access by safety personnel to the
subdivision via a Knox box at the
gate.
The project will pay a
contribution toward the provision
of parks through a Park-in-Lieu
fee.
COMPLY?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is RL. The RL designation allows
residential development at a density range of 0.0-1.5 units with a growth control point of 1.0
units per acre. The project’s proposed density of 0.91 ddac is below the Growth Management
Control Point density (1.0 ddac) used for the purpose of calculating the City’s compliance with
Government Code Section 65584. However, consistent with Program 3.8 of the City’s certified
Housing Element, all of the dwelling units, which were anticipated toward achieving the City’s
GPA 03-01/ZC O3-O1/LCPA 03-01/CT 02-06/PUD 02-02/CDP 02-O>/HDP 02-01 -
KIRGIS TENTATIVE MAP
September 3,2003
share of the regional housing need that are not utilized by developers in approved projects, are
deposited in the City’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. These excess dwelling units are available
for allocation to other projects. Accordingly, there is no net loss of residential unit capacity and
there are adequate properties identified in the Housing Element allowing residential development
with a unit capacity, including second dwelling units, adequate to satisfy the City’s share of the
regional housing need.
As required by the Draft Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, 75% of the site will be preserved
as open space and guaranteed by a conservation easement. A General Plan Amendment and
Local Coastal Program Amendment is part of the application package to designate the preserved
area as Open Space on the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use map. The
amendment will increase onsite General Plan Open Space from approximately 2.5 acres to 16.43
acres.
B. Zoning Ordinance: R-1-30,000 One Family Residential
The entire subdivision falls within the R-1-30,060 zoning designation. A Zone Change is part of
the application package to reconcile the zoning to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program
Land Use Map. The change will result in 25% of the property remaining as R-1-30,000 and 75%
(1 6.343 acres) of the property converting to OS.
The proposed lot sizes conform to the requirements of Chapter 2 1.10 (One Family Residential).
In this case the minimum lot size is 30,000 square feet. Lots range in size from 35,284 square
feet to 16.343 acres. All residential lots have access to a publicly dedicated street via a private
street and conform to the dimension criteria established in Chapter 20.10 and Section 21.10.080,
which is a minimum of 80 feet in width.
In order for the proposed lots to have utility services and access from the adjacent streets, the
developer will be required to offer various dedications (e.g., drainage easements, street rights-of-
way) and install street and utility improvements, including but not limited to, driveway aprons,
gutters, sewer facilities, drainage facilities, and fire hydrants.
C. Inclusionary Housing
Since the application is for less than 7 homes, Chapter 2 1.85 (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance)
allows the applicant to pay a fee with the issuance of building permits in lieu of providing 15%
of the total residential units as affordable to lower income households. A condition requiring the
payment of the fee is included in the project resolution.
D. Planned Unit Development
Compliance with the Planned Development Regulations is required because the project proposes
a private street and will be limited to those regulations applicable to the subdivision of the
property. Table B demonstrates the project’s compliance with the required standards.
GPA 03-01/ZC O3-O1/LCPA 03-01/CT 02-06PUD 02-02/CDP 02-O3/HDP 02-01 -
KlRGIS TENTATIVE MAP
September 3,2003
Page 5
STANDARD
Visitor Parking
TABLE B - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
PERMITTEDrnQUIRED PROPOSED
3 spaces required Parking area is available on each lot
Minimum Lot Size
Minimum Lot Width
Minimum Private
1 space for each two units
5,000 sq. ft.
50 ft. loo+ ft.
34 feet curb-to-curb with 5.5
for one or more guest spaces.
35,000 sq. ft. min.
32 foot curb-to-curb with 5.5 foot
Street Width
No floor plans or architectural elevations accompany this application. Subsequent review of
architectural elevations, floorplans and plotting as a minor Planned Development amendment is a
condition of approval. Future plotting and architectural design will be subject to the standards
and guidelines established in the Planned Development Ordinance as well as Mello I1 and Policy
44.
foot parkway parkway on one side as allowed by
the Hillside Development Ordinance.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the subdivision, a landscape plan, consistent with the
procedures and requirements of the Landscape Manual, must be approved by the Planning
Director. The landscape plan will include design and location for all perimeter fencing, gates,
commonly owned decorative hardscape and exterior slope landscape.
E. Hillside Development
The site has a grade elevation change greater than 15 feet and slopes greater than 15% and
therefore requires a Hillside Development Permit. Hillside conditions have been properly
identified on the constraints map which show existing and proposed conditions and slope
percentages. Undevelopable areas of the project, i.e., slopes over 40%, have been properly
identified. They are within proposed open space conservation Lot No. 7.
The development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of the Hillside
Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that the site has been designed to step development consistent with
the natural terrain sloping from northeast to southwest and that grading quantities are within
“acceptable” levels, less than 8,000 cubic yards per acre. A reduced street width of 32 feet curb-
to-curb has been applied to the site because of the “hillside” condition.
The project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the Hillside
Development Guidelines Manual, in that there are no slopes being created greater than forty feet.
The maximum height of proposed slopes is 27 feet. The project design and lot configuration also
minimizes disturbance of hillside lands, since only 25% of the gross property is within the area
of overall disturbance.
GPA 03-01/ZC O3-O1/LCPA 03-01/CT 02-06/PUD 02-02/CDP 02-O3/HDP 02-01 -
KIRGIS TENTATIVE MAP
September 3,2003
Pane 6
F. Title 20: Subdivision Ordinance
A major subdivision (the subdivision of five or more lots) is required per Title 20 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. Chapter 20.12 identifies the procedure for processing a major subdivision and
includes the required findings for approval of same. Chapter 20.16 identifies the requirements
that must be met in the design of the subdivision. The proper procedure was followed regarding
the submittal of the application for the requested subdivision including the provision of all of the
required information on the map. Required lot widths, lengths, sizes and access are provided per
the City’s subdivision ordinance.
The proposed map and design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, is consistent
with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health
problems, in that the subdivision is proposed in an area designated for residential development
which is not exposed to hazardous land uses. The proposed project is compatible with the
surrounding hture land uses since surrounding properties are designated for residential and park
development on the General Plan, which are desirable, uses adjacent to residential development.
The site is physically suitable for low density, residential development. Fewer homes and larger
lots allow for greater differences in pad elevations distributed over a larger area. This also
allows for less physical disturbance of onsite resources.
Environmental conditions resulted in the need for individual private sewer pumps from the lower
lots up to Twain Avenue versus a gravity flow system to Faraday Avenue through the 16.43-acre
open space conservation lot.
The proposal includes the use of gates.and private streets. This application for gated and private
streets is supported by staff given the location of the lots at the end of a public cul-de-sac, the
inability to provide through-access to Faraday Avenue because of topography, and restrictions
caused by the adjoining conservation open space lot.
The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements required of the project will not
conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision because
there are no claims of access to the property.
The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that the geographical disposition of the
project site will allow for the design of structures to implement passive heating and cooling
systems.
G. Mello I1 Segment and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
The 2 1.90-acre Carlsbad Tract and associated development permits are located within the Mello
I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. The development is also subject to the
GPA 03-01/ZC 03-01/LCPA 03-01/CT 02-06RUD 02-02/CDP 02-05/HDP 02-01 -
KIFtGIS TENTATIVE MAP
September 3,2003
Zoning
Local Coastal Program: Mello I1
Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone. The intent of the overlay zone is to supplement the
underlying zoning by providing additional resource protective regulations within designated
areas to preserve, protect and enhance the habitat resource values of Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, Batiquitos Lagoon, and steep sloping hillsides; to provide regulations in areas
which provide the best wildlife habitat characteristics; to encourage proper lagoon management;
and to deter soil erosion by maintaining the vegetative cover on steep slopes.
R-1-30,000
Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
Development within the Coastal Zone requires the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit
consistent with the Local Coastal Program, the underlying zoning and applicable overlay zones.
The following Table D illustrates the applicable land use designations under the Local Coastal
Program (LCP):
TABLE D - LAND USES I General Plan 1 Residential Low/Ouen Suace
There are newly adopted general standards for the Mello I1 segment. The following discussion
addresses those standards.
There is a “No Net Loss” policy regarding habitat. Habitat that is impacted by development
must be replaced at a 1:l ratio and an additional 1:l replacement for coastal sage and 2:l
replacement for southern maritime chaparral may be provided by acquisition offsite. The project
will impact 4.9 acres of coastal sage and .05 acres of southern maritime chaparral. Onsite
revegetation is a condition of approval as well as acquisition of like habitat offsite.
Fire suppression zones are required when properties are adjacent to land that is at risk of fire.
The City of Carlsbad has adopted a three-zone suppression area. The Mello I1 segment allows
zone three to be located within the first 20 feet of an open space preserve. Zones two and one
must then be located on the individual private lot. The project has been designed to these
standards.
Buffers are required between development and native habitat. A twenty-foot buffer has been
provided which coincides with fire suppression zone 3.
Policy 3-8.3 requires that 75% of this property is preserved and that development on the
remaining 25% is clustered immediately adjacent to Kelly Ranch. The project has been designed
to this standard.
Discussion regarding the project’s compliance with the City’s General Plan and Zoning is found
in a previous section of this staff report. Discussion of the project’s compliance with the
applicable LCP overlay zone follows:
GPA 03-01/ZC O3-O1/LCPA 03-01/CT 02-06RUD 02-02/CDP 02-O3/HDP 02-01 -
KIRGIS TENTATIVE MAP
September 3,2003
Page 8
Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
The overlay zone identifies five areas of protection. They are 1) steep slopes and vegetation; 2)
drainage, erosion, sedimentation, habitat; 3) landslides and slope instability; 4) seismic hazards;
and, 5) floodplain development.
1. Slopes greater than 25% possessing endangered species and/or coastal sage scrub and
chaparral plant communities are protected in the coastal zone. If application of the policy
precludes any reasonable use of the property, then up to a 10% encroachment may be
permitted. The 10% encroachment may be modified only if the project is consistent with
the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan and the Resource Habitat Protection policies.
The site does contain slopes greater than 25% with southern maritime chaparral and
coastal sage scrub. The project proposes preservation of approximately 93.5 % of these
slopes in a deed restricted open space lot. 75% of the entire property is being preserved
within a conservation easement. The coastal sage and/or southern maritime chaparral on
the slopes that will be impacted will be mitigated by a combination of onsite revegetation
and offsite acquisition consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan.
2. Special erosion control measures must be included as conditions of approval. These
“special” measures are standard measures required by the City’s Grading Ordinance and
are included as conditions of approval.
3. The geotechnical investigation prepared by Christian Wheeler Engineering did not
indicate that there are soils onsite of the La Jolla group, which are susceptible to
accelerated erosion. Therefore, additional reports are not required.
4. Because of the soil types and topography, the site is not prone to liquefaction and
therefore site-specific investigations are not required.
5. No part of the site is within the 100 year floodplain.
A restriction has been adopted in the Mello I1 segment restricting grading between October 1 and
April 1 of each year. All graded areas must also be landscaped for erosion control prior to
October 1 of each year. The blanket exception is if nesting gnatcatchers are present onsite, then
grading may typically not occur from February 15 through August 31. Grading may also be
permitted to extend into the winter months if proper erosion control has been provided and in
areas determined by the City Engineer to be of low risk of erosion.
H. Growth Management
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 8 in the northwest
quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance
with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table C below.
GPA 03-01/ZC O3-O1/LCPA 03-01/CT 02-06/PUD 02-02/CDP 02-O3/HDP 02-01 -
KIRGIS TENTATIVE MAP
September 3,2003
STANDARDS
City Administration
Librarv
TABLE C - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
IMPACTS COMPLIANCE
17.38 sq. ft. Yes
9.27 sa. ft. Yes
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
5 EDU Yes
0.03 acre Yes
10 cfs Yes
50 ADT Yes
Station No.5 Yes
Open Space
Schools
16.35 acres provided Yes
Carlsbad Unified School District Yes
The project is in compliance with the requirements of the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management
Plan. Fees will be paid in contribution to city administration facilities, library, wastewater
treatment, parks, drainage, schools, and sewer collection. The project has been designed and or
conditioned to provide the appropriate facilities to accommodate storm water drainage,
circulation, and open space. Fire Station No. 5 will adequately serve the project and there is
currently an adequate water supply through the Kelly Ranch residential subdivision to service the
project. Each of the future homes will be built with a fire sprinkler system.
~ Sewer Collection System
Water
The project density is 0.91 dwelling units per acre. The Growth Management Control Point is
1.0 dwelling units per acre. The project is proposed at 0.47 dwelling units below the Growth
Management allowance.
5 EDU Yes
1,100 GPD Yes
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a
potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project
falls within the scope of the City’s Master Environmental Impact Report (MER) for the City of
Carlsbad General Plan update (EIR 93-01) certified in September, 1994, in which a Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted for cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic
circulation. MERs may not be used to review projects if certified more than five years prior to
the filing of an application for a later project except under certain circumstances. The City is
currently reviewing the 1994 MER to determine whether it is still adequate to review
subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City’s
preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect
to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. Additionally, there is no new
available information not known and whch could not have been known at the time the MER
was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. All feasible
GPA 03-01/ZC O3-O1/LCPA 03-01/CT 02-06/PUD 02-02/CDP 02-O3/HDP 02-01 -
KIRGIS TENTATIVE MAP
September 3,2003
Page 10
mitigation measures identified by the MER which are appropriate to this project have been
incorporated into the project.
Potentially significant environmental impacts were identified for biological resources, air quality,
geology, soils, and cultural resources. The developer has agreed to mitigation measures designed
to reduce identified impacts to below a level of significance in accordance with CEQA. In
consideration of the foregoing, the Planning Director published two notices of intent to issue a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, first on October 8, 2002 and then on January 19,
2003 when the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment
were added to the project. Comments were received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the California Department of Fish and Game on both occasions. Those comments resulted in the
addition of mitigation measures to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The project will result in the disturbance of 4.9 acres of coastal sage scrub and 0.05 acres of
southern maritime chaparral. Mitigation is required in the form of onsite revegetation and offsite
acquisition. Prior to grading, authorization is required under Section 10(a)(l)(B) of the federal
Endangered Species Act.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5347 (MND)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5376 (GPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5377 (ZC)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5378 (LCPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5348 (CT)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5349 (PUD)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5350 (CDP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 535 1 (HDP)
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Statement
Exhibits “A” - “D” dated September 3,2003
CW:bd:mh
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: GPA 03-01/ZC 03-01/LCPA 03-01/CT 02-06/PUD 02-02/CDP 02-05/HDP 02-01
CASE NAME: KIRGIS TENTATIVE MAP
APPLICANT: PERGOLA INC.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local Coastal
Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development. Coastal Development
Permit and Hillside Development Permit for the subdivision of 21.9 acres of land into five
residential lots and one open space lot on property generally located north of Faraday Avenue at
the southern terminus of Twain Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 8.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All that portion of Lot “F” of Rancho Agua Hedionda. in the County
of San Diego. State of California, as shown on Partition Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego County, on November 16,1896.
APN: 212-010-03-00 Acres: 21.90 Proposed No. of LotsNnits: 7 lots/5 residential units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Residential Low
Density Allowed: 0.0 -1.5 DU/AC
Existing Zone: R-1-30,000
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Density Proposed: 0.91 DU/AC
Proposed Zone: N/A
Zoning General Plan
Site R-1-30,000 =/os
North R-1-Q RLM
south os os
East C-M PI
West os os
Current Land Use
Vacant
Single Family
Open Space
Industrial
Open Space
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 5 EDU
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Mitigated Negative Declaration dated: Januarv 19,2003
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated:
Other,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: KEGIS TENTATIVE MAP - GPA 03-01/ZC 03-01/CT 02-06/ PUD
02-02/CDP 02-05/HDP 02-01
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: GENERAL PLAN: RL
ZONING: R- 1-30,000
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Pergola Inc.
ADDRESS: 2 12 1 Palomar Airport Road Suite 206 Carlsbad CA 92009
QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 21.9 acres/5 DU
PHONE NO.: 760-438-4313 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 212-010-03-00
A.
B.
C;
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 17.38
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 9.27
W
Sewer) 5 EDU
Park: Demand in Acreage = 0.03 acres
astewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J.
Drainage: Demand in CFS = 10 cfs
Identify Drainage Basin = B
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 50 ADT
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 5
Open Space: Acreage Provided = 16.35
Schools:
Sewer:
Water:
Carlsbad School District
Demands in EDU
Identify Sub Basin =
Demand in GPD =
1.17 Elementarv
0.59 Middle/0.72 High
5 EDU
B
1.100 GPD
The project is 0.47 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
- C.ity of Carlsbad
P-n Robert Wilson Perqola, Inc., a Nevada corporation
President Title-% 0 f stoc k Title
Address 7,121 Palomar Airport Road a 2121 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206 Carlsbad, CAS'LUUY Suite 206, Carlsbad, CA 92009
2
Title mtk
I ctrtify tbat all fhc above information is true and co
1
Signam of mmdlatc
Inc. a Nevada corDoratl 'on
Print or typename of owner Printartypnemcafappiicant
6St6 SEL [09L1
moo2 01/14/2003 15:54 FAX
JAN-14-2003 TUE 11 : 16 AM . -TY OF CARLSBAD FAX NO, 76. 602 8559 P. 02
-I- city of Carlsbad
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
I Applicant's statement or disclorn of certain ownmhiu mtaests on all awlications which will mrruid I dis&tionny action on the part of the City Counoil or a$ appointcd Board: Commission or Committee. 1
The following information JKUST bz disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your projcct mnot
be reviewed until this information is oomplctcd. Pltasc print,
Nota Pmon io AcGnCd as "Any individual, hn, co-partnershlp, joint vmw, app6&ti0n, social club, fiaternal
organizelion, corporation, estate, trust, dvq ayndiclde, m this and any othar county, city and county, city muriicip;llity, disrrlct or otha political SubdAviSiOn or any othcl group ar combination acting as a unit."
Agsntrr may sign tMr docranent; however, the I@ me and mti~ of rho applicant and propcrty owner must be provided below,
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the -PI XTE. LEGAL names and addresses of &f& persons having a financial inhest in the application. If the applicant includes a c includc thc
names, title, adhpses of at1 individuals owning more than 10% of tho sharcs. IF NO
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE 7" IO'% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPT,ICABLE (WA) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a elv-owned catl)nta tian, inclurtc ha
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officcrs. (A ecpanto page may be ottaahcd if necessary,) 'A ; i s WTV u s t
Tide TI, c*r c Title.
Parson Ch&r\r+ a. u;w.i, corp/pm
2.
~SS wsa ~LA*A~-%, M~~SS
OwNeR (Not thc omcr's agcnt)
Provide the COIHpLETE. LEG& names id addresses of & persons having any DwI1L.rship interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal owndip (ie,
partnership, tenants m common, non-profit, carpoWtion, etc,). If the ownmhip holudcs a
comtinn or nartncr ship, include tho names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the &ares. IF NO NDMDUALS OWN MORE THAN lO%.OI! THE SHARW, PLEASE MnIcATB NON4PPLICABLE (WA) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a g~blialv-
md com~borl ' include the names, tides, and addresses of the oorporatc ofioers. (A separate
page inay be attached if necessary.)
D--~!-S, f~ 7j22q
gi-,is \qqbT~l+rt
Person Gk&C\*G \IJI Uh*L .
M~~OSS qq 61 bLLaac,Dp, Addross
0, \I &SI TY Llsz19
carp/pprt
Title wv s +-*.e Ticlo A
1636 Faraday Aveb Carlsbad, CA 82008-7314 - (760) 6024600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 @
@I 003 - 01/14/2003 15:54 FAX
JAN-14-2003 TUE 11 116 AM TY OF CMSBAD FAX NO. 7~- 602 8559 P. 03
3. NON-PROFIT ORGANXZATION OR TRUST
If any person idmtikl pursuant to (1) or (2) above is p nonmofit ormn ization o r a as[, list the
names and addresses of ANy person sewing as an officer or dircctor of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Pmfi- i U&*,S \94 LT+ u& Non Profitrlrust
+*Title TittcGL * r\rcs bhWqy ..- \q
A-86 9q57. Nhe-k o*,*s *
Dd1Cs.b m %lT
4. Have you hid mom than S250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff,
Bod, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the ppEt twelve (12) monlhs?
~ts @ NO If yes, plcw indiute pcrsm(s):
NOTE: AWh additid she& ifntccssary.
’ H:AOMIN\COUNfER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 1/88 Page 2 of 2
at‘
Planning Commission Minutes December 3,2003
3. KlRGlS DOCUMENTS
Mr. Neu stated that agenda Item 3 was the Kirgis Documents that the Planning Commission considered
previously when a motion failed to recommend approval of that project. The documents now under consideration recommend denial, which reflect the majority of the Commissioners’ comments. Mr. Neu
stated that Staff also recommended deleting the last part of the resolution that falls under the notice section dealing with the imposition of fees since there were none.
Commissioner Heineman asked for clarification about voting stating that those who favored the Item
should vote no. Mr. Neu confirmed that that was correct.
Chairperson Baker called for a vote.
MOTION
ACT1 ON : Motion by Commissioner White, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 5531, denying GPA 03-01/ZC 03-01/LCPA 03-01/CT
02-06/PUD 02-02/CDP 02-05/HDP 02-01, based on the findings contained
therein and including the deletion stated by Mr. Neu.
Baker, Dominguez, Montgomery, and White
VOTE: 4-3
AYES: NOES: Heineman, Segall, and Whitton
c? 5
Planning Commission Minutes November 5,2003 Page 4
1. GPA 03-01EC 03-011LCPA 03-011CT 02-061PUD 02-021CDP 02-051HDP 02-01 - KlRGlS
TENTATIVE MAP - Request for a recommendation of approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to reconcile the zoning map to the General
Plan map, and to approve a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Coastal
Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit for the subdivision of 21.9 acres of land
into five residential lots, one open space lot and one private street, on property generally located
north of Faraday Avenue at the southern terminus of Twain Avenue in Local Facilities
Management Zone 8.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 1 and stated that Senior Planner, Christer Westman, assisted by Associate
Engineer, Frank Jimeno, would make the presentation.
Chairperson Baker opened the public hearing on Item 1
Senior Planner, Christer Westman, presented the Staff Report stating that because the Commission had
seen this application at a previous Planning Commission meetings he would give a brief overview of the
project. It consists of three legislative actions, which are General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and
Local Coastal Program, and related applications are a Tentative Map, Hillside Permit, Coastal
Development Permit, and Planned Unit Development. The site is approximately 22 acres. The zoning is
R-1-30, which requires 30,000 sq ft minimum for each lot. General Plan is residential low. Growth control
point is one dwelling unit per acre. The developed portion of the subdivision covers about 25% of the
site. There are five residential lots ranging in size from 35,000-51,000 sq ft. There is a single open space
lot that is 16.43 acres. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or a final map an agreement to place this
open space lot into the care of a conservation entity must be executed. As designed, the project exceeds
the minimum residential lot size requirement of 30,000 sq ft. No homes are proposed at this time. Prior
to issuance of building permits, home plans will have to be reviewed by a Planned Development Revision
and a Coastal Development Permit. The Planning Commission would be making a recommendation on
the legislative actions, the General Plan, Zone Change, and the Local Coastal Program to the City
Council.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if there were any changes to this project since the last time it came
before the Planning Commission. Mr. Westman stated that the applicant had not made physical changes
to the project, but has provided additional information for the Planning Commission to consider in the form
of the model.
Chairperson Baker asked what the percentage of lot coverage would be allowed on these lots. Mr.
Westman stated that an R-I standard would be 40% of the gross lot.
Commissioner Whitton asked if the road into that area would be a private road maintained by the Kirgis Foundation. Mr. Westman confirmed that maintenance of the private road would be paid by the applicant.
Commissioner Whitton also asked if the fire hydrants would be paid for and maintained by Kirgis. Mr.
Jimeno responded that those would be publicly maintained.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if this would be a private gated community. Mr. Westman stated that it
would be. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the same amount of export as previously presented was
planned. Mr. Westman stated that it was the same as previously presented, approximately 8,700 cubic yards of export.
Chairperson Baker invited the applicant to make a presentation.
Robert Wilson, 4739 Amberwood Court, Carlsbad, stated that his team of consultants would be making
the presentation and he would make final comments and answer questions.
Brian Regan, 1811 Rock Springs Road, San Marcos, stated that he had prepared two models of this
project. The first is a topographic model that is accurate to a five-foot contour interval showing the
finished grading of the project. The second shows how the project exists in its natural state today. He
addressed concerns that the project was raised above the adjacent Shea Homes’ site stating that the
Planning Commission Minutes November 5,2003 Page 5
slope between the two projects would be reduced in height. The lot on the west side would have a 20-
foot lower pad than Shea Homes, which should mitigate view issues. Mr. Regan then reviewed the two
models. He pointed out the three ridges of the project. The ridges on Shea Homes start at 335 feet and
drop down to 315 then come back up to 320. The middle of the site is 325 feet and cascades down the
hillside. The view towards Agua Hedionda Lagoon is directly west. Mr. Regan reviewed alternate plans stating that one was to make both sides of the street level with slopes on the westerly face that would
balance the site. Slopes on the westerly face would be 38-feet high. That reduced the export to zero, but
also lost all the views. The slopes that face 1-5 and Faraday would be increased in height. He stated that
the current plan is for the pads to cascade east and west. Kelly removed some material creating a stair-
step. He stated that they minimized the fill facing 1-5 and Faraday; that the 60-foot clearance setback
from flammable structures required that they denude an area of vegetation; that the pads are big enough
to include any future additions of tennis courts or swimming pools; and that the last portion of fill was a
small road fill. The original design had pads higher on one side. Along with the Planning Department,
they arrived at a compromise on the elevation of 326.5 feet. They have stayed with the natural
topography. The west side of the property is lower. The east side will have the higher lots. This will
preserve the ocean views critical to the project.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that he didn’t recall asking the applicant to investigate level pads on
each side of the cul-de-sac, but rather to address issues relating to fill on top of a visible ridge. He had
suggested that those be dropped down 5-7 feet and placed evenly over cut areas on the south and west
sides. Mr. Regan stated that he did look at that and considered a more traditional subdivision. The current design starts to infringe into the lagoon views. If those are raised any more, the ocean views
would be partially lost, which destroys the intent of the project. He stated that the Hillside Ordinance has
a maximum grade of 7,999 cubic yards per acre, and they are at 6,600 cubic yards per acre even with the
export.
Chairperson Baker asked why, even allowing for the swimming pool and tennis courts, it had to be a flat
acre when the topography gradually descends. She stated that the flat-acre pad was her biggest issue
with this project. Mr. Regan stated that his experience has been that people like to keep the pool and
tennis courts at the same level. He stated that they have kept the rural atmosphere, unlike in most
subdivisions.
James Whelan, 7050 Friars Road, San Diego, stated that the environmental issues that he deals with
have been worked out and that he wanted to put in a good word in for the project.
Dale Greenhalgh, 5017 Ashberry Road, stated that he was present at the request of Robert Wilson and
Brian Regan to acknowledge Shea Homes’ agreements with the Kirgis team on the edge condition at the
south end of Spyglass, which is Kelly Ranch. He stated that Shea had been working with Mr. Wilson and
his team to formulate a managed condition that worked for everyone and it had been disclosed in their
sales documents to future buyers.
Mr. Wilson stated that he was not a developer and that this was his private project that he intended to live
in it. He stated that these homes would most likely be single story. He stated that he instructed his team
to meet all criteria the City requested and that he intended to do so. He stated that they were moving
very little dirt and were keeping the area as natural as possible.
Commissioner White asked if he envisioned these homes being single story. She asked if he had seen architectural plans and if he knew what the potential buyers wanted. She asked him to comment on the
size of the homes. Mr. Wilson stated that none had been sold. He stated that he had friends interested
in the project who were his age and he felt that people his age would want to live in one-story homes.
Commissioner White asked how long he had owned the property. Mr. Wilson stated that he did not own
the property, but that he put it in escrow three or four years ago. He explained that the idea was to
develop a site where they could build a home with a large yard and a lot of space between homes. He said that when he first looked at this, it had had a plan for 15 homes. He stated that the street would be
Tuscan-like with cobblestone.
Chairperson Baker stated that what was troubling her was, that given the price of the property, the views and the potential size of what these homes could be, that it could appear as if there were five hotels on
Planning Commission Minutes November 5,2003 Page 6
the ridgeline. Mr. Wilson stated that no one would build a big box and that the required setbacks would
prevent that from happening anyway. Chairperson Baker stated that a 40% lot coverage allowed an
enormous house that could be built on each pad and there was no guarantee that that wouldn’t occur. He
stated that with the setbacks, the homes should not be generally visible.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that the fill on top of the ridgeline and creating the pads there were
troubling to him. He stated that if the homes on Lots 4 and 5 were one-story homes that he would be
more inclined to approve the project. Mr. Regan responded that any home proposed for this project
would have to come before the Planning Commission for approval. Low-profile architecture was being
promoted for these lots.
Chairperson Baker closed public testimony.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner White stated that she was undecided about this project considering the private property
rights to develop property versus the one-acre pads on top of a ridgeline, which have their own issues because of being so visible, unlike a traditional subdivision.
Commissioner Whitton stated that he supported the project as planned. He stated that even though the
profile could be a problem, Shea Homes was right next to it with large homes sitting on top of a hill and
the silhouettes of this project should not be a problem.
Ms. ,Mobaldi interjected that the Planned Unit Development Permit Resolution called for a minor
amendment to the Planned Unit Development Permit which is done with the approval of the Planning
Director, so the Planning Commission would not see the elevations of these homes. She instructed the
Commission to focus on the Hillside Development Permit, conditions 3 and 5, which have to do with
topography.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that he understood the proposal and what the applicant was trying to
do, and he empathized that they were trying to enhance the property with regard to views, but he stated
that he didn’t hear anything that changed his mind from the previous presentation. The cut of 36,000
cubic yards, a fill of 27,300 cubic yards, an export of about 9,000 cubic yards would be a massive grading
and alteration of the ridgeline that he stated he could not support it.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that he could not support the project as designed, especially if no
consideration was given to structures on the ridgeline. He would prefer to see the ridgeline come down
significantly.
Commissioner Heineman stated that he agreed with Commissioner Whitton, particularly with the highly
visible homes already being built in that area. He didn’t believe that these homes would be unsightly. He
stated that he thought this would be a remarkable project and he was very much in favor of it.
Commissioner Segall stated that he concurred with Commissioner Whitton’s and Commissioner
Heineman’s comments and he supported the project.
Chairperson Baker stated that she had some issue with the flat one-acre pad. She stated that she
supported the houses fitting into the view line, but all over Carlsbad there are examples of properties
sloping down where the pools and tennis courts have been fit in. She stated that she was not convinced
that they had to be flat acres.
Commissioner Dominguez added that if he had been on the Planning Commission when the grading plan
was first presented, he would have opposed it.
Commissioner White asked Ms. Mobaldi for clarification about the plans not coming to the Planning
Commission. Ms. Mobaldi confirmed that the Planned Unit Development Permit Resolution requires a
minor amendment for approval of the architecture, which according to the Code is done by the Planning
Director, even though it is in the Coastal Zone. Therefore, the Planning Commission would not be
approving the plans for these homes even though they are in the Coastal Zone.
Planning Commission Minutes November 5,2003 Page 7
Commissioner Whitton commented that homes have been built on ridgelines throughout Carlsbad and he
wasn’t clear why the Commission was taking issue with this project that abuts Shea Homes.
Furthermore, it is not known what the homes in this project would look like and is not what is being
approved.
Commissioner White recounted that the homes in this project were estimated in the previous presentation
to be 7,000-10,000 sq. ft. and she noted that that was far larger than the typical home built on a ridge in
Carlsbad.
Commissioner Segall asked Ms. Mobaldi if the condition on PUD 02-02 could be changed to require the
homes to be approved by the Planning Commission. She stated that the Code dictates when an
amendment comes to Planning Commission versus Planning Director. This cannot, therefore, be
changed to come back as Commissioner Segall suggested. Ms. Mobaldi stated that although each home
would come before the Planning Commission for a Coastal Development Permit, that review focuses on
compliance with the Coastal Program and issues of sensitive habitat, public views and access, and dual
criteria slopes. Commissioner Segall asked if the Planning Commission could rule on elevations. Mr.
Neu stated that the Planning Commission had been ruling on elevations with Coastal Development Permits. The emphasis of the permit is on the coastal policy, but height, slope, and architecture could
also be considered. Ms. Mobaldi added that there may not be an adequate opportunity to examine the
elevations issue when it comes back for the Coastal Development Permit, so she encouraged the
Commissioners to focus on the Hillside Development Permit findings dealing with topography and leave
the one versus two-story considerations out of this decision.
Commissioner Whitton asked Mr. Wilson if he would be selling these lots to be individually developed.
Mr. Wilson stated that this project was being built for his pleasure and that he did not have to sell these
lots. He stated that the homes will be beautiful or he will not sell the lots. He said he has hired one of the
best architects to build his own home.
Commissioner Dominguez pointed out that beauty is in the eye of the beholder in spite of Mr. Wilson’s
best intentions to preserve the natural beauty of the area. Mr. Wilson stipulated that he would bring the
plans for Lots 4 and 5 back to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
Chairperson Baker asked for a motion.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Whitton, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 5347 recommending adoption of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5376, 5377 and 5378,
recommending approval of GPA 03-01, ZC 03-01, LCPA 03-01, and adopt
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5348, 5349, 5350 and 5351 approving CT
02-06, PUD 02-02, CDP 02-05, and HDP 02-01 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including an amendment stipulating
that Mr. Wilson will bring back before the Planning Commission for approval the
housing elevations on Lots 4 and 5.
VOTE: 3-4 AYES: Heineman, Segall, and Whitton
NOES: ABSTAIN : None
Baker, Dominguez, Montgomery, and White
Ms. Mobaldi stated that the denials can be appealed to the City Council along with the denials of
recommendations for approval of the legislative actions.
Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2003 Page 2
1. GPA 03-011ZC 03-011LCPA 03-011CT 02-061PUD 02-021CDP 02-051HDP 02-01 - KlRGlS
TENTATIVE MAP - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal
Program Amendment to reconcile the zoning map to the General Plan map, and to approve a
Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside
Development Permit for the subdivision of 21.9 acres of land into five residential lots, one open
space lot and one private street, on property generally located north of Faraday Avenue at the
southern terminus of Twain Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 8.
Mr. Neu stated that agenda Item 1 is a series of applications for the Kirgis Tentative Map project. To
clarify the Coastal appeal status of these, he stated that there are three legislative actions, the General
Plan Amendment, the Zone Change, and the Coastal Plan Amendment, that will be forwarded on to the
City Council with the Planning Commission’s recommendation. The Tentative Map, Plan Unit
Development, Coastal Permit, and Hillside Development Permit will be final actions unless appealed. He
stated that Senior Planner, Christer Westman, assisted by Associate Engineer Frank Jimeno, would make
the presentation.
Chairperson Baker opened the public hearing on Item 1.
Senior Planner, Christer Westman, presented the Staff report stating that the property is owned by the
Kirgis Family Trust. The applicant is Robert Wilson, of Pergola, Inc., a local builder. The project site is
located at the southern terminus of Twain Avenue. The only route of access is through the Kelly Ranch
Spyglass subdivision. Veterans Memorial Park is to the west and south. The site is approximately 22
acres. It is an R-1-30,000 zone and a Residential Low General Plan designation. The growth control
point is one dwelling unit per acre. The property is in the coastal zone and is, therefore, subject to coastal
regulations. One such regulation is that, absent a hard-line preserve consistent with the draft Habitat
Management Plan, only 25% of the property may be developed. This subdivision covers just 25% of the growth site area. There are five residential lots ranging in size from 35,000 to 51,000 sq ft. There is a
single open-space lot that is 16.43 acres. Prior to issuance of grading permit or final map, an agreement
to place this 16.43-acre open-space lot must be placed into the care of a conservation entity. As
designed, the project exceeds the minimum residential lot size requirement of 30,000 sq ft. Lots 1, 2, and 3 are predominantly cut into the existing slopes, and Lots 4 and 5 are fill over the existing slopes. Pad 5
is the highest in elevation at approximately the same grade as the adjacent public street, Twain Avenue.
Because Lots 1-4 are below the adjacent public street, they are required to have individual sewer pumps.
The project includes an application for a Planned Unit Development, driven primarily for the desire to
include a private gated street. A public trail easement is reserved along the north and northwest property
lines, which allows access from Veterans Memorial Park to Twain Avenue and on to the north. No homes
are proposed at this time. Prior to issuance of building permits, home plans will have to be reviewed by a
Plan Development Revision and Coastal Development Permit. The legislative actions, General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment are mostly clean up in nature,
prompted by the development proposal to make the General Plan and Zoning maps consistent.
Currently, there is Open Space shown on the General Plan map that is not shown on the Zoning map.
Staff is recommending approval of all the requested actions.
Commissioner Segall asked for clarification about the grade levels of Lots 1-5. Mr. Westman referred to
the wall map to clarify the levels. Commissioner Segall asked if this was in the coastal appeal zone. Mr.
Westman stated that it is in the coastal zone, but not in the appeals area.
Commissioner Montgomery asked Mr. Jimeno why they would use a mechanical sewer system. Mr.
Jimeno responded that in order to use a gravity sewer system they would have to go down to Faraday through the habitat area. To avoid disturbing the habitat area, Engineering agreed to pump from each of
the Lots 1-4 up to Twain Avenue. Commissioner Montgomery asked if there was a big problem bringing the sewer through that area and replanting it. Mr. Westman explained that the issue was habitat
disturbance and replacement of the coastal sage scrub. Commissioner Montgomery asked if a temporary disturbance of it would be allowed. Mr. Westman stated that if it was disturbed, it was disturbed, and that
it would ultimately be a hardship on the applicant and frowned upon by the agencies to issue a take
permit for the site.
30
Planning Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 Page 3
Commissioner Dominguez stated that he was also disturbed that such a high elevation could not use a
gravity sewer system. He stated that he felt the high-profile ridge development was not in keeping with
Carlsbad and that more imagination could have been used in solving this problem. He asked if there
were any alternatives to this. Mr. Westman stated that to further cut meant more earth needing to be
exported from the site. For the lift stations, either way they are developed they have to go back up to
Twain Avenue or through the habitat.
Commissioner Montgomery asked Mr. Jimeno if each of the pads were designed to have complete ocean
views over the other pads, disregarding the actual topography underneath. He asked if there wasn't a
better way to allow the applicant to regain the value of their property, such as with density bonus. Mr. Westman replied that the project had been under review for quite a while and had been revised over time.
The current design for Lots 4 and 5 is a compromise as a result of discussions with Staff.
Commissioner Whitton asked about the sprinkling of the homes. Mr. Westman said that he had
contacted the Fire Department and when homes are built, they would expect the homes to be conditioned
to include sprinklers.
Chairperson Baker stated that she thought that she had read about sprinklers being required in the Staff
report. Mr. Westman said that that was not in the conditions of approval.
Commissioner Whitton asked if there would be a fire hydrant at the end of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Westman
stated that there would be.
Commissioner Segall asked if this area was outside the five-minute response time. Mr. Westman stated
that it was.
Commissioner Segall asked if the124 access to open space, adjacent to Lot 39, which is the Shea
Homes Development, will remain the same and asked who owned it. Mr. Westman stated that it was a
12-ft easement for trail purposes along the northern property line. It is intended to be a trail for public
use. Commissioner Segall asked if that was part of the 25% remaining and that much more would be
lost by the applicant. Mr. Westman confirmed that that was correct. Commissioner Segall stated that it
looked like it was a 12-ft access to open space on the Shea Homes side. Mr. Westman stated that it was
a part of Lot 39, or the development of the Shea property and would be landscaped and irrigated.
Commissioner Segall asked if Shea Homes had been notified that pad elevation of Lot 5 would be at 326,
8 feet above their Lots 37 and 38. Mr. Westman replied that they had been.
Chairperson Baker asked if the slope was only 8 feet, as it looked to her when she went to the site that
day that Shea had dug out for Lot 38 adjacent to that site. Mr. Westman stated that these plans had been
based on the Shea Homes plans.
Chairperson Baker stated that she had concerns about people buying the Shea Homes thinking that they
were buying homes with a lot of open space, when five homes were going to be built subsequently above
them. She stated that it looked like from the bottom of the lot all you would see is slope. Mr. Westman
replied that they could look at the plan closely and see if there is any cut. Chairperson Baker stated that it
looked like there was almost a berm between the properties. Mr. Westman confirmed that there was a
grade difference between the lots and the pads on the Shea development had to be according to plan.
Chairperson Baker asked if each home would have a sewer pump or if there would be one pump for the
whole development. Mr. Westman stated that Lots 1-4 would have individual pumps. Chairperson Baker
asked where they would be. Mr. Jimeno stated that they would be in each house placed at the lowest
point of the sewer line for Lots 1-3. Lot 4 would be different.
Chairperson Baker asked if the trail would stay outside of the proposed gated neighborhood. Mr.
Westman confirmed that it would. Chairperson Baker asked if there was a need for a Planned Unit
Development if there was no gate. Mr. Westman stated that there would be because of the private street.
He added that the configuration of the property to continue a full public street onto the Kirgis property to
get lots fronting onto that wasn't feasible, so the extension of the cul-de-sac on Twain Avenue would be
the access point for a private street. The private street is a reason for the Planned Unit Development
Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2003 Page 4
whether it‘s gated or not. Chairperson Baker asked what the ramifications would be of removing the gate.
Mr. Westman replied that it wouldn’t have an impact on the consistency of the project with the Planned
Development Ordinance. There wouldn’t be any negative code issues.
Chairperson Baker asked if more excess dwelling units should be put in the bank considering that this site
was being developed at a smaller number than what was done originally in the General Plan. Mr.
Westman stated that based on the slope constraints of the property that there would be about 13 acres of
developable property, which would mean that there could be 13 units. Regarding how the units are
calculated and deposited into the bank if a policy issue, not for Staff to decide.
Chairperson Baker invited the applicant to make a presentation.
Sharon Wilson, 4739 Ambenvood Court, Carlsbad, stated that she and her husband were residents of
Carlsbad since 1965 and their dream was to build their home on this beautiful piece of property. She
thanked Mr. Westman for helping to develop this plan and referred questions to the engineers.
Jim Whalen, 7050 Friars Road, San Diego, stated that he had worked on this plan for four years. He
stated that the project was a balancing act with many constraints that everyone could support. He stated
that they were adding over 16 acres of open space that was not originally in the General Plan. The
project helps complete the Habitat Management Plan because it contains maritime chaparral and coastal
sage scrub setting aside almost all of it. Development occurs in the least sensitive part of the property.
The offsite mitigation and onsite restoration will lead to a net increase in habitat with this plan. The
proposed trail is 12 feet wide, decomposed granite, fenced to separate it from residential areas on both
sides and will be a segment that connects the Kelly Ranch area to the golf course and Veterans Memorial
Park area. He stated that the most unusual thing about this project was that the property owner was seeking to decrease the number of units that they could put on it, as they plan to live there and make it
their home.
Commissioner White asked about their current plans for acquiring property offsite for mitigating the
maritime chaparral. Mr. Whalen stated that the Coastal Commission told them that they didn’t need to
buy maritime chaparral or habitat in the Coastal Zone, as long as it was consistent with the needs of the
Habitat Management Plan. He stated that the SDG&E property by the park would be one possible site.
Also, some places along El Camino Real where the Manzanita Apartment site was has the right kind of
soil for maritime chaparral.
Commissioner Segall asked what their intentions were for Lot 4 and 5 for the homes being one story or
two. Mr. Whalen stated that they were not that far along yet to say.
Commissioner Whitton asked if the pedestrians walking along the trails could see in the backyards of the homes. Mr. Whalen stated that the homeowners would have their privacy due to the fence and due to the
location of the trail itself.
Brian Regan, Shamrock, 181 1 Rock Springs Road, San Marcos, stated that the issues brought up by the
Planning Commission were paramount in the beginning of the project. The adjacent developer had an
option to buy this property and had it in escrow for quite some time, but didn’t act on it. At that time, Shea
Homes had a plan to continue their cul-de-sac, Twain Avenue, onto this property, continuing to rise.
Today the cul-de-sac at the boundary is about 325 feet in elevation, and they worked with Shea who had
agreed to lower the end of the cul-de-sac slightly. They wanted to stay with the natural topography as
much as possible and balance the site as much as possible while taking advantage of the ocean views. From the sewer aspect, they could not ask Shea to tower the sewer low enough to be able to gravity
sewer into Twain Avenue, as the City’s maximum depth is 20 feet. Shea was not willing to lower their
entire cul-de-sac down. The maintenance access road would be a permanent disturbance and somewhat
of a blight. Vehicular access would be difficult on that steep slope. The proposed pumps would be
redundant systems. Originally on Lots 4 and 5, the elevations were higher than what is currently
proposed. Shea said that they wanted to get rid of a retaining wall and they were given permission to
grade onto the Kirgis’ property so that the back of their Lot 38 doesn’t look onto a retaining wall. The
property is somewhat of an amphitheatre that faces to the west with a ridge running to the southwest.
There is a 15- to 20-foot fill on the backside of Lot 2 and a 15-foot fill on the corner of Lot 1. There is a
slight fill on the west side and another fill on the east side. On Lot 38 on Shea Homes there was a knoll
Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2003 Page 5
originally, which came onto Kirgis’ property. The elevation was 325, which is within the Hillside
Development guidelines. There is a fill on the west side which will be contour graded. The client asked
for five lots.
Commissioner Whitton asked about a power failure with regard to the sewer pumps. Mr. Regan stated that the system would shut down in a power failure, then there is an alarm on the system with battery
backup. A backup generator could power it if the homeowner installed one. For the period of time that
the power was out, the system would not be running, but the alarm runs on battery.
Commissioner Segall asked if the pump motors run 24 hours. Mr. Regan explained that the motors run
only when the water level reaches a certain point. He noted that the redundant system is built with two
pumps that cycle on and off alternately and that an alarm sounds when one pump fails allowing time to
replace it while the other pump operates.
Commissioner Whitton asked if there was a holding tank in the system. Mr. Regan stated that there was
a holding tank and that the facility could still be used during a power failure.
Commissioner Montgomery commented that if Twain Avenue was at the proper elevation, then this sewer
system could operate with a gravity system, which would be preferable. He asked about the grading of
pads 1 and 2, which are straight cut pads, and what, ability there was to increase the heights of those
pads in order to decrease the export from the site. He noted that pads 4 and 5 seem significantly high
and asked if the design was based on all five lots having full ocean views. Mr. Regan confirmed that it
was, explaining that the original design, which Mr. Westman and Mr. Holzmiller were not in agreement
with, had Lots 4 and 5 higher and Lots 1, 2, and 3 lower with full two-story ocean views. Mr. Wilson
ultimately decided that they would bring Lots 1, 2, and 3 up slightly and Lots 4 and 5 down slightly from
the original design, reducing the export. Commissioner Montgomery asked if Mr. Wilson would be willing
to change the grading to raise Lots 1, 2, and 3 and lower 4 and 5. Mr. Regan said that if they could
possibly raise them a foot, they would. Lots 4 and 5 have been staked for City Staff and those could be
raised a half-foot at most. He stated -that there are digital photographs available of the property. Commissioner Montgomery stated that he thought that Lots 4 and 5 go higher than the ridge point. Mr.
Regan stated that they had tried to stay at the 326.5 in the middle of the property. There are 22 acres of
ocean view property and the Kirgis’ would like to keep the full ocean views for all five lots.
Chairperson Baker asked if the entire pad area of the lots, which are about an acre, would be graded at
326 or would it be possible to undulate the property along the natural slope. Mr. Regan replied that they
would be grading the whole acre flat because on the westerly edge there is a point where a hill would be
left over that would block the ocean view. The Carlsbad Fire Dept brush management regulations require
structures be built 60 feet from the setback line, which reduces the buildable area 2530%. Chairperson
Baker noted that the fire suppression area would not necessarily have to be flat. Mr. Regan agreed.
Chairperson Baker asked what the square footage of the homes would be. Mr. Regan stated that the
general discussion regarding square footage was 6,000 sq ft or more.
Commissioner Dominguez asked Mr. Jimeno if there was a limit on the amount of export allowed from the site. Mr. Jimeno stated that he was not aware of a limit on the amount of dirt that could be removed, but
there are practical limitations in that it costs per lot to move dirt from a site.
Commissioner Dominguez asked about the Shea Homes Lot 38 at 318. Mr. Regan said that 318 would
be a cut of about 2-3 feet. For each foot Lots 4 and 5 are lowered, the total cut would be 33,200 cubic
yards. So, another foot would be 3,000 yards of export.
Commissioner Montgomery commented that adding one foot to Lots 1, 2, or 3 would add a few thousand
yards of fill. Mr. Regan concurred.
Commissioner White asked Mrs. Wilson why they chose to gate the community. Mrs. Wilson stated that
they would maintain the street themselves. She understood that the street would be narrow and there
wouldn’t be much traffic on a cul-de-sac. She thought it would prevent people who were unsure of where
they were going of using the cul-de-sac for turning around.
33
Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2003 Page 6
Chairperson Baker asked how strongly they felt about having the gate. Mrs. Wilson stated that they
would prefer to have the gate to keep traffic from coming into a small area.
Commissioner White noted that it would cut down on all traffic into the area except the homeowners.
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 because the property owners have given up 75% of their property to
satisfy the HMP, she had sympathy with the applicant wanting to maximize the use of the remaining 25% and their investment. She expressed concern about the grading and elevation changes to the topography
and stated that she would like to see less of a differential between lots. She stated that in general she
preferred not to see gated communities.
Commissioner Whitton stated that he agreed with the project as it was designed and presented,
particularly since an acreage penalty had already been paid.
Commission Dominguez acknowledged that it was a difficult task for the applicant, but stated that he
could not support the project as presented because of the grading issues. He stated that he was not
pleased with some of the approvals that were granted in the Kelly Ranch project.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that the applicant has described the issues well and revised the design
appropriately, but stated that he cannot support the project because of the grading. He suggested that if
they sacrificed the full ocean views to some degree, that the project would align itself with the existing
topography, and he would be more inclined to vote for it.
Commissioner Heineman stated that he was delighted to see this unique project in California. The fact
that the owners are setting aside an enormous amount of open space repays for the lots that they are
ending up with. He stated that he was in favor of the project.
Commissioner Segall stated that he supported the project and was more concerned about Lots 36, 37,
and 38 of Kelly Ranch being 318 and 313 looking at a higher pad. However, if Shea isn’t concerned about the elevations, that he wasn’t concerned. He stated that he didn’t have a problem with the
community being gated. He thought it would be a nuisance to allow cars to go in there.
Chairperson Baker stated that she had several concerns about the project, including the gate, which she
viewed as unnecessary and was philosophically opposed to. However, she could go either way regarding
the gate. She stated that she was undecided about the grading issues. She expressed concern about
the transition of Lots 38 and 39 on Kelly Ranch to this project and what it would look like. She stated for
the record that she was concerned about the buyers of the expensive Kelly Ranch homes knowing about this project and that the open space they initially saw when purchasing their homes would not remain
intact. She stated that Kelly Ranch does not have a sales office, even though many of those homes have
sold already.
Commissioner Segall asked Ms. Mobaldi to respond to Chairperson Baker’s point about people
purchasing homes in Kelly Ranch when it wasn’t disclosed that there would be a development above their homes. Ms. Mobaldi stated that they could not give notice of a project that had not yet been approved
and, thus, the buyers had no recourse.
Chairperson Baker asked Mr. Westman if 25% of the property was the maximum that the owners could
develop because of the HMP. Mr. Westman said that it was.
Commissioner White stated that the main question she had about the property was the grading and not that it might have a gate. .
Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2003 Page 7
Ms. Mobaldi stated that there was a correction to the Resolution. Mr. Westman stated that on Planning
Commission Resolution 5348, page 16, special condition number 77, last line should be reworded to read ”. . . to the City Council w&bh4k~ within 90 days of final map feaxMkm approval.”
RECESS
Chairperson Baker called for a brief recess at 7:15 p.m. to discuss procedures.
Chairperson Baker called the meeting back to order at 7:20 p.m. with all Commissioners present.
Chairperson Baker stated that in light of some of the concerns expressed by the Commissioners and in
consultation with the applicant, it might be in the best interest of the Commission and everyone to
continue this Item to work out some of the concerns regarding the grading.
Commissioner Dominguez expressed support for that suggestion.
Commissioner Segall asked what specifically they were asking the applicant to do and suggested that
they provide some direction with the continuance.
Mr. Neu stated that the Commissioners provided a good deal of direction in terms of design constraints
with regard to the ocean views and what was needed to achieve more balance in terms of grading the lots. He felt that Staff had enough to work with to fashion a solution to the concerns.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that she had spoken with the applicant and she is agreeable to the continuance and to
the condition that was corrected.
Chairperson Baker asked for a motion.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner White, and duly seconded, that the Kirgis Tentative
Map be continued to a date uncertain.
VOTE: 7-0
AYES:
NOES: None
ABSTAl N: None
Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton
Chairperson Baker thanked Staff and the applicant.
35
~:-iO-Co: 2:01~,&4;:arls~83 city zlerK
- .- ' "Ye) appeal the decision of the planning Commission
10 rhe Carlsbad City Council.
November 5,2003 Date of Decision you are appealing:
su :?&%=&e$: if the action is a Cii Engids Decision. please say so. If a project has mulliple elements, (such 85 a General plan &wndmenf NegaWe Dedaatbn, Spec[ffc Plan. etc.) please
list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whde action. pkase state that here.
.
Plannning Commission's denial of GPA 03-011 ZC 03-01LCPA 03-01KT 02-061
CDP 02-05/HDP 02-01
Reason@) for : PkaBa Noh FaUuro to rC.tftjrr rr#onmayremdtIn ckalalof
the appeaI, and yau wl b. lbnltod to W @rounds stmted hr, whm prasenth8 your appeal.
BE SPECIFIC How dM the dtcisim makw em? What about Ute decision is inconsistent with state or local
The project meets a 1 applicable Carlsbad Codes, and all finding of facts as stated by the staf
Three of the memebers of the Planning Commisssion have referred to the project as ideal,
and felt Carlsbad needed more projects like this. The projects dedicates 75% of the properQ
to open space and provides a necessary link to Carlsbad's Veteran's Memorial Park.
The opposition by the dissenting members appears to be related to a concern that the future
on the property would appear massive and therefore the project should be revised to
minimize pad sizes. We meeet all requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance.
The staff finsings of fact and recoimmendation for approval concur with our findings.
T I-. phr. or Pol
0 PHONE No.
18 1 1 Rock Springs Rd
".E (We PrM) 11-17-03 San Marcos, CA. 92069
DATE city, State, Zip Code
(760)480-6062
ADDRESS Street Name 8 Number
3L
2 L t F
w 0 U
v) a
Z W @a e Ln
rY Q
I
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 4% 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 33' Day of January, 2004
Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
AFmIcwm
Rd, Stc206 I
L 1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMPLETE DATE: May 1,2003
DESCRIPTION:
Appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny a Mitigated Negative Declaration,
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
reconcile the zoning map to the General Plan map, and to deny a Tentative Tract Map,
Planned Unit Development, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development
Permit for the subdivision of 21.9 acres of land into five residential lots, one open space
lot and one private street.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located north of Faraday
Avenue at the southern terminus of Twain Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone
8.
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER:
2 12-01 0-03
APPLICANT:
Pergola, Inc.
c/o Robert Wilson
2121 Palomar Airport Rd, Ste 206
Carlsbad, CA 92009
A public hearing on the above appeal of the Planning Commission decision will be held by the
Carlsbad City Council in the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, on February 3, 2004 at 6:OO p.m.
Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with
any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project appeal. The project will be
described and a staff recommendation given, followed by public testimony, questions and a
decision. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on or after January 30, 2004.
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Christer
Westman at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to
5:30 p.m., Friday 8:OO a.m. to 500 p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008,
(760) 602-4614.
..
..
...
APPEALS
If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Code,
Local Coastal Program Amendment, Carlsbad Tract, Planned Unit Development, and/or Hillside
Development Plan 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’s Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008
prior to or at the public hearing.
1. Coastal Commission Appealable Project: 0 This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the
Coastal Commission within ten (IO) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a
Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal
Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego office of the
Coastal Commission is located at 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, California
92 1 08-4402.
CASE FILE: GPA 03-01/ZC 03-01/LCPA 03-01/CT 02-06/PUD 02-02/CDP 02-05IHDP 02-
01
CASE NAME: KlRGlS TENTATIVE MAP
PUBLISH: January 23,2004
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
KIRGIS TENTATIVE MAP
GPA 03-01/ZC 03-01/LCPA 03-Ol/
CT 02-06/PUD 02-02/CDP 02-0WHDP 02-01
Smootb Feel SheetsT”
* CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST CITY OF ENClNlTAS
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENClNlTAS CA 92024
505 S VULCAN AVE
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054 VISTA CA 92085
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SANDIEGO CA 92101
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PU BL I C W ORKS/COMM U N ITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
CHRISTER W ESTMAN
12/11/2003
aAVERY@ Address Labels
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SANDIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENG I NEERl NG
DEPT
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
I.P. U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
ATTN TED ANASIS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUN IC1 PAL WATER DISTRICT
Laser 5160@
~09 J S iasq
KlRGlS
4452 HOCKADAY DR
DALLAS TX 75229
SIGNAL HILL BLACKMORE
PO BOX 424
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067
EVANS POINT HOA
STE 2A
7720 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THDE LIC NEWPORT NATL OF CORNER-
1530 FARADAY AVE STONE LIC
CARLSBAD CA 92008 1535 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FRANK & JULIE PAPATHEOFANIS
401 LOMA LARGA DR
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067
BLACKMORE LOT 99 INVESTMENT
PO BOX 1810
BRIAN REGAN ROBERT WILSON
181 1 ROCK SPRINGS RD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
#206
212.1 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 *
i
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
JAN SOBEL
5934 PRIESTLY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CALTRANS DISTRICT 11
BILL FIGGE
MAIL ST 50
P 0 BOX 85406
SAN DIEGO CA 92186-5406
U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
JOHN MARTIN
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
RONALD M JAEGER
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
SUPERINTENDENT
1901 SPINNAKER DR
SAN BUENA VENTURA CA 93001
AVERW Shipping Labels
ANTHONY & DICKY BONS
25709 HILLCREST AV
ESCONDIDO CA 92026-8650
REG WATER QUALITY CONTROL BD
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG
PO BOX 92007
LOSANGELES CA 90009
BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY
PATRICIA W NEAL DEPUTY SEC HOUSING
STE 2450
980 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
STE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
Laser 5163@
, - .. ~ . .. ..
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CHAIRMAN
722 JACKSON PL NW
WASHINGTON DC 20006
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STE 400
611 RYAN PLAZA DR
ARLINGTON TX 7601 1-4005
DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIV
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIR COORD
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
RM 700
7 10 WEST A ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
aAVERY@ Shipping Labels
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DlST ENGINEER
PO BOX 271 1
LOSANGELES CA 90053
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIR
STE 350
901 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE
STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
RM 100
1220 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVE
DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REG ADMIN
450 GOLDEN GATE AV
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RM 5504
1120 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
Laser 5163@
ENERGY RESOURCES, CONSERVATION &
DEVELOPMENT COMM
CHUCK NAJARIAN
151 6 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
OFFICE OF PLANNING & RESEARCH
OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
PO BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO CA 93044
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION &
DEVMT COMMISSION
BILL TRAVIS
STE 2600
50 CALIFORNIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 941 11-4704
U S BUREAU OF LAND MGMT
STE RM W 1834
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
2800 COTTAGE WAY
STE W-2605
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-1 888
AWERYG Shipping Labels
MARINE RESOURCES REGION, DR & G
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, SPR
350 GOLDEN SHORE
LONGBEACH CA 90802
NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC
ADMIN OCRM,55MC4
N/ORM - 3
1305 EAST-WEST HWY
SILVER SPRING MD 20910
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
DWIGHT SANDERS
STE 1005
100 HOWE AV
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
MI D-PAC1 FIC REGION
U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LILY ALYEA
STE 702
333 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2197
Laser 5163@
USDA - RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPT 41 69
430 "G" ST
DAVIS CA 95616
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
COMDEV DEPT
505 S VULCAN AV
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
SANDAG-EXEC DIRECTOR
GARY GALLEGOS
STE 800
1 ST INT'L PLAZA 401 "B" ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CY RIUMARY GIBSON
12142 ARGYLE DR
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702
LANlKAl LANE PARK
SHARP SPACE3
6550 PONTO DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
~AVERY@ Shipping Labels
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BD
PO BOX 100
SACRAMENTO CA 95801
TABATA FARMS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 92018-1338
LESLIE ESPOSITO
1893 AMELFI DR
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
LAKESHORE GARDENS
TOM BENSON
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN LAMB
1446 DEVLIN DR
LOSANGELES CA 90069
Laser 5163@
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
KIM BLESSANT
101 ASH STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101-
COUNTY OF SD SUPERVISOR BILL HORN
ART DANELL
RM 335
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
S D CO PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
JAON VOKAC
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
STE B-5
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
RICHARD RETECKI
STE 11 00
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DALE/DONNA SCHREIBER
7163 ARGONAUTA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AVERYO Shipping Labels
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
MARY GRIGGS
STE 100 S
100 HOWE AV
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
PERRY A LAMB
890 MERE POINT RD
BRUNSWICK ME 04011
CRA PRESIDENT
LEE ANDERSON
5200 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FLOYD ASHBY
416 LA COSTA AV
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
GEORGE BOLTON
6583 BLACKRAIL RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Laser 5 163@
’ CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCIES
STE 1311
1416 9TH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
SANDAG-LAND USE COMMISS
NAN VALERIO
STE 800
401 “B” STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
aAVERY@ Shipping Labels Laser 5163@
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
(760) 602-2401
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION I AMOUNT
NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY
CASH REGISTER
;780 720 6917 # 2/ 2
Planning Commission
November 5,2003
' "Ye) appeal the dedskn of the
IO rhe Carlsbad City Council.
Date of Dedsion you are appealing:
SuMect: Exsmples: irtheaclion is a Cii Engineer's Dedsii, please say so. If a project has mulliple abwnts, (such es a Gend Plan Amcmdment.
ust them an. Ifyou anlywantto appeal a part dthe whole action, please state that here.
Dedaatbn, Spec#ic Rm. etc.) pl-
Plaanning Commission's denial of GPA 03-01/ ZC 03-01LCPA 03-01/CT 02-06/
CDP 02-05/HDP 02-01
sods\ for l?ggg& : ~PWN-D Fllkmto~rreasonraryresuJtin6afaIof
your appclrl. tb apped, .ad yw rv9 bo IImRaU to the sr#mnds .bbd -whom BE SPECFIC How dld the decbibn maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state ot local laws, plans. OT poi The project meets3applicable Carlsbad Codes, and all finding of facts as stated by the staf
Three of the memebers of the Planning Commisssion have referred to the project as ideal,
and felt Carlsbad needed more projects like this. The projects dedicates 75% of the propeQ
to open space and provides a necessary link to Carlsbad's Veteran's Memorial Park.
The opposition by the dissenting members appears to be related to a concern that the future
on the property would appear massive and therefore the project should be revised to
minimize pad sizes. We meeet all requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance.
The staff finsings of fact and recoimmendation for approval concur with our findings.
18 1 1 Rock Springs Rd
NAME (- prht) ADDRESS: SbeetName&F(umber
11-17-03 San Marcos, CA. 92069
DATE CRVs State, Zip Code