Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-02; City Council; 17530; Highland Dr Subdivision AppealCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL I AB# 17,530 TITLE: HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION MTG. 3/2/04 DEPT. PLN DEPT. HD. h%f- APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION CT 03-04; AND SDP 03-08 CITY Amy@ CITY MGR Project application(s) Administrative Reviewed by and Approvals Final at Planning Commission Mitigated Negative Declaration X CT 03-04 X SDP 03-08 ~ RECOMMENDED ACTION: To be Reviewed - Final at Council X (Appeal) X That the City Council DIRECT the Attorney to return with documents to UPHOLD the Planning Commission’s approval of CT 03-04 and DENY the appeal, and APPROVE Site Development Plan 03-08 as recommended by the Planning Commission. APPEAL ITEM No discussion or notification to neighbors of grading plan at the Planning Commission hearing. STAFF RESPONSE All public notices specified that the project consist of the subdivision and grading of 7 standard single-family lots. All residents within a 600-foot radius received notices of the public hearing. The written Staff Report submitted to the Planning Commission included a discussion of the grading design. In response to concerns expressed by Mr. Nessim during public testimony, the Planning Commission reviewed the specifics of the grading design prior to approving the project. On December 17, 2003, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and adopted (5-0) a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approved (5- 0) a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide and grade 7 standard single family lots and associated infrastructure on 2.55 acres located at the northeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. The Planning Commission also recommended approval (5-0) of a Site Development Plan (SDP 03-08) for one inclusionary second dwelling unit. Pursuant to Section 21.85.070(A) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, projects proposing to satisfy their inclusionary housing requirement through the development of second dwelling units rather than the construction of new inclusionary housing require City Council approval. Accordingly, SDP 03-08 is before the City Council for approval. The Planning Commission received one letter opposing the project based on concerns that to preserve the community character, larger infill parcels should not be subdivided in accordance with zoning. Gary Nessim, a nearby resident, spoke in opposition to the project due to concerns about the proposed grading design, sight distance at the corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive, and the absence of proposed sidewalkkurb improvements within the Highland Drive right-of- way. On December 24, 2003, Mr. Nessim filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve CT 03-04. Following is a list of specific concerns expressed by the appellant and staff‘s response to each of these concerns: PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,530 The grading design is inconsistent with the City’s infill grading policies. No sidewalk installation on Highland Drive. Grading at the corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive will obstruct motorist’s views. The project does conform to the ‘‘Infill Lots” section of the City’s engineering standards. The infill lot standards specify that up to a three-foot fill height is acceptable and greater than three feet up to a ten feet of fill height is acceptable with specific justification for the additional fill height. (See attached memorandum from Associate Engineer Jimeno, dated January 16, 2004, for an explanation and justification of the grading scheme.) Highland Drive is an alternative design street as designated by the City Council accepted ‘Street and Sidewalk Policy Committee Final Report‘, dated February 23, 2000. The committee recommended that “these streets should remain in their current design unless one or more of the Alternative Street criteria trigger the need to explore the Alternative Design Process.” The necessary criteria have not been established; however, the project is required to enter into a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement. The project is conditioned to meet all sight distance engineering standards and the condition will be enforced when the final design drawings of the subdivision are submitted for review. The appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of CT 03-04 shall first be considered by the City Council. The hearing before the City Council is de novo, but the City Council shall determine all matters not specified in the appeal have been found by the Planning Commission and are supported by substantial evidence. The City Council shall consider the recommendation of the Planning Department, the decision of the Planning Commission, and all other oral and documentary evidence as presented at the hearing. The burden of proof is on the appellant to demonstrate the Planning Commission’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Any action reversing the decision of the Planning Commission shall be by the affirmative vote of at least three members of the City Council. Only in the event that the appeal is denied would the City Council want to approve the site development plan to allow the second dwelling unit to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement. The Council has the following options with regard to the proposed project: 1) APPROVE project Deny the Appeal and Approve SDP 03-08 2) DENY proiect Uphold the Appeal Deny SDP 03-08 PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. l7 530 Facilities Zone Local Facilities Management Plan Growth Control Point Net Density Special Facility Fee ENVIRONMENTAL: 1 1 3.2 du/acre 3.2 dulacre None The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on an environmental impact assessment of the project, a potentially significant noise impact was identified and mitigation measures were formulated to reduce the identified impact. The Planning Director posted a Notice of Intent to Issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration on November 12, 2003, and no public comments were received during the 20-day public review period. The Planning Commission subsequently adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration at the December 17,2003 public hearing. FISCAL IMPACT: All required improvements will be funded by the developer. The Facility Financing Section of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan lists the financing techniques being used to guarantee the public facilities needed to serve development within Zone 1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS: EXH I 8 ITS: 1. Location Map 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5519, 5520 and 5521 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 17, 2003 Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 17, 2003 Appeal Form, received December 24,2003 Memorandum from Associate Engineer Jimeno, dated January 16, 2004. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Anne Hysong, (760) 602-4622, ahyso@ci.carlsbad.ca.us 3 SITE HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION CT 03-04JSDP 03-08 I r L I - 4 4 - 6 7 8 9 1c 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5519 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO SUBDIVIDE 2.55 ACRES INTO SEVEN STANDARD SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DFUVE AND HIGHLAND DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION CASE NO.: CT 03-04/SDP 03-08 WHEREAS, A & A Development, Inc., “Developer/Owner” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as That portion of Tract 121 of Carlsbad Highlands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1661, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 1,1915 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of December 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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 Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and 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 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit “MND” dated December 17, 2003, according to Exhibits “NOI” dated November 12, 2003, and “PII” dated November 6, 2003, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: FindinEs: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project, and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental‘ Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EL4 Part 11 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions: 1. 2. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Highland Drive Subdivision Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This approval is granted subject to the approval .of CT 03-04 and SDP 03-08 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5520 and 5521 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. PC RES0 NO. 55 19 -2- 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of December 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and White NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Whitton and Dominguez ABSTAIN: None f JULI~ R, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: \r .- \,kL{&&-**& MICHAEL J. HOL&MILL~R Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5519 -3- 7 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION CASE NO: CT 03-04/SDP 03-08 PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of the demolition of two single family structures and accessory buildings and the subdivision and grading of two infill parcels totaling 2.55 acres into seven standard single family lots located at the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive in the northwest quadrant of the City. No residences are proposed on the lots at this time; however, the project includes a conceptual design for one single family residence with an inclusionary second dwelling unit to satisfy the project’s 15% inclusionary housing requirement. A single cul-de-sac street intersecting Highland Drive will provide access to the single family lots that are a minimum of 10,000 square feet in compliance with zoning. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EL4 Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD November 12,2003 to December 2,2003 PUBLISH DATE November 12,2003 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.~.&~~$a.us - City of Carlsbad IClITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION PROJECT LOCATION: CASE NO: CT 03-04/SDP 03-08 Northeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of the demolition of two single family structures and accessory buildings and the subdivision and grading of two infill parcels totaling 2.55 acres into seven standard single family lots located at the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive in the northwest quadrant of the City. No residences are proposed on the lots at this time; however, the project includes a conceptual design for one single family residence with an inclusionary second dwelling unit to satisfy the project’s 15% inclusionary housing requirement. A single cul-de-sac street intersecting Highland Drive will provide access to the single family lots that are a minimum of 10,000 square feet in compliance with zoning. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: (XI 0 0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: December 17,2003, pursuant to PlanninP Commission Resolution No. 5519 ATTEST: - \\-*& 1 7 ?L MICHAEL J. HOLZ~LER Planning Director 9 ‘@ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONhlESTAL IhlPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PL.4hWING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 03-OI.’SDP 03-08 DATE: 11-06-03 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Highland Drive Subdivision 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Anne Hysong. (760) 602-4722 PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: A & A Development. 2009 Via Teca, San Clemente, CA 92673 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLM ZONING: R-1-10.000 OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The uroiect consists of the demolition of two single family structures and accessorv buildings and the subdivision and grading of two infill parcels totaling 2.55 acres into seven standard single family lots located at the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive in the northwest Quadrant of the City. No residences are prouosed on the lots at this time; however. the project includes a conceptual design for one single-family residence with an inclusionarv second dwelling unit to satisfy the proiect’s 15% inclusionarv housing requirement. A single cul-de-sac street intersecting Highland Drive will provide access to the single-family lots that are a minimum of 10,000 square feet in compliance with zoning. The touographv from west to east currently rises from approximately 159 feet at the wkstern boundary to 179 feet at the ridge and falls to 153 feet at the eastern Drouertv boundary. The prouosed grading design generally follows the existinp touograuhv, however, Dad elevations of the two most westerly lots are 2 - 4 feet lower. the ridge area is lowered auproximately 4 feet. and eastern pads are raised 3 - 8 feet within the eastern half of the propertv. The uroposed grades result in a pad elevation of 168.7 feet for the most westerly lot, the center uad rises to 173.5 feet, and the most easterly uad elevation falls to 157.5. The uropertv is impacted by noise generated by traffic on Carlsbad Village Drive. designated as a secondarv arterial by the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and a Community Scenic Corridor by the City’s Scenic Corridor Guidelines. Noise levels along the prouertv’s southern boundary exceed the City’s standard of 60 dBA CNEL for exterior noise and will imuact interior noise levels of future structures without mitigation. Aesthetic considerations must be considered for landscauing and fencing along the southern boundaty Lo 1 Rev. 07/03/02 within and along the Carlsbad Villaee Drive right-of-n.av in accordance ivith the Scenic Corridor Guidelines. 2 // Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIROXMEKTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked belov n.ould be potentially affected by this prodrct. involving ai least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact.” or “Potentlally Sigmificant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checkllst on the follo\\mg pages. 0 Aesthetics 0 GeologyiSoils Noise Apcultural Resources 0 HazardsMazardous Materials Population and Housing 0 Air Quality HydrologyiWater Qualiv Public Services 0 Biological Resources c] Land Use and Planning c] Recreation 0 Cultural Resources Mineral Resources TransportatiodCirculation Mandatory Findings of Significance 0 Utilities g~ Service Systems 3 /a Rev. 07/03/02 DETERhlINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 IXI 0 cl I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. 4 13 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3. Article 5. Section 15063 requires that the Cit\. conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have 3 significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of 3 checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted b!. the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding ivhether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration. or to rely on 3 pre\-iously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers ‘except “No Impact“ answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to. or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but _all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, 5 14 Rev. 07/03/02 and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public revie\$.. In this case. the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. e An EJR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked. and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards. and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant: (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agncultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model- 1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use? Potentially Potentially Less Than S 0 Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 El 0 0 0 G LSI 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI 0 IXI 7 Rev. 07/03/02 !6 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than S 0 Significant Significant Significant Impw Impact Unless Impact Mi ti gat ion lncorporated 111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available. the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quaIity standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 cl EJ IXI c! [XI 0 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI 8 Rev. 07/03/02 /7 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 17 0 CI 0 18 9 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than N n Sources). Significant Significant Significant Impxi Impact Unless Impact Mitisation Incorporated IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in $15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to 3 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. .. 11. Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI 0 Is] 0 Is] 0 Ixl 0 Ixl 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1 997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 Create a significant hazard to the 0 public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 0 Potentially Less Than so Significant Significant lmpxt Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 El E3 0 0 0 0 0 (XI 0 El 0 (XI 0 IXI 11 Rev. Q7JQ3fQ2 Issues (and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources). Significant Significant Significant Impac! Impact Unless Impact Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or worlung in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or worlung in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 0 €3 0 [XI [XI 12 Rev. 07/03/02 a Issues (and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than NO Sources). Significant Significant Significanr Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Impacts to groundwater quality? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 E3 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 cl I23 0 0 [E3 0 0 Ix1 0 0 IXI 0 [XI cl IXI 13 Rev. 07/03/02 24 Issues (and Supporting Information Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding. including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen- demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 17 0 17 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ix1 0 IXI 0 Ixl 0 Ix1 0 Ixl 0 [XI community? 14 Rev. 07/03/02 43 Issues (and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources). Significant Significant Significant Impxt Impact Unless Impact Mi ti gat 1 on Incorporated b) Conflict with any applicable land 0 0 17 Es use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? X. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl !z 0 IXI 0 IXI 15 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Potentially Sources). Significant Impact c) A substantial permanent increase 0 in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or 0 periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an 0 airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or worlung in the project area to excessive noise levels? f, For a project within the vicinity o of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or worlung in the project area to excessive noise levels? X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of 0 existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of 0 people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentialljp Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than N 0 Significant Impact Impact E 0 [XI 0 lsI 0 Ix1 0 [XI 0 16 . Rev. 07/03/02 4s Issues (and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than N 0 Sources). Significant Si_mificanr Significant Impxi Impact Unless Impact Mi tigati on Incorporated XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the 0 use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include O recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 0 0 [XI 17 Rev. 07/03/02 XV. TRANSPORTATIOK/TRAFFIC - Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion managiment agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI Ix1 0 Ixl 18 Rev. Q7IQ3lQ2 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 €3 0 IXI 0 IXI 19 Rev. 07/03/02 XVII. MANDATORY FINDIKGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the cl potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts 0 that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) c) Does the project have 0 environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 cl El 0 CI El 0 XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EN, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 49 DISCUSSION OF EhWRONhlENTAL EVALUATION AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact: The project is located at the comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. Carlsbad Village Drive is identified as a Community Scenic Corridor by the City‘s Scenic Corridor Guidelines. A continuous noise wall is required along Carlsbad Village Drive at the top of slope to ensure that residents are not exposed to exterior and interior noise levels exceeding the Civ‘s standards. The subdivision design provides frontage access from an interior local street: future residences will back up to Carlsbad Village Drive. The proposed noise wall also function as rear yard fencing for the single-family lots that will screen rear yards and lower portions of the structures from Carlsbad Village Drive. Aesthetic enhancement is proposed through a wall design that is a continuous split face block wall with pilasters and caps that will be earth tone in color and stepped down to avoid exceeding the City’s maximum 6’ height standard. The wall will be located at the top of a 3’ - 6’ high slope; therefore, the remaining lot area outside the wall and the exterior of the wall that is visible to Carlsbad Village Drive will be uniformly landscaped and maintained by a Homeowners Association to ensure that no visual impacts will result due to unmaintained landscaping and/or wall. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non- attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM,,). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non- attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1 996. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15 125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: 21 Rev. 07/03/02 30 GEOLOGY/SOILS a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? Potentially Significant unless mitigation incorporated: (a.i. to a.iv.) There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City. However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The risk from ground shaking is not significant when structures are built pursuant to the Uniform Building Code (earthquake standards). b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact: The project’s compliance with standards in the City’s Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent erosion through slope planting and installation of temporary erosion control means will avoid substantial soil erosion impacts. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? No Impact - The geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Hu Associates indicates that the site contains no unstable soil conditions. d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact - The site is contains no expansive soils and is favorable for the proposed development provided the preliminary geotechnical report recommendations are followed. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped infill site surrounded by urban development. Existing sewer facilities are located near the site and are available and adequate to support a future residential land use on the site. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 23 Rev. 07/03/02 32 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearb), 11 ells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Impacts to groundwater quality? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) - The infill project will rely on an existing public storm drain system and is subject to City standards regarding water quality, drainage and erosion control, including storm water permit (NPDES) requirements and best management practices. The project is conditioned to require a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that will ensure that it is designed and constructed in compliance with the City's "DES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and the San Diego NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit issued to San Diego County and Cities by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is located in an area where development will not have a significant impact to groundwater. Therefore, the project will not violate any water quality standards, deplete groundwater supplies or quality, substantially alter existing drainage patterns, cause substantial erosion or flooding, or significantly impact the capacity of stormwater drainage systems. h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? i) flood flows? Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect No Impact (h & i) - The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed development will not result in housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 24 Rev. 07/03/02 33 No Impact (j & k) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards .4nal}sis and >lapping Study, November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation area. or area subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the project will not result in exposing people or structures to significant risk from flooding as a result of a dam failure. or from inundation b\’ seiche. tsunami, or mudflow. 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleun~ derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0) p) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? No Impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located adjacent to any body of water. Drainage from the site is subject to the City’s drainage and storm water pollution control standards (NPDES and best management practices), which ensure that sediment and pollutants from any development of the site will not discharge into any downstream receiving surface waters. Also, the City’s drainage and storm water pollution control standards ensure that development does not reduce water quality of any marine, fresh or wetland waters or groundwater. The project is designed to drain into an existing storm drain, and the project will be conditioned to prepare a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to ensure that City standards are met. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact: The proposed standard single family subdivision is entirely consistent with the underlying RLM General Plan designation and R-1-10,OOO zoning, and will result in single family development that is consistent with current development in the area to the north, and existing development to the south and southeast. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact (a & b) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources; therefore, the project will not result in the loss of availability of a know mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site. 25 Rev. 07IQ3lQ2 NOISE -Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant unless mitigation incorporated: An acoustical analysis performed for the project by Eilar Associates Environmental & Acoustical Consulting revealed that exterior noise levels on the seven lots which will back up to Carlsbad Village Drive would exceed the Cih’s 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard for residential development due to noise generated by traffic. The proposed mitigation to reduce noise levels to below the City’s 60 dBA CNEL exterior standard is a continuous sound attenuation barrier (sound wall or a combination of an earthen berm and sound wall). Specifically. mitigation shall consist of a six foot high sound wall placed at the top of slope (edge of building pad) of Lots 1 - 5 parallel to Carlsbad Village Drive and a five foot high wall placed at the top of slope (edge of building pad) along the western boundary of Lot 1 parallel to Highland Drive and extending to the northwest comer of the building pad. Mitigation for Lots 6 and 7 shall consist of a six-foot high wall placed atop a one-foot high earthen berm along the top of slope parallel to Carlsbad Village Drive and along the eastern boundary of Lot 7 that extends 50 feet to the north. The walls are required to be masonry split face block walls or a combination of solid plexiglass and split face block. No gates shall be permitted. The above described noise barriers will mitigate exterior noise levels to a maximum of 59.9 dba CNEL. Additionally, interior noise mitigation for future residential units (Le.. specialized door and window treatments) shall be required for all second story areas per CCR Title 24. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, an interior noise analysis compliant with City standards will be required to demonstrate that the proposed design would limit interior noise to the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact - The project is located on an infill site that is surrounded by existing and/or approved development and served by existing infrastructure. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact (b & c) - The project site will require demolition of two existing single family structures; however, the subdivision and future construction of seven single family structures and one inclusionary second dwelling unit will offset this loss of housing. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? 26 Rev. Q7IQ3lQ2 35 iii. Schools? iv. Parks? Y. Other public facilities? No Impact (a.i to a.v.) -The project site is located writhin Local Facilities Management Zone (LFhlZ) 1. The provision of public facilities within LFMZ 1, including fire protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities, has been planned to accommodate the projected groivth of that area. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 1, all public facilities will be adequate to serve residential development on the site. Therefore. the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional government facilities. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact (a & b) - As part of the City's Gro\l?h Management Program (GMP), a performance standard for parks was adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park and Special Use Area per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided. The project site is located within Park District #1 (Northwest Quadrant). The necessary park acreage to achieve the GMP standard (3 acres11 ,000 population) for Park District #1 has been achieved; therefore recreational facilities are adequate to accommodate the project. TRANSPORTATIONA'RAFFIC-Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 76 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 8 peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize Carlsbad Village Drive. Existing traffic on this arterial is 18,584 ADT (2002) and the 2002 peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection impacted by the project is A. The design capacity of the arterial roads affected by the proposed project is 20,000 vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent 0.41% and 0.38% of the existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. The increase in traffic from the proposed project is insignificant; furthermore, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: 27 Rev. 07/03/02 3.6 Existing ADT* - LOS B u i I dou t .4DT * Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “-4-C” 2813 El Camino Real 21-50 ‘‘A-C” 32-65 Palomar Airport Road 10-52 ”A-B“ 29-77 SR 78 120 “F” 133 1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-239 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Levei of Service (LOS) standard is “E”. or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City’s parlung requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. (Note whether the project is near public transportation. If not, then state that the project is not served by or not located in an area conducive to public transportation.) (Note bike racks are not necessary for a single-family residential project. Otherwise, condition the project to install bike racks and note here that the project has been so conditioned.) 28 Rev. 07/03/02 37 UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTERlS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional \Yater Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater trearnient facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? No Impact (a & b) - The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFhlZ) 1 which is served by the Encina wastewater treatment facility. Wastewater treatment capacity has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of Zone .1. Because the project will not exceed tho total growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 1, wastewater treatment capacity will be adequate to serve residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse Impacts to or result in the need for additional wastewater treatment facilities. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant . environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No Impact (c, d & e) - All public facilities, including water facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed residential project will not result in growth that exceeds the City’s growth projections. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact (f & g) - Existing waste disposal services contracted by the City of Carlsbad are adequate to serve the proposed residence without exceeding landfill capacities. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact - The project will not degrade the quality of the physical environment in that the site is currently disturbed by single-family development. There are no historic structures on the site. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a 29 Rev. 07/03/02 38 project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects. the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area. and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections. region-Lvide standards. including storm ivater quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards. etc. are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City‘s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The Cin.‘s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards. traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have 9 cumulatively considerable impact on. As discussed above, the proposed development would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with residential development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with a residential development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the residential development is implemented. Therefore, the impact is assessed as less than significant. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. Also, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City’s growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than significant. With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that residential development on the site will not result in a significant cumulative considerable impact. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Development of the site will comply with City development standards designed to avoid substantial adverse environmental effects to residents of future single-family units including an inclusionary second dwelling unit. The project site is located in an area where human beings could be exposed to excessive noise levels; however, exterior noise levels will be mitigated to below the City’s noise level standards through construction of a 6’ high noise wall along the western and southern property boundaries. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental ImDact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MER 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. “Preliminary Soil and Geology Investigation” prepared by HU Associates, Inc., dated May 21, 2003. 3. “Preliminary Hydrology Report” prepared by Aquaterra Engineering, Inc., dated May 20,2003. 30 Rev. 07/03/02 3P 4. “Storm Water Management Plan prepared by Aquaterra Engineering. lnc., dated May 2 1. 2003. 5. “Noise Analysis Report - Highland Drive Subdivision” prepared by Eilar Assoc13tt.s Environmental & Acoustical Consulting, dated August 29, 2003. Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) NOISE: The proposed mitigation to reduce noise levels to below the CiQ's 60 dBA CNEL exterior standard shall be a continuous sound attenuation bamer (sound nall or a combination of an earthen berni and sound wall). Specifically. a six foot high sound wall shall be placed at the top of slope (edge of building pad) of Lots 1 - 5 parallel to Carlsbad Village Drive and a five foot hlgh \Val1 shall be placed at the top of slope (edge of building pad) along the western boundary of Lot 1 parallel to Highland Drive and extending to the northwest comer of the building pad. Mitigation for Lots 6 and 7 shall consist of a six-foot high wall placed atop a one-foot high earthen berm along the top of slope parallel to Carisbad Village Drive and along the eastern boundary of Lot 7 that extends 50 feet to the north. The u.alls shall be masonry split face block walls or a combination of solid plexiglass and split face block. No gates shall be permitted. Additionally, interior noise mitigation for future residential units (Le.. specialized door and window treatments) would be required for all second story areas per CCR Title 23. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, an interior noise analysis compliant with City standards \vi11 be required to demonstrate that the proposed design would limit interior noise to the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. 32 Rev. 07/03/02 ,VPIICANT COW .IIR~~CE wrni WT IGATlON MEASURES TEIIS 1s TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE ItEVlEWED THE AROVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCWR WITIf WE AUUlllON OFTIIESE MEASURES TO THE PROJEC'J', 33 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 1 I- ~ P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMRIISSION RESOLL‘TION NO. 5520 A RESOLUTION OF THE PL.4NNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALLFORNIA, APPRO\’ING CARLSBAD TRACT CT 03-03 TO SLTBDn~IDE 2.55 ACRES INTO SEVEN STANDARD SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OK PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORh’ER OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRII’E AND HIGHL-WD DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION CASE NO.: CT 03-04 WHEREAS, A & A Development, Inc., “Developer/On.ner” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as That portion of Tract 121 of Carlsbad Highlands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1661, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, &larch 1,1915 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract Map as shown on Exhibits “A” - “I” dated December 17, 2003, on file in- the Planning Department, HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION - CT 03-04, as provided by Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th day of December, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION - CT 03-04, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: w 1 2 7 u 4 < d 6 7 E 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdi\.ision as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, an!. applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the single-family subdivision satisfies all minimum requirements of Titles 20 and 21 governing lot sizes and configuration and have been designed to comply with other applicable City regulations. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for single-family residential development on the General Plan in that the proposed development is similar in lot size and configuration to other properties in the vicinity. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed, in that the project site can accommodate the proposed residential development while complying with all development standards and public facilities requirements. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that concurrent with the recordation of the final map the developer will vacate and adjust any easements that conflict with the proposed development. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that structures are oriented so that adequate separations mill be provided to allow for breezes to cool the areas and landscaping will be installed to provide shade and reduce the temperature of developed areas. That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental resources. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in that no such environmental resources or fish or wildlife exist on the previously developed site. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project has been designed in accordance with the Best Management Practices for water quality PC RES0 NO. 5520 -2- 4dd 1 - 7 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 protection in accordance with the City’s sewer and drainage standards and the project is conditioned to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. 10. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City‘s Genera1 Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated December 17,2003. 11. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan. the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 and all City public facilit), policies and ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries; governnient administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically, a. the project has been conditioned to provide proof fkom the Carlsbad Unified School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities. b. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit. c. the Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be collected prior to the issuance of building.permit. 12. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B). 13. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to final map approval or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first. 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their temis, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Tentative Tract Map. PC RES0 NO. 5520 -3- 46 1 7 - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 -. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make. all correcrions and modifications to the Tentative Tract Rlap documents, as necessac to make thcm internally consistent and in conformity nith the final action on the project. Dei elopnienr shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. An?, proposed de\.elopnient different from this approiral, shall require an amendment to this appro1,al. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal. state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building pemiit issuance. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council deterniines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Tentative Tract Map, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein. Developer shall submit to Planning Department a reproducible 24” x 36” mylar copy of the Tentative Map reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures, which are required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Report and SDP 03-08 and is subject to all conditions PC RES0 NO. 5520 -4- fv 1 7 - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. 13. 14. 15. contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5519 and 5521 for those othcr approvals incorporated herein by reference. Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project. or \\.here a map is not being processed, prior to the issuance of bailding permits for an\. lots or units, thc Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housins .Agreement \\.it11 the Cit!. for one inclusionarg second dwelling unit on Lot 7, in accordance uith the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 2 1 .S5 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than 60 days prior to the request to final the map. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest. Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. The final landscape plan shall include Fines adjacent to the block.wal1 along Carlsbad \’illage Drive and a fencing plan that specifies location and materials of all perimeter noise walls and required fencing along the northern property line that is subject to Planning Director approval. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project’s building, improvement, and grading plans. Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning Director. At a minimum, the CCBtRs shall contain the following provisions: a. General Enforcement bv the City. The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor of, or in which the City has an interest. b. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record. c. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the event that the Association fails to maintain the “Common Area Lots and/or the Association’s Easements” as provided in Article , Section ’ the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary maintenance. If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give written notice to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project, setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required and requesting the PC RES0 NO. 5520 -5- 48 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 same be carried out by the Association uithin a period of thirty 30) da~~ from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to can?. out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and or Association’s Easements i\ithin the period specified blv the City’s notice, the Cit!. shall be entitled to cause such n.ork to be completed and shall be entitled to reimbursement \vith respect thereto from the Owners as provided herein. d. Special .4ssessments Levied bv the Citl.. hi the event the Cit). has perfonned the necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots andlor Association’s Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs incurred bj. the City to perform such maintenance of the Conimon Area Lots and or Association’s Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to each O\vner in the Project, together Ijith a statement that if the Association fails to pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City nil1 pursue collection against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies aLrailable to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot in the Project for an equal prorata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration. e. Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities. The HOAs and individual lot or unit owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be that portion of Lots 1 through 7 south and west of the required noise wall and the retaining wall and landscaping installed on the remainder parcel as shown on Exhibits ‘“-1’’. f. Noise barrier maintenance. The HOA shall be responsible for maintaining the 6’ split face block wall or combination of plexiglass and split face block that surrounds the subdivision to the west and south and is visible to the surrounding streets. No portion of the wall may be removed or replaced with a different material, color or style. 16. Developer shall provide bus stops to service this development at locations and with reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District and the Planning Director. Said facilities, if required, shall be free from advertising and shall include at a minimum include a bench and a pole for the bus stop sign. The facilities shall be designed to enhance or be consistent with basic architectural theme of the project. PC RES0 NO. 5520 -6- YP 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 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Developer shall submit a street name list consistent with the CitJr’s street name polic!. subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval. Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, or \\.here B inap is not being processed, prior to the issuance of building perniits for my lots or units, the Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement u.ith the City to provide and deed restrict one second dwelling unit on Lot 7 as affordable to lon.er-income households for 55 years, in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 2 1 .SS of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than 60 days prior to the request to final the map. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future o\iners and successors in interest. Developer shall construct the required inclusionary unit concurrent with the project’s market rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the City and the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule for development. Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map, or an alternative, suitable to the Planning Director, in the sales office at all times. All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks and streets. Developer shall post a sign in the sales office in a prominent location that discloses which special districts and school district provide service to the project. Said sign shall remain posted until ALL of the units are sold. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Comdor, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file in the Planning Department). Future single-family residences on lots created by the subdivision shall be designed to comply with Council Policy 44 - Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines as applicable, and the rear elevations facing Carlsbad Village Drive shall be enhanced to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Developer shall provide a minimum of 25 percent of the lots with adequate sideyard area for Recreational Vehicle storage pursuant to City Standards. The CC&Rs shall prohibit the storage of recreational vehicles in the required front yard setback. EngineerinP: General 25. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. x-0 PC RES0 NO. 5520 -7- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Prior to issuance of any building pemiit, Developer shall cornpi!. Ivith the requirenienrs of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and \{,hen such a program is formally established by the City. Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means. CCGrRs or; and other recorded document, for maintaining the private easements uithin the subdi\.ision and all the private improvements: streets, sidenralks, street lishts, and stomi drain facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install rain gutters to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. There shall be one Final Map recorded for this project. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards. The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on any improvement, grading, or landscape plan prepared in association with this development, and the restriction shown in the Final Map shall be included in the CC&Rs. Fees/Acreements 31. 32. 33. 34. ... Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation, the City’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Hannless Agreement. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation the City’s standard fomi Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding drainage across the adjacent property. Developer shall cause property owner to enter into a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement with the City for the future public improvement of Highland Drive along the subdivision frontage for a half street width of thirty feet. Public improvements shall include but are not limited to paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire hydrants, street lights, retaining walls and reclaimed water. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, and/or to the formation or annexation into an additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be on a form provided by the City Engineer. PC RES0 NO. 5520 -8- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Grading 35. 36. 37. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shon~i on the tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. De1,eloper shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building perniit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention for the start of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. Upon completion of grading, Developer shall file an “as-graded” geologic plan with the City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based on a contour map, which represents both the pre and post site grading. The plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist, and shall be submitted on a 24” x 36” mylar or similar drafting film format suitable for a permanent record. Dedications/Improvements 38. 39. 40. Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City and/or other appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map. All land so offered shall be offered free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost. Streets that already public are not required to be rededicated. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit. Developer shall execute and record a City standard Subdivision Improvement Agreement to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements including, but not limited to paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, medians, signing and striping, traffic control, grading, clearing and ,wbbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire hydrants, street lights, retaining walls and reclaimed water, to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A. Street “A” as shown in the Tentative Map B. Transition improvements only at the intersection of Street “A” and C. Public utilities as shown in the Tentative Map. Highland Drive, as directed by the City Engineer. A list of the above shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the Final Map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed above shall be constnicted within 18 months of approval of the subdivision or development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. PC RES0 NO. 5520 -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 41. 42. 43. ... Developer shall cause Owner to \vaiIre direct access rights on the final map for all lots abutting Carlsbad Village Drive. Developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharse Elimination System (NPDES) pemiit, latest version. Developer shall pro\.ide improvements constructed pursuant to best manasenient practices as re.ferenced in the “California Storni U7ater Best Management Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the appro\.al of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective onmers and tenants of the following: A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or lvork with established disposal programs to remo\re and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste products. B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or stomi water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers. C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit for City approval a “Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SM’PPP).” The SWPPP shall be in compliance with current requirements and provisions established by the San Diego Region of the Calitornia Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City of Carlsbad. The SWPPP shall address measures to reduce to the maximum extent practicable storm water pollutant runoff during construction of the project. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall: a. b. C. include all content as established by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements; include the receipt of “Notice of Intent” issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board; recommend source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented with this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way or natural drainage course; and establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants. d. PC RES0 NO. 5520 -10- 53 1 7 - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 43. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whicheyer occurs first. De,.eloper shall submit for City approval a “Storm W’ater Rlanagenient Plan (S\t’ItIP).’‘ The SM7illP shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSRIP), Order 2001-01 issued by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Ij-ater Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. The S\\’3lP shall address measures to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water, to the maximum extent practicable, for the post-construction stage of the project. .4t a minimum, the SW’MP shall: a. b. c. i dent i fy exist i n: and post - de vel o pni en t on - s it e p o 11 ut ants -0 f-c onc em ; identify the hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired u.ater bodies that could be impacted by this project; recommend source controls and treatment controls that will be implemented with this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storni water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way; establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to residents and HOA employees education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of p o 1 1 ut ants ; ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity; and identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities to the maximum extent practicable. d. e. f. 45. Prior to building permit, Developer shall install streetlights along all public street frontages abutting and/or within the subdivision boundary in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. 46. Prior to building permit, Developer shall install sidewalks along all public streets abutting the subdivision in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. 47. Prior to building permit, Developer shall install wheelchair ramps at the public street comers abutting the subdivision in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. Utility Conditions 48. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map, Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. 49. The Developer shall design and construct public facilities within public right-of-way or within minimum 20-feet wide easements granted to the District or the City of Carlsbad. At the discretion of the District Engineer, wider easements may be required for adequate maintenance, access and/or joint utility purposes. PC RES0 NO. 5520 -1 1- 3-4 1 3 - 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 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. Fees 60. ... ... I Prior to issuance of building pemiits. Developer shall pay all fees. deposits. and c1ixgi.s i for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pa!' the San Diego Count\. Ii.;itx j Authoritv capacitv charce(s1 prior to issuance of Building Pemiits. The Developer shall prepare a colored recycled Lvater use map and submit this map to the Planning Department for processing and approid by the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities. The Developer shall design landscape and irrigation plans utilizing recycled lvater as a source. Said plans shall be submitted to the satisfxtion of the District Engineer. The Developer shall install potable water and recycled ivater senvices and meters at locations approiTed by the District Engineer. The locations of said senices shal1 be reflected on public improvement plans. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at locations approved by the District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. The Developer shall design and construct public water, sewer, and recycled water facilities substantially as shown on the site plan to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. Proposed public facilities shall be reflected on public improvement plans. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer has determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of occupancy. Prior to issuance of building permits the entire potable water, recycled water, and sewer system shall be evaluated in detail to ensure that' adequate capacity, pressure, and flow demands can be met to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. Prior to Final Map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever is first, the entire potable water, recycled water, and sewer system shall be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure, and flow demands can be met to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. The Developer shall coordinate with the District Engineer regarding the looped system and easements. Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. PC RES0 NO. 5520 -12- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 61. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required b!. Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Final Map Notes 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. Developer shall provide the following note on the final map of the subdivision and final mylar of this development submitted to the City: A. “Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code established a GroLvth Management Control Point for each General Plan land use designation. Development cannot exceed the Growth Control Point except as provided by Chapter 21.90. The land use designation for this development is 3.2 dwelling units per non-constrained acre. Parcels 156-200-27 and 156-200-12 were used to calculate the intensity of development under the General Plan and Chapter 2 1.90. Subsequent redevelopment or resubdivision of any one of these parcels must also include parcels 156-200-27 and 156-200-12 under the General Plan and Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.” Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.04.320. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs. Developer shall show on Final Map the net developable acres for each parcel. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data A. All improvements are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with the exception of the following: 1. 2. 3. Street “A” as shown in the Tentative Map Transition improvements only at the intersection of Street “A” and Highland Drive, as directed by the City Engineer. Public utilities as shown in the Tentative Map B. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available. PC RES0 NO. 5520 -13- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ’ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. Geotechnical Caution: The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in inrerssr has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action that may arise through any geological failure, ground ivater seepage or land subsidence and subsequent damage that may occur on, or adjacent to, this subdivision due to its construction, operation or maintenance. D. No structure, fence, wall, tree. shrub. sign. or other object over 30 inches abo1.e the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach lvithin the area identified as sight distance corridor in accordance nith City Standard Public Street-Desip Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying property olvner shall maintain this condition. Fire: - 69. Fire hydrants shall be placed at the property lines between Lots 1 and 2 and 4 and 5. Code Reminders: The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following: 70. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map approval becomes final. 71. Developer shali exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “ feedex ac tions .” You have 90 days from date of approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this PC RES0 NO. 5520 -14- 57 1 - 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plmiing i ' Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of December 2003, by the following vote, to wit: Chairperson Bakp, Commissioners Heineman. Mont, UonieQ'. Segall, and White AYES: z NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Whitton and Doniinguez ABSTAIN: None C 1 ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5520 -15- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING CORIhlISSION RESOLUTION NO. 552 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COhlMISSION OF TI E CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, FECOMhlENDING APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 03-0s TO ALLOW AN INCLUSIONARY SECOND DIVELLING Ulc’IT OK PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED .4T THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND HIGHLAhD DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION CASE NO.: SDP 03-08 WHEREAS, A & A Development, Inc., “Developer/O\~ner” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as That portion of Tract 121 of Carlsbad Highlands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1661, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 1,1915 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development Plan as shown on Exhibits “A” - “I” dated December 17, 2003, on file in the Planning Department, HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION - SDP 03-08, as provided by Chapter 21.06/Section 2 1.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th day of December 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 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 Site Development Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF HIGHLAND DRIVEA J 1 1 - L C - t c I E S 1c 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUBDIVISION - SDP 03-08, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings : 1. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and en\*ironmental settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan. \vi11 not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically pemiitted in the area in Lvhich the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or traffic circulation, in that the project density of 3.2 dwelling unitdacre, including the second dwelling unit, is in compliance with the density permitted by the RLRI General Plan designation and the single family subdivision is compatible with surrounding single family development and consistent with the applicable R-l- 10,000 zoning. The project will not adversely impact the site as shown by the conceptual design for a 3,055 square foot single-story residence with an attached 432 square foot second dwelling unit on a 11,543 square foot lot that complies with zoning setback and coverage standards. The existing street system operates at acceptable levels of service and is adequate to accommodate the minimal traffic generated by the second dwelling unit. 2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in that the 11,543 square foot lot size is adequate to accommodate the proposed single family structure and second dwelling unit within the developable building footprint. 3. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained, in that the second dwelling unit is attached to the main residence so that it integrated entirely into the architectural design. 4. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the proposed unit would be adequately served by a cul-de-sac street that will provide direct and exclusive access to seven lots via Highland Drive. Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to final map approval or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first. 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Site Development Plan. PC RES0 NO. 5521 -2- 40 i I L - 4 C " 6 L I E S 1c 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negati1.e Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and CT 03-04 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Conimission Resolutions No. 5519 and 5520 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collecti\.ely referred to for coii\.enieiice as "feesiexactions." You have 90 days from date of final approva$to protest imposition of these feesiesactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required infomiation with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feesiexactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, Californi& held on the 17th day of December 2003, by the '2- following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Baker, Cornmissioners Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and White NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Whitton and Dominguez 4 @= R, Chairperson PLANNING COMMISSION '. ATTEST: LvkQ&~rn G?! MICHAEL J. HMMILYER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5521 -3 - EXHIBIT 3 The City of Carlsbad Planning Departmenb P.C. AGENDA OF: December 17,2003 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application complete date: October 2, 2003 Project Planner: Anne Hysong Project Engineer: Frank Jimeno ItemNo. @) SUBJECT: CT 03-04/SDP 03-08 - HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Tentative Tract Map to demolish two single-family residences and accessory buildings, and subdivide and grade two infill parcels into seven standard single-family residential lots, and recommending approval of a Site Development Plan for one inclusionary second dwelling unit located at the northeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive in the R-1-10,000 zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 55 19 ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Planning Commission Resolution No. 5520 APPROVING CT 03-04 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 5521 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of SDP 03-08 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained herein. 11. INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide and grade seven standard single-family lots and construct associated infrastructure on two previously disturbed infill parcels totaling 2.55 acres in the R-1-10,000 zone located at the northeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. The project includes a request for approval of a Site Development Plan for the conceptual design of an inclusionary second dwelling unit proposed to satisfy the project’s 15% inclusionary housing requirement. As designed and conditioned the project is in compliance with the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, and relevant zoning regulations of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The project consists of a request for approval of a tentative map to allow the demolition of two single-family structures and accessory buildings and the subdivision and grading of two infill parcels totaling 2.55 acres into seven standard single-family lots. The project is located at the northeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. The lots are currently developed with single-family residences and accessory buildings, and the remainder of the acreage has been entirely disturbed by gardening activity. The site and the surrounding area is designated by the General Plan for Residential Low-Medium (RLM) density. The site and surrounding properties to the north, south, and west are zoned R-1-10,000 allowing a minimum of 10,000 square foot CT 03-04/SDP 03-08 - HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION December 17,2003 single-family lots, and properties to the northeast, south, and southeast are zoned R-1 allowing a minimum of 7,500 square foot single-family lots. The proposed density of 3.2 dwelling units/acre is entirely consistent with the 3.2 dwelling units/acre growth control point for the RLM designation, and the proposed lots range in size from 10,007 to 12,535 square feet in accordance with zoning. No residences are proposed on the lots at this time; however, the project includes a Site Development Plan for the conceptual design of one single-family residence with an attached 432 square foot inclusionary second dwelling unit to satisfy the project’s 15% inclusionary housing requirement. A single cul-de-sac street intersecting Highland Drive will provide access to the single-family lots. The topography across the site from west to east currently rises from approximately 159 feet at the western boundary to 179 feet at the ridge and falls to 153 feet at the eastern property boundary. The proposed grading design generally follows the existing topography, however, pad elevations of the two most westerly lots are 2 - 4 feet lower, the ridge area is lowered approximately 4 feet, and eastern pads are raised 3 - 8 feet within the eastern half of the property. The proposed grades result in a pad elevation of 167.7 feet for the most westerly lot, the center pad rises to 173.5 feet, and the most easterly pad elevation falls to 157.5. The property is impacted by noise generated by traffic on Carlsbad Village Drive, designated as a secondary arterial by the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and a Community Scenic Corridor by the City’s Scenic Corridor Guidelines. Noise levels along the property’s southern boundary exceed the City’s standard of 60 dBA CNEL for exterior noise and will impact interior noise levels of future structures without mitigation. Aesthetic considerations must also be addressed through the provision of landscaping and fencing along the southern boundary within and along the Carlsbad Village Drive right-of-way in accordance with the Scenic Corridor Guidelines. The proposed subdivision is subject to the following land use plans and zoning regulations: A. General Plan; B. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance) including: 1. Chapter 2 1.10 - R-1 One Family Zone 2. Chapter 21.85/Section 21.53.120/Chapter 21.06 - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance/Affordable Housing/Qualified Overlay Zone Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance); and Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Zone 1). C. D. IV. ANALYSIS The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these policieshegulations utilizing both text and tables. CT 03-04/SDP 03-08 - HItiHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION December 17,2003 Page 3 Standard Use Lot Size A. General Plan Required Proposed Single-family Lots 7 Single-family Lots Minimum 10.000 Sa. Ft. 10.007 - 12.535 Sa. Ft. The project is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the proposed standard single-family subdivision are the Land Use and Housing Elements. The project complies with all elements of the General Plan as outlined in the table below: Element Land use Circulation Housing TABLE 1: GENERAL PLi Use Classification, Goal, Objective, or Program RLM (0-4 Dwelling Units/Acre/ GCP - 3.2 Dwelling Units/Acre) Require new development to construct all roadways necessary to serve the development prior to or concurrent with demand. Ensure that subdivisions comply with the 15% Inclusionary Housing requirement. N COMPLIANCE Proposed Land Use Single-family - 3.2 dwelling unitdacre Project is conditioned to complete all street and utility improvements prior to occupancy of any unit. Project is conditioned to satisfy its Inclusionary Housing Requirement through the onsite provision of an inclusionary second dwelling: unit. Compliance Yes Yes Yes B1. Chapter 21.10 - R-1 One Family Residential Zone As shown on the following table, the single-family subdivision meets or exceeds the R-1 zone standards: I Lot Width I Interior Lots: 75 Feet I Minimum 75+ Feet I B2. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance/Affordable Housing The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that a minimum of 15% of all approved units in any qualified residential project be constructed and restricted both as to occupancy and affordability for lower income households. The inclusionary housing requirement for this project is one dwelling unit. The project proposes to satisfy its inclusionary requirement onsite with a one-bedroom, 432 square foot second dwelling unit located on Lot 7 of the subdivision (see Exhibits “D” - “G”). The proposed second dwelling is a ground level unit with separate access and includes a single car garage that is accessible from the interior of the unit. An affordable CT 03-04/SDP 03-08 - HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION December 17,2003 STANDARD IMPACTS City Administration 12 sf Library 6.4 sf housing agreement will be required that will restrict the second dwelling unit both as to occupancy and affordability to lower income households. COMPLIANCE Yes Yes Section 21.53.120 of the Zoning Ordinance requires approval of a site development plan for affordable housing projects of any size based on findings that the project is consistent with the underlying zoning and in conformance with General Plan policies and goals and the Qualified Overlay Zone (Chapter 2 1.06). Pursuant to Section 2 1.85.070 of the Inclusionary Ordinance, this request to satisfy inclusionary housing through the development of a second dwelling unit requires City Council approval of the Site Development Plan; therefore, the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend approval for the proposed second dwelling unit. Findings required by the Qualified Overlay Zone ensure that the project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding uses, and can be adequately accommodated by the site and street system. The project density of 3.2 dwelling unitdacre, including the second dwelling unit, is in compliance with the density permitted by the RLM General Plan designation and the single family subdivision is compatible with surrounding single family development and the applicable R-1- 10,000 zoning. The conceptual design proposes a 3,055 square foot single- story residence with an attached 432 square foot second dwelling unit on an 11,543 square foot lot that complies with all of the R-1 zone setback and coverage standards. The proposed unit would be adequately served by a cul-de-sac street that will provide direct and exclusive access to seven lots via Highland Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive. C. Subdivision Ordinance The proposed subdivision complies with the Subdivision Ordinance. Currently, Highland Drive provides access to the project site, and the developer must construct frontage improvements and construct future Street “A,” the only proposed new public street serving the project. The project is conditioned to require local street improvements to full width right-of-way including curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and streetlights. The proposed street system is adequate to handle the project’s pedestrian and vehicular traffic and accommodate emergency vehicles. The subdivision is conditioned to submit and receive approval of a Storm Water Management Program that will ensure that development runoff rates and velocities from the site are not increased as a result of the project. The subdivision has also been designed so that there are no conflicts with any established easements. D. Growth Management The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the City. The impacts created by this development on public facilities and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows: CT 03-04/SDP 03-08 - HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION December 17,2003 Page 5 Table 3 - Growth Management Compliance, continued 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. A potentially significant environmental impact was identified for noise. The developer has agreed to mitigation measures to reduce the identified noise impact to below a level of significance in accordance with CEQA. In consideration of the foregoing, a Notice of Intent to Issue a Negative Declaration was posted on November 12, 2003. No public comments were received during the 20-day public review period. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 55 19 (Mit. Neg. Dec.) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5520 (CT) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5521 (SDP) Location Map Background Data Sheet Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Disclosure Statement Reduced Exhibits Exhibit “A” - “I” dated December 17,2003 AH:bd:mh BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: CT 03-04/SDP 03-08 CASE NAME: Highland Drive Subdivision APPLICANT: A & A Development REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Promam, Tentative Tract Map to demolish two single-family residences and subdivide and grade two infill parcels into seven standard single-family residential lots, and a Site Development Plan for one inclusionaw second dwelling unit located at the northeast comer of Carlsbad VillaPe Drive and Highland Drive in the R-1-10.000 zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of Tract 121 of Carlsbad Highlands, - in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according - to Map thereof No. 1661, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego Countv, March 1, 191 5. APN: 156-200-27; -12 Acres: 2.55 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 7 lotdl second dwelling unit GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: RLM Density Allowed: 3.2 ddacre Existing Zone: R- 1 - 10,000 Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Density Proposed: 3.2 didacre Proposed Zone: N/A Zoning General Plan Site R- 1 - 10,000 RLM North R-1-10,000 RLM South R- 1/R- 1 - 10,000 RLM East R- 1 RLM West R-1- 10,000 RLM Current Land Use Single family residences Single family residences Single family residences Single family residences Single family residences PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 8 EDU ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Mitigated Negative Declaration, published November 12,2003 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated 0 Other, 17 CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: CT 03-04/SDP 03-08 - HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1. GENERAL PLAN: RLM ZONING: R-1-10,000 DEVELOPER’S NAME: A & A DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS: 2009 VIA TECA. SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 PHONE NO.: l949) 218-9486 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 156-200-27; -12 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 2.55 AC/8 DU ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: UNKNOWN A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. City Administrative Facilities: Library: Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) Park: Demand in Acreage = Drainage: Demand in CFS = Demand in Square Footage = Demand in Square Footage = Identify Drainage Basin = (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADT = (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Open Space: Acreage Provided = Schools: Served by Fire Station No. = 13 6.4 8 EDU .24 7.0 A 76 ADT 1&3 NIA Elem: 1.87 Middle: .94 High School: 1.15 Sewer: Demands in EDU 8 EDU Identify Sub Basin = 1E (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD = 1,760 The project is 0 units above or below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. Gity of Carlsbad 1 Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Comr,iission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.” Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a cornorahon or DartnershiD, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO APPLICABLE VIA) M T€€E SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned cornoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary . ) Person -= CorpPart Title A+ A om---- Title Address gbfi -* Address INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- * c---Ti=, a 9’26-73 2. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a cornoration or DartnershiD, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv- owned cornoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 6024600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @ 3. NOF-PROFIT PGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonmofit organization or a trust. 11st the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. eNon Profiflrust ./ Non Profiflrust %T Title Title Address Address 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees andor Council within the past twelve (1 2) months? 0 Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s): NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. d Signature of a plicantfdate "-s^;ppc;rGs= -> s-\wr* Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant *==r Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 70 74 I r) --._ I I h I I c------- h J 1 n r-- I lc ~ i i i ! i 80-E0 dTcIS/PO-CO J3 Planning Commission Minutes December 17,2003 ,WIT4 - 5. CT 03-04EDP 03-08 - HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Tentative Tract Map to demolish two single-family residences and accessory buildings, and subdivide and grade two infill parcels into seven standard single-family residential lots, and recommending approval of a Site Development Plan for one inclusionary second dwelling unit located at the northeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive in the R-1 10,000 zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Mr. Neu introduced Item 5 and stated that Associate Planner, Anne Hysong, would make the presentation, assisted by Associate Engineer, Frank Jimeno. Chairperson Baker opened the public hearing on Item 5. Associate Planner, Anne Hysong, stated that this Item is a request for approval of the Tentative Tract Map to subdivide and grade seven (7) standard single-family lots and to construct associated infrastructure on two previously disturbed infill lots. The applicant is also requesting a recommendation of approval of a Site Development Plan for one inclusionary second dwelling unit. The site is located at the northeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive in the northwest quadrant. Ms. Hysong showed several photographs of the site. The site consists of two parcels totaling 2.5 acres with gentle to moderate sloping terrain. There are currently two single-family homes occupying the property. The overall property has frontage on Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. The project consists of seven standard single-family lots that exceed 10,000 sq ft. The project includes a 5-6 foot high perimeter noise wall that is proposed to be located at the top of the slope around the building pads with landscaping outside the wall adjacent to the roadways that will be maintained by an HOA. Grading on the site was designed to enable terraced lots that generally follow existing terrain. It will provide public street access from a new cul-de-sac street that will also provide access to future development to the north and will accommodate a storm drain connection to Carlsbad Village Drive. The project is subject to and consistent with the Residential Low-Medium density land use designation allowing 3.2 dwelling units per acre. With the second dwelling unit the proposed density on the site is 3.2 dwelling units per acre. The lots range in size from 10,700 to 12,535 sq ft, which is consistent with the R-1 10,000 zoning. The project is subject to the 15% inclusionary housing requirement and a 432 sq ft second dwelling unit is proposed on Lot 7. The second dwelling unit has a separate exterior entrance and is also accessible through a single-car garage. The site receives access from a street system that is adequate; therefore, the necessary findings required by the Qualified Overlay Zone can be made. Staff conducted an Environmental Impact Assessment and determined that mitigation is necessary to attenuate noise from Carlsbad Village Drive. The developer agreed to install a 6-foot high split-face back wall with pilasters and cap along the Carlsbad Village Drive frontage and a 5-fOOt high combination of split-face block and Plexiglas wall along the Highland Drive frontage. A Notice of Intent to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted November 12, 2003 and no comments were received during the public review period. A letter was received from Dee Ann Gee requesting that this project be denied. The project is entirely consistent with the General Plan and zoning and it is designed to avoid significantly altering the current topography along Carlsbad Village Drive. The 10,000 sq ft lots are larger than those permitted to the southeast and east of the development and future homes on the lots will be required to adhere to stringent architectural standards. The wall proposed around the subdivision is necessary to attenuate noise; however, Staff has attempted to require a high-quality wall design that will be separated from the street by 10-20 feet of landscaping that will be maintained by a Home Owners Association. Chairperson Baker asked the applicant if he wished to continue with five Commissioners present. He stated that he did. Commissioner Montgomery asked Mr. Jimeno if the intersection of this new street, located not far from the Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive intersection, was an acceptable distance in terms of circulation. Mr. Jimeno stated that the Engineering Department did not foresee any problems with the circulation. Commissioner Segall asked how the subdivision would fit with the mix of development in the current neighborhood. Ms. Hysong stated that along Highland Drive the lots are 10,000 sq ft. Along Carlsbad Village Drive, south of the development, the lots are zoned to enable 7,500 sq ft. Commissioner Segall Planning Commission Minutes December 17,2003 Page 7 noted that the majority of the lots in the neighborhood were in the R-I 10,000 sq ft range. Ms. Hysong confirmed that they were or would be. Commissioner Segall asked if the Planning Commission would be specifying the size of the house and if there would be a limit to the individual homes. Ms. Hysong stated that Lot 7 is shown with a 3,500 sq ft home that would fit well within the setbacks and below the 40% maximum coverage requirement. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the two parcels bordering this site on the north could be subdivided in the future. Ms. Hysong stated that they could. Commissioner Montgomery asked if this design accommodated public street access onto the other properties. Ms. Hysong stated that it did and that there was a possibility that the cul-de-sac could then be extended to the north to provide access to additional properties. Chairperson Baker asked about the landscaping along the sound wall on Carlsbad Village Drive. Ms. Hysong stated that the proposed landscaping included ground cover, low shrubs and trees. She suggested that the landscape consultant could advise how to cover that wall with vines. Chairperson Baker asked what the setback was from Carlsbad Village Drive to the wall. Ms. Hysong stated that it was 10-20 feet and that the wall would not be directly in back of the sidewalk. Commissioner Montgomery asked what the distance was between the northern property line and where the grading starts, and asked if there would be fencing along the top of the slope. Ms. Hysong replied that there would be a safety rail at the top of the wall, but putting it along the property line was also acceptable to Staff and the applicant. The house to the north has a substandard setback of four feet. Mr. Jimeno stated that the distance was two feet between the prope the grading. Chairperson Baker asked what sort of edge condition would exist on the north side when the grading was done and the crest of the hill was reduced. Ms. Hysong stated that it would be the roadway with a five- foot keystone retaining wall, then a landscaped slope. Corrected Chairperson Baker invited the applicant to make a presentation. Jeff Dahl, 18681 Amalia Lane, Huntington Beach, stated that he was the architect for the project. He reviewed the history of this project stating that the developer purchased the first of the two pieces of property directly adjacent to Carlsbad Village Drive about a year ago. The preliminary design was for 5-6 custom lots, but that conceptual plan was deemed unacceptable by the Planning Department because of the depth of the lots. The Planning Department recommended that the developer try to purchase the property next to it to make it a more viable project, which he did. The new design is what is now proposed. Mr. Dah1 stated that he had met with the neighbor to the north. The fence on that property line will likely be open because of his view. The fence or wall would then become solid as it moved east. All the lots meet all the City’s standards. The developer is from Palos Verdes Estates and builds high-end custom homes. He stated that the civil engineer for the project was present to answer questions about grading. Commissioner Montgomery stated that it didn’t matter whether the material was fencing or wall, but that there had to be something on that boundary. Mr. Dah1 agreed. Commissioner Montgomery asked Ms. Hysong if an Amendment needed to be added to this approval. Ms. Hysong suggested that a condition be added to Condition 13 in the Resolution requiring a final landscape plan. Commissioner Segall stated that none of these plans would come before the Planning Commission, but would be handled strictly by the Planning Staff. Ms. Hysong confirmed that. Commissioner Segall asked what they would do about the elevations and the design integrity of the properties. Ms. Hysong stated that there was a condition in the Resolution requiring that the future homes be consistent with the City’s architectural guidelines and that the rear elevations be enhanced to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Chairperson Baker asked what the square footage of the homes would be. Mr. Dah1 stated approximately 3,200 sq ft. She asked if the home on Lot 7 would be single story. Mr. Dah1 confirmed that it would be and the rest would be two-story homes. Chairperson Baker opened public testimony and invited those who would like to speak to the podium. 79 Planning Commission Minutes December 17,2003 Page 8 Gary Nessim, 2987 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, stated that during the open hearing process that he had spoken with the planner and voiced his objections to the grading plans. He asked if Lot 1 was lowered. He stated that the Highland Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive intersection had an elevation of a couple feet above Highland Drive and then gradually slopes up. He stated that there would be 3-5 feet of grading and then the sound wall on the corner would be placed on top of that, which would wall off the corner. He stated that it was a very nice project. He stated that dirt would be imported to fill in the lots in the back and the lot in the front. He stated that the Plexiglas would not be necessary. He discussed the sidewalk that was not included in the grading plan. He stated that there should be a sidewalk on Highland Drive connecting to Carlsbad Village Drive. Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Bakl Nessim if he was asking that the Plexiglas not be added or for additional mitigation. Mr. &&4 Nessim stated that he was asking that the elevation of the pad be lowered so that the overall wall would be lower and that request had been met. Chairperson Baker closed the public testimony and asked Staff to address the concerns raised by the speaker . Ms. Hysong stated that she had spoken with Mr. Nessim and what she had reported to the Planning Commission was that she had not received any comments to the Environmental Review during the public. review period. She stated that Mr. Nessim was concerned about the elevation of the first pad adjacent to Highland Drive and the engineer was able to lower that pad one foot so that the design now would be approximately an 8-foot high slope along Highland Drive and at the top of that slope would be a 5-fOOt high noise wall. Half of the noise wall would be split-face block and half would be Plexiglas. The Plexiglas had nothing to do with visibility around the corner at Carlsbad Village Drive. It was what the applicant requested so that the resident could have a better view. She stated that the sight distance corridor was reviewed by the Engineering Department. Mr. Jimeno reported that the intersection met the sight distance standards and there were no obstructions for drivers around that corner. Regarding improvements, there would be a curb return around the corner and it would stop at the end of the curb return because Highland Drive was a special design street where improvements were not allowed unless a special process was followed as dictated by the City Council a few years ago. The neighborhood would have to be improved at the same time rather than a piecemeal approach. If enough of the neighbors were willing to participate in the improvements, then they could proceed with those plans. Commissioner Heineman asked if the slope and the wall at the corner on Highland Drive were far enough back so that ,motorists could see around there without any problem. Mr. Jimeno stated that that was correct. He stated that the full width of the street would be graded and the slope would begin beyond the right-of-way line. Commissioner Segall asked where the new street would be and if there would be padding up with a 5-foot fence on that. Ms. Hysong stated that the topography for the corner pad was currently 165-170 and it was proposed to be padded at 167.7. It currently slopes up from Highland Drive and would slope up more significantly through a 2:l slope at that location and be fully landscaped. The noise wall would be on top of that slope. She stated that with the creation of the new street, infrastructure had to be accommodated as well. She stated that there was an attempt to improve the drainage by draining back to the east and then out to Carlsbad Village Drive and then east through the existing storm drain system. Commissioner Segall asked how much higher the ridge would be. Ms. Hysong replied that it would be one foot lower than it is now. Commissioner Montgomery stated that the grading plan was under consideration in these Resolutions. Mr. Neu added that the Tentative Map did include the proposed grades and those exhibits were provided to the Planning Commission as part of the project. The City Engineer would approve the final grading plans and the Planning Department reviews that as well. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner White, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5519 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Planning Commission Minutes December 17,2003 Page 9 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 5520 approving CT 03-04 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 5521 recommending approval of SDP 03- 08 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, and amending Condition 13 to require a fence to the satisfaction of the Planning Director along the northern boundary of the project and also that vines will be planted on the perimeter wall along Carlsbad Village Drive. DISCUSSION Commissioner White stated that she thought it was an attractive project and not out of character with the neighborhood. Commissioner Montgomery noted that drainage problems were being solved in this project, which was not typical. He stated that he could support the project. Commissioner Heineman stated that he looked forward to the completion of this project as the area was an eyesore currently and would be much improved. Commissioner Segall stated that he supported the project. He acknowledged that the issue with the sidewalk was a frustration with a new development, but that there was underlying policy that dictated it. Chairperson Baker called for a vote. VOTE: 5-0 AYES: NOES: None Baker, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall and White Chairperson Baker closed the public hearing on Item 5 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next Item. EXHIBIT 5 I \ APPEAL FORM I (We) appeal the decision of the VhIK Me5lcPl to the Carlsbad City Council. Date of Decision you are appealing: dC $7 3 Subject of ApDeal: BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer's Decision, please say so. If a project has muttiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here. Reasonfs) for Atmeal: Please Note Failure to specify a reason may result In denial of the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal. BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or lOC3l laws, plans, or policy? 9~7 I+c,h(Od Dii ADDRESS: Street @me 8, Number State, Zip Code 8a 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 - (619) 434-2808 6 EXHIBIT 6 January 16,2004 TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER - ANNE HYSONG FROM: Associate Engineer Jimeno CT 03-04 HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION - NESSIM APPEAL The Engineering Department has completed a review of the appellant’s reasons for the appeal and offers the following responses: Reason: “Inconsistent with City of Carlsbad infill project policies re grading adjacent to existing homes.” The project does conform to the Infill Lots section of the engineering standards. Following is an explanation of the existing condition, the proposed grading, and how it complies with the standards. The proposed project has a 500-ft frontage on Carlsbad Village Drive and approximately 180 ft on Highland Drive. Following a path parallel to Carlsbad Village Drive, the existing topography slopes up at a 4 to 1 slope from the existing Highland Dr. travel way to the right-of-way line 30 ft from the centerline for a total height of 3 ft. Then it keeps going up at a 6 to 1 slope to a high point approximately 170 ft from the right-of-way line for a height of 14 ft. That high point is where the existing residence is located. The ground then slopes down at approximately 12 to 1 slope to the project’s easterly boundary. To develop the property, a new cul-de-sac street is proposed along the northerly boundary. The street grades are controlled by the existing street elevation at Highland Drive and the existing grades of the properties at the easterly and northerly boundaries. The proposed grading generally follows the existing ground configuration. The existing high point of the property will be lowered by 3% ft. The proposed pads are created by balancing the earthwork within the constraints of the proposed street and following the engineering design standards. The Infill Lots section of the engineering standards allows up to a three-foot fill height. Greater than three feet, up to ten feet, is allowed for special circumstances with specific justification. Along the Highland Dr. frontage, across the street from the appellant’s property, the existing 3-ft high 4 to 1 slope within the right-of-way will be flattened to meet the standard right-of-way section, i.e., to a 2% slope (the same as a slope required for sidewalks). Then a 2 to 1 up slope will be graded to the proposed pad elevation. The total height of the slope will be between 7% and 8 feet. The top of this new slope will be 3 feet higher than the existing ground at that location, which complies with the infill lot standard. Where the existing driveway is located to access the existing house, the fill will be approximately 5 ft, which falls within the infill grading guidelines. The pad elevations for the lots easterly of the high point are determined by complying with lot drainage requirements. In order to meet these requirements, the fill on these lots will exceed the 83 3-ft allowed per idill lot standards, but within the maximum 104 requirement. Staff finds that due to the existing topography, there is justification for this condition. The Infill Lots standard does not allow retaining walls over three feet in height within ten feet of a property line except in unusual circumstances where no other means to develop the property is available. At the northerly boundary, from Highland Drive to 120 ft easterly, the project includes a retaining wall up to 5% ft in height within ten feet of the property line. Staff has determined that the design falls within the allowed exception. Reason: ‘&No sidewalk installation. Inconsistent with sidewalks within project and along Carlsbad Village Drive. ’’ Highland Drive is an alternative design street as designated per the City Council adopted ‘Street and Sidewalk Policy Committee Final Report’ dated February 23,2000. The committee recommended, “these streets should remain in their current design unless one or more of the Alternative Street criteria trigger the need to explore the Alternative Design Process.” The process involves the neighborhood to develop the design criteria. Reason: “Grading of corner of Highland and CV. to obstruct motorists views. ” The project is conditioned to meet all sight distance requirements per engineering standards and the condition will be enforced when the final design drawings of the subdivision are submitted for review. 84 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, March 2, 2004, to consider a request for approval of a Site Development Plan for a second dwelling unit and an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving a Tract Map for seven (7) standard single-family lots and associated infrastructure on 2.55 acres located at the northeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive in the R-1-10,000 zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as: That portion of Tract 121 of Carlsbad Highlands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1661, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 1, 1915 Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after February 20, 2004. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Site Development Plan and/or Tentative Tract Map, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Site Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: SDP 03-08/CT 03-04 CASE NAME: HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION PUBLISH: February 20,2004 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERKS OFFICE SITE HIGHLAND DRIVE SUBDIVISION SDP 03-08/CT 03-04 "Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 516@ CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE SANDIEGO CA 92123 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER ANNE HYSONG 02/03/2004 ~AVERW Address labels CITY OF ENClNlTAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENClNlTAS CA 92024 CITY OF VISTA PO BOX 1988 VISTA CA 92085 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STE 100 9174 SKY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 SD COUNTY PLANNING STE B 5201 RUFFIN RD SANDIEGO 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 ATTN TED ANASIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT laser 5160@ CATHRYN CRAFT 3057 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 SHARONSOVA 1700 BUENA VISTA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 BROOKS WORTHING PO BOX 1041 CARLSBAD CA 92018 HELEN LACEY 2889 ELMWOOD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAGER 291 1 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 GILBERT P 0 BOX 1071 CARLSBAD CA 9201 8 JON POWERS 2860 ELMWOOD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RONALD RAMSWICK 2886 ELMWOOD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOE SANDY 3081 HIGHLAND DR CALRSBAD CA 92008 MARK PETERSON 1350 OAK AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 PORTER 171 0 BUENA VISTA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 LARSON 2869 ELMWOOD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 DAVID LAUB 2905 ELMWOOD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 VIOLET GARNER 2905 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 BRENDA KELLY 2830 ELMWOOD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 GIN0 BURNETTE 2870 ELMWOOD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 SARAH MAR HARVEY 2003 DAVID DR ESCONDIDO CA 92026 LEVY 3021 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 DENNIS BACCUS 41 14 CONQUISTA AVE LAKEWOOD CA 90713 HENRY JOLLY 1740 BUENA VISTA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 COUTY 2883 ELMWOOD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 KARLA ZADA 1342 OAK AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 WILDA SIMPSON 2850 ELMWOOD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 KUHN 2880 ELMWOOD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 GREGORY CLAVIER 2992 ELMWOOD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 ERIC GERUM 6601 KIRKLUND CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 LARRY DOAN 2873 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 FIONA DAY 2885 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JACK NATHAN 1340 OAK AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 GARY NESSIM 2987 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ALLAN MITCHELL 2945 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 DEUEL BUNEVA SUITE 116 2400 W VALLEY PKWY JAMES WILMER 2946 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 BREMER SURVIVORS 2880 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 RICHARD JOHNSON JR PO BOX 820 CARLSBAD CA 9201 8 SlMPKlNS 3042 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 SANDRA DOWDING 1606 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 BRUCE ENDRES 2895 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MlCKl MINARCK 2945 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CONSTANTINO MEDINA 2448 FLAMETREE RD VISTA CA 92084 MICHAEL ANDERSON 2955 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 MICHAEL ARMSTRONG 2975 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 COJOCARI 3376 GARlBALDl PL CARLSBAD CA92008 AMOS SANDERSON 2985 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 E LAMONT GEISSINGER 3016 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 FRANCES BRlSEBOlS SUITE 203 1744 S PACIFIC ST RESORT STMICHEL SUITE 100 12250 EL CAMINO REAL ALLEN MANZANO 1250 HOOVER ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 PRINCE 2935 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 PAMELA SECORD 2001 WANDERING RD ENClNlTAS CA 92024 N IC HOLSO N SUITE 35 201 CALLE MIRAMAR ANTHONY WANG 2890 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 LYLE LAWSON 2862 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JAMES SWAB PO BOX 194 CARLSBAD CA 9201 8 AVE OAK 1542 OAK AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 VINCENT MODZELESKI 1618 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOHN MILLER 1642 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 DELBERT VlDAURRl 1660 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 GEORGE SERRANO 1678 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROBERT DAMAR0 1659 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 FRANCES MORENO 161 1 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 FAIT 1650 OAK AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 MCDANIEL 3075 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 SHALER LADD JR 3058 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 BEAUTIFUL SAVIOUR 3030 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARK PRIESTER 1795 MCCAULEY LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 DAVID WAITE 1802 GRANDVIEW ST OCEANSIDE CA 92054 JOSEPH CELONA 918 SANTA FLORENCIA SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 LESSING 1677 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 GARY DAVIS 23 SANTA ANA DR SALINAS CA 93901 MARK TURNER 3197 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 OSBORN SURVIVORS 1660 OAK AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ERNST 3065 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 KENNETH VANSICKLE 1720 OAK AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 DIANE HAEDRICH 1808 OAK AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 LOUISE WILLIAMS PO BOX 535 CARLSBAD CA 92018 RICHARD GRISWOLD 4051 SKYLINE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARIAN BELL 16742 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 DAVERSA 1665 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 PATRICK EMERICK 1623 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JONA ST JAMES 1534 ORANGEVIEW DR ENCINITAS CA 92024 ALE JAN DRO CERVANTES 3085 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 YADA 1835 BUENA VISTA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 DAVIS 1708 OAK AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 JEHOVAHS CONGREGATION 6864 SHEARWATERS DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 DEBORAH GRAY 1671 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MOZ IN GO 3125 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 A & A DEVELOPMENT 2009 VIA TECA SAN CLEMENTE CA 92673 02/03/2004 5d go 2 c, w Fj d) 04 g crf m & 0 m x d) *4 2 c, Td a 9 u m l-4 2 43 M 0 t..l 0 c, m 2 c, tu 0 9 c, d) l-4 ;i 4 0 0 k 1 + *+ x 0 J c6 d) k + c6 0 d) E 2 I d) d) k 3i b d) ? 4 I F1 d) m d) & 1 d) Td F1 ca s= 0 c6 04 I > d) d) d) 4 > *+ ii ? d) 3 0 + d) s Td crs d) k + crs d) k crs m k c\ 0 0 E 22 I $+ I + 4 crs ? + I s? 6) m d) k s1.1 1 0 + 0 4 Td F1 crs F1 0 crs -4 I 4 crs- 4 + -4 ? s m d) sz 0 ;i -4 k n d) Jz Jz I I *4 2 I * Tb- Od &: 0 0 3 I 8 c\ m m 0 k k 3 0 x .e- c ; '2. 5"- 9 ! i 6' c *3 "... 3*. 3 APPEAL FORM CITY CLERKS OFFJCE \ I (We) appeal the decision of the PIa MhlhC Mey(fl? to the Carlsbad City Council. W Date of Decision you are appealing: C 17 fo '5 Subiect of Appeal: BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action IS a City Engineer's Decision, please say so. If a project has multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here. 7 cr-nr+ oV\ Vrz+,~d,~G~ ~t-03~ / 5 w &ob- c4mmcIsr t b C lore nnuJhP/rkl G Mdrv $4 I-h L'/[ I.~/hG5 &t- &Csrl0b -pg/ 5t7h Uh o/Ms 01\1((7/Un . Irn bki 1 L-dd 2Whd f4 Gii; rr/.zC& A/ Reasonk) for Aweal: Please Note Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal. BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local laws, plans, or policy? PHONE NO. 6QPV h3 *rs 5 r/z1 ges7 !+ C,h(&?S ?Pi&- ADDRESS: Street #me & Number GW(4hL) (34 5=w DATE 1 City, State, Zip Code @ 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1 989 - (61 9) 434-2808 0 z c Z 3 0 0 0 a