HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-10; City Council; 16881; Calavera Hills Village Y SDP 01-05CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL I'
A/
AB# 16,881
MTG.
TITLE:
9-10-02 CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y
SDP 01-05
DEPT. PLN bp1
DEPT. HD.
CITY ATTY.
CITYMGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2002-269 , APPROVING the Negative
Declaration and Site Development Plan for the Calavera Hills Village Y affordable apartment
development.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On July 17, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval
with a 6-0 vote (Segall absent) of the Negative Declaration and Site Development Plan for the
Calavera Hills Village Y affordable apartment development. The proposed project entails 106
apartment units, all of which would be affordable to lower income households, on a 7.13-acre site.
These affordable apartment units would satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement for the
Calavera Hills Master Plan. The currently vacant site would be graded in accordance with the
Master Tentative Map for Calavera Hills Phase 11, approved by the City Council on January 15,2002.
Village Y also contains a 1.0-acre Community Facility site that would be developed under separate
permits and is not included in this Site Development Plan.
The proposed apartment units would be contained in 14 two-story buildings and would be a mixture
of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. The architecture would follow the theme of the existing Villa
Loma apartment development in the southwest quadrant. The apartment site would also include
open surface parking for residents and guests and would be accessed off of the future extension of
College Boulevard and a future local street in Village X to the south. Three recreation areas are
proposed with the project, containing a theatrical plaza, turf bowl with bar-b-que facilities, and a
basketball half-court with gardening areas.
During the public hearing, there were several comments from the residents of the Cape
neighborhood to the west of the Village Y site. Their concerns centered on the proximity of the
proposed basketball court to their homes and the potential for noise impacts. In response to the
citizen input, the Planning Commission added a condition (Condition No. 23 of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 5234) requiring a redesign of the project recreation areas to either replace the
basketball use or relocate it to another location internal to the apartment development. The
Developer stated that they would coordinate efforts with the Cape homeowners and Chelsea
building permits for the project.
Development, the future apartment management company, to resolve the issue prior to issuance of
The proposed development is consistent with the City's General Plan, Calavera Hills Master Plan,
Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Growth Management Program, and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the Calavera Hills Village Y affordable apartment development.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The potential environmental impacts associated with the creation and grading of the Village Y site,
s well as the future extension of College Boulevard, were reviewed through the Environmental
5, 2002. Therefore the project specific environmental review dealt only with those facets of the
roject not included in the Phase II Master Tentative Map proposal.
Report for the Calavera Hills Phase II Master Tentative Map (EIR 98-02), certified on January
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 16.881
The proposed Calavera Hills Village Y affordable apartment project, as designed and conditioned,
would not create any significant adverse environmental impacts. Therefore the Planning Director
issued a Negative Declaration on June 18, 2002, in accordance with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental
Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. No comments were received during the 20-day public
review period.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impacts to the City are negligible since all development fees will be collected at time of
grading and building permit issuance. All public facilities necessary to serve the development will be
in place prior to, or concurrent with, development.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resoution No. 2002-269
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5233 and 5234
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 17, 2002
5. Drafl Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 17, 2002
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-269
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y AFFORDABLE
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF
FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF CARLSBAD
VILLAGE DRIVE, IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT.
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y
CASE NO.: SDP 01-05
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on July 17, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider a Negative Declaration and Site Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 10th day of
SEPTEMBER, 2002, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration
and Site Development Plan, and at the time received recommendations, objections, protests,
comments of all persons interested in or opposed to SDP 01-05; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct
2. That the City Council approves City Council Resolution No.2002-269
and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5233 and 5234, on file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof
by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
3. That the application for a Site Development Plan for a 106 unit multifamily
apartment development affordable to lower income households on property generally located
southwest of the future extension of College Boulevard and south of Carlsbad Village Drive, is
approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5233 and 5234.
..
..
....
. . ..
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2E
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 10th day of SEPTEMBER , 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Membeyyygaard
ATTEST:
/ 277zozzL
LbRWINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
EXHIBIT 2
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y
SDP 01-05
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
.2 8
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5233
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 106 UNIT MULTIFAMILY
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT AFFORDABLE TO LOWER
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE FUTURE EXTENSION OF
COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE
DRIVE, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 7.
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y
CASE NO.: SDP 01-05
WHEREAS, Calavera Hills LLC, “Developer/Owner” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
A portion of Lots D and E of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to the partition Map thereof No. 823, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of said County on November 16,
1896
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of July, 2002, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration
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
according to Exhibit "ND" dated June 18, 2002, and "PII" dated June 4, 2002.
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered said Negative Declaration and the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of July 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Segall
ABSTAIN: None
\oa,
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairuerson)
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
. ..
MICHAEL J. HOLZ~ILLE~
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5233 -2- 7
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddredLocation:
Project Description:
Southwest of the future extension of College Boulevard, south of
Carlsbad Village Drive.
Site Development Plan for the construction of a 106 unit
multifamily apartment development, affordable to lower income
households, on an 8.16 acre site within Village Y of the Calavera
Hills Master Plan.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4623.
DATED: JUNE 18,2002
CASE NO: SDP 01-05
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 18,2002
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 01-05
DATE: June 4.2002
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Calavera Hills Villaee Y
2. APPLICANT: McMillan Homes
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2727 Hoover Ave. National Ciw. CA
92950 (619) 336-3138
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Mav 17.2001
5. PROIECT DESCRIPTION: Site Develoment Plan for the construction of a 106 unit multifamily
apartment develoDment. affordable to lower-income households. on a 7.13 acre site within Village Y of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. located southwest of the future extension of College
Boulevard, south of Carlsbad Village Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 7.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems [7 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
water Hazards Cultural Resources
Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
9
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
..
2 Rev. 03/28/96 io
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Ciry
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the follo\vinp
pages in the form of a checklist. Th~s checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence
that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
J Rev. 03/28/96
/I
e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant. and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated“
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EM-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact lmpact Unless Impact
Incorporated Mitigation
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or n n n m (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 0 ON
policies adopted 6; agencies with iurisdictioi over the U U U u
project? (#l:.Pgs 5.6-1- 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existine. land use in the vicinitv? n n n m
(#l:Pgs 5:6-1 - 5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or imuacts from incomatible
- U U U u
0 urn
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6:l- 5.6-i8)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or urn
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed offlcial regional or local
populationprojections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrasmcture)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
IXI
N
ISI
4 Rev. 03/28/96
la
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
r) Erosion, changes in topography or unstahle soil
conditions from excavation, gradmg, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15)
g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoft? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#I:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen orturbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs S.2-1 - 5.2-11)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - X.2-
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
Potentially Significant
Impact
I7
0
0 0
0 0 17
0
0
17
0
0 O
0
0
17
[XI
O
Potenttally Less Than No Significant Sipificanr Impact
Incorporated Mitigation Unless Impact
D[XI
0 0151 0 DEI 0 nEI
0 0151
0 0151
0 0151
OH
0 0151
0 nIxI
0 UIXI
0 OIXI
017
0 OB
0151
5 Rev. 03/28/96
13
Issues (and Supportiug Information Sources).
VI. TRANSPORTATIONlCIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle hips or eafftc congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedesaim or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies suppo~g alternative
emportation (e.g. bus mouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air trafftc impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(including but not limited to plants, fsh, insects,
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage eees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
(#I:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation pian? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Sipificant Sqnificant Significant Impact Impact Unless lmpacr
Mitigation Incorporated
[XI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I7
0
0
0
0
0
0
E3
(XI
E3
[XI
[XI
[XI
0 0 om
0 0 0 [XI.
cl 0 o[xI
0 om
6 Rev. 03/28/96
I4
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fne hazard in areas with flammable brush,
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
health ha.?ards?(#l:Pgs5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, ortrees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15) o
1 - 5.9-15) 0
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
o 0 0 0
5.12.8-7) 17
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
b) Communications systems?
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
c) Local or regional water treatment or dismbution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal?(#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
0
0 0
17 0 0 I7
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Createlightorglare?(#l:Pgs5.11-1-5.11-5)
5.11-1 -5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10) 0 ~~
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10) 0
Potenrially Significant Unless Miugation Incorporated
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 o
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Synificant Imp~cr
LessThan KO
lmpacr
om om om
om
OB om
OB OB OIXI om
om om
OIXI
OB om
I Rev. 03/28/96
15
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Potentially Potentially Less Than luo
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
1 - 5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
Inco&rated 0 OB 0 om
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 0 0 OB
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 ~
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
urn
0 0 om
XVI. 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 com~~~unity,
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
0 om
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
prehistory?
limited, but cumulatively considerable? cl
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will probable future projects)?
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, 0 0 om
either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
The following site-specific technical studies were used in the analysis and design of this project
and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
California, 92008. (760) 6024600.
1. Update of Geotechnical Re~ort. Calavera Hills Village Y. Citv of Carlsbad. California,
dated October 20, 1999, Geosoils, Inc.
2. Interim Re~ort of Geotechnical Investigation, Calavera Heights Villages W-X-Y,
Tamarack and College Boulevard, Carlsbad. California, dated May 15, 1990, Southern
California Soil and Testing, Inc.
3. Noise Technical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11 Village Y. Citv of
Carlsbad, California, dated December 13,2001.
8 Rev. 03/28/96 /L
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The Calavera Hills Village Y project involves the construction and occupation of 106
multifamily apartment units, affordable to lower income households within Village Y of the
Calavera Hills Master Plan. The 8.16 acre Village site will be created through the recordation of
the Master Tentative Map for Calavera Hills Phase I1 (CT 00-02) and will be graded in
accordance with that map. The potential environmental impacts associated with the creation and
grading of the Village Y site were reviewed through the Environmental Impact Report for the
Calavera Hills Phase II Master Tentative Map (EIR 98-02, SCH No. 991 11 082). certified
January 15, 2002. The Environmental Impact Report also reviewed the impacts associated with
the development of Village Y with up to 140 apartment units, 34 units more than is proposed
with this Site Development Plan. This environmental document also reviewed the potential
environmental impacts associated with the future extension of College Boulevard, which will
provide frontage and access to Village Y. Since the development of Village Y cannot proceed
until the Master Tentative Map has been recorded and the site has been graded in accordance
with that map, the following environmental analysis deals only with the development of Village
Y with the proposed affordable apartment project.
The 7.13 acre apartment project site is bound by the future extension of College Boulevard and
the future single-family development in Village X to the east, the hture singlefamily
development in Village X to the south, the existing single family residential development known
as The Cape to the west, and the future extension of College Boulevard and the future single
family development in Village W to the north. Village Y also includes an approximately 1.0
acre Community Facility site located in the northern portion of the property, which is not
proposed for development at this time but will be graded along with the mass grading of Village
Y and the remainder of Phase 11. The proposed multifamily residential use is compatible with all
of the existing and future surrounding residential and community facility uses.
The residential portion of the Village Y site is designated Residential High (RH) in the City’s
General Plan, allowing up to 19 dwelling units per developable acre. The proposed density is
14.9 dwelling per acre. The project site is zoned P-C (Planned Community) and, according to
the Calavera Hills Master Plan (Mp 150(H)), the site is to be developed in accordance with the
R-3 - Multiple Family Residential Zone, except as modified in the Master Plan. The proposed
development would consist of 14 residential buildings, a recreationladministration building, 242
surface parking spaces, private streets and driveways, and three common recreation areas. The
residential buildings would be two-stories and measure a maximum of 28 feet in height; the
recreationladministration building would be one story and measure a maximum of 18 feet in
height. The total building coverage for the project is 14.5 percent (or 1.37 acres). The project is
consistent with the City’s General Plan and meets all development standards and design criteria
of the Master Plan and R-3 zoning.
The proposed development would necessitate approximately 8,200 cubic yards of balanced
grading subsequent to the mass grading that creates Village Y. The site development would also
include several retaining walls, with a maximum height of six feet. All grading operations would
be required to conform to the recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical report, as well
as the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance. In addition, an all-weather access road would be
provided throughout construction and Fire Marshal approval would be required prior to the
storage of any hazardous materials on site.
The residential project would take access off of the future extension of College Boulevard and
would generate 848 average daily traffic trips, which can be accommodated in the future major
9 Rev. 03/28/96
arterial roadway. The project would be required to comply with the City’s National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit through the implementation of Best
Management Practices, thus reducing the amount of pollutants entering the public storm drain
system. All facilities needed to serve the 106 apartment units would be provided prior to
occupancy, in association with the Phase 11 Master Tentative Map grading and improvement
plans. In addition, the Carlsbad Unified School District has stated that there are adequate school
facilities to serve the proposed apartment project.
Due to the project’s proximity to College Boulevard, the Master Plan requires that a site-specific
noise study be conducted. That noise study indicates that noise attenuation walls are needed
along the project’s frontage with College Boulevard. These walls would range in size from four
feet to nine feet high and are incorporated into the project design. The project architecture
incorporates strong relief and a variety of materials and colors, thus not creating any negative
aesthetic visual impacts from public views. Given the above analysis, the previous
environmental documentation and the site-specific technical reports, the proposed Calavera Hills
Village Y apartment project would not create any significant adverse environmental impacts as
designed and conditioned.
AIR OUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
[continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master Em. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2)
measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation
Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including
mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by
City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for
air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects
covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR
10 Rev. 03/28/96 18
CIRCULATION:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Ovemding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MER This document is available at the Planning
Department.
A MER may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance.
Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department,l635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Imuact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MER 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
I9
2. Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II. Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 gL Detention
Basins Final Environmental Impact Re~ort (EIR 98-02), dated November 2001, Recon.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2c
21
22
23
24
’ 25
26
27
25
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5234
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 01-05 TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 106 UNIT MULTIFAMILY
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT AFFORDABLE TO LOWER
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE FUTURE EXTENSION OF
COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE
DRIVE, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 7.
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y
CASE NO.: SDP 01-05
WHEREAS, Calavera Hills 11, LLC, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
A portion of Lots D and E of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to the partition Map thereof No. 823, tiled in the
Office of the County Recorder of said County on November 16,
1896
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Plan as shown on Exhibits “A“ - “N” dated July 17, 2002, on file in the Planning Department,
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y - SDP 01-05 as provided by Section 21.53.120 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th day of July, 2002, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of 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,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CALAVERA HILLS
VILLAGE Y - SDP 01-05 based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental
settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will
not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which
the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or
traffic circulation, in that the project is below the maximum density allowed by the
General Plan and Growth Management Program; the project provides housing
affordable to lower income households; the project site is surrounded by residential
and open space uses; the proposed development can fit within the future graded pad
created by the Calavera Hills Phase I1 subdivision map without need for open space
encroachments; and the project will take access off of College Boulevard, a major
arterial roadway.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the proposed development can fit within the future graded pad created by the
Calavera Hills Phase I1 subdivision map without need for open space
encroachments.
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 project site is surrounded by residential and open
space uses and a noise wall will be constructed along the project frontage with
College Boulevard.
That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the 848 average daily traffic trips generated by
the project would take access off of College Boulevard, a major arterial roadway.
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to grading or
building 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
PC RES0 NO. 5234 -2-
1
2
3
4
L -
t
I
6
s
1C
11
12
13
14
15
It
1;
18
IS
2(
21
2;
2:
2L
25
2f
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
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.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Site Development Plan documents, as necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
all requirements of law.
DeveloperDperator 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 Site Development Plan, (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 Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide
school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 18 months from the date of project approval.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
PC RES0 NO. 5234 -3- 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
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 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 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.
Prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the
County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all
interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Site
Development Plan by Resolution No. 5234 on the property. Said Notice of Restriction
shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details
and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for
inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute
and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a
showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first, the
Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may be subject to noise
impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, in a form meeting the
approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file in the
Planning Department).
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first, the
Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property is subject to overflight,
sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting
the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in
the Planning Department).
Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all rental offices associated with
the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be approved by the
Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the Planning Department).
Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas enclosed by a six-foot high
masonry wall with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal
Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Planning
Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director.
PC RES0 NO. 5234 -4- aq
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
28
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
the Planning Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the
approved plan.
Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting plan
including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid
any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
Compact parking spaces shall be located in large groups, and in locations clearly marked
to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 236 parking spaces, as shown on
Exhibit “M”, dated July 17,2002.
The proposed basketball court in Recreation Area C is not approved. The
Developer shall redesign the project recreation areas to replace and/or relocate the
basketball court location to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director and Planning Director prior to issuance of any building permit for the
development.
Engineering:
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is
formally established by the City.
Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs andor other
recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all
the private improvements: streets, sidewalks, street lights, and storm drain facilities
located therein.
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.
Developer shall install sight distance comdors at all street intersections and driveways in
accordance with Engineering Standards. The limits of these sight distance corridors
shall be reflected on all improvement, grading, or landscape plans prepared in
association with this development. A statement regarding the restrictions associated
with the sight distance corridors and the underlying owner’s maintenance
responsibility shall be included in the CC&Rs.
Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation, the City’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
PC RES0 NO. 5234 -5- a5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation the City’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding
drainage across the adjacent property.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the
project.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention for the start
of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.
This project requires off site grading. No grading for private improvements shall occur
outside the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records and submits a
recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or slope easement or agreement from the
owners of the affected properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope
easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must
either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading
will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial
conformance from both the City Engineer and Planning Director.
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
site plan. The offer shall be made by a separate recorded document. All land so offered
shall be offered free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost. Streets that
are 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 provide the design of all drainage systems to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. All private drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. Developer shall
pay the standard improvement plancheck and inspection fees.
Developer shall execute and record a City standard development Improvement
Agreement to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public
improvements shown on the site plan and the following improvements including, but not
limited to paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, medians, signing and striping,
trafic control, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities,
sewer, water, fire hydrants, street lights, retaining walls and reclaimed water, to City
Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
A. Potable water system and appurtenances.
B. Sewer system and appurtenances.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of
development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
PC RES0 NO. 5234 -6- ad
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
21
28
31.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
The emergency access gate from Village “X” as shown in the site plan is specifically
not approved. The access shall be open for egress and ingress at all times.
Developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, latest version.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit for City approval a “Storm Water Management Plan
(SWMP).” The SWMP shall be in compliance with the NPDES permit requirements
and provisions as established by the San Diego Region of the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board and the City of Carlsbad. The SWMP shall address
measures to reduce to the maximum extent possible storm water pollutant runoff at
both construction and post-construction stages of the project. The SWMP shall:
A. Identify construction activity and post-development on-site pollutants of
concern.
B. Recommend structural and non-structural Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to remove said pollutants.
C. Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up.
Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee and resident
education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of
pollutants.
D. Ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity.
E. Incorporate measures to ensure-development runoff rates and velocities from
the site are not increased as a result of the project.
Additionally, concurrent with the SWMP, the applicant shall submit for City
approval a “Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).” The SWPPP shall
be in compliance with current requirements and provisions established by the
California Water Resources Control Board.
Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install street lights along all public and private street
frontages abutting andor within the project site in conformance with City of Carlsbad
Standards.
Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install sidewalks along all public streets abutting the
project site in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards.
Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install wheelchair ramps at the public street comers
abutting the project site in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards.
Prior to building permit or grading permit issuance, whichever occurs first Developer
shall have design, apply for and obtain approval of the City Engineer, for the structural
section for the access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with City Standards
due to truck access through the parking area andor aisles with an ADT greater than 500.
The structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted together with
required R-value soil test information and approved by the City Engineer as part of the
building or grading plan review whichever occurs first.
PC RES0 NO. 5234 -7- a7
43. Developer shall incorporate into the grading/improvement plans the design for the project
drainage outfall end treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road for
maintenance purposes is not practical. These end treatments shall be designed so as to
prevent vegetation growth from obstructing the pipe outfall. Designs could consist of a
modified outlet headwall consisting of an extended concrete spillway section with
longitudinal curbing and/or radially designed rip-rap, or other means deemed appropriate,
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Water District:
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
so.
51.
52.
...
The Developer shall design and construct public facilities within public right-of-way or
within minimum 20-feet wide easements granted to the District or the City of Carlsbad.
At the discretion of the District Engineer, wider easements may be required for adequate
maintenance, access and/or joint utility purposes.
Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diego County Water
Authority capacitv chards) prior to issuance of Building Permits.
The Developer shall prepare a colored recycled water use map and submit this map to the
Planning Department for processing and approval by the Deputy City Engineer -
Utilities.
The Developer shall design landscape and irrigation plans utilizing recycled water as a
source. Said plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the District Engineer.
The Developer shall install potable water and recycled water services and meters at a
location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be
reflected on public improvement plans.
The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location 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.
PC RES0 NO. 5234 -8- a8
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
Code Reminders:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions o
the following:
f local ordinances, including but not limited to
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 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.
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 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
“feeskxactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feeskxactions. 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 feeslexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
...
PC RES0 NO. 5234 -9- a9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of July 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Segall
ABSTAIN: None
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
; ,,\,[c,l,y,l c !,* _I -4 ,i'<&,-!
MiCHAEL J. HOLkMILdER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5234 -10- 30
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 4
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: July 17,2002
Application complete date: May 6, 2002
Project Planner: Michael Grim
Project Engineer: Frank Jimeno
SUBJECT: SDP 01-05 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y- Request for a Negative
Declaration and a Site Development Plan to allow the construction of a 106-unit
multifamily apartment development, affordable to lower-income households,
within Village Y of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, generally located on the
southwest side of future College Boulevard, south of Carlsbad Village Drive in
Local Facilities Management Zone 7.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5233,
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director,
and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5234, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
of Site Development Plan SDP 01-05, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The proposal involves the construction of a 106-unit multifamily apartment project, affordable to
lower income households, within Village Y of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area. Village Y
will be created with the recordation of the Calavera Hills Phase I1 subdivision map and will be
graded in accordance with that map. Pursuant to Section 21.53.120 of the Zoning Ordinance, a
Site Development Plan is required for all affordable housing developments. The project meets
all applicable regulations and staff has no issues with the proposal.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Calavera Hills, LLC, requesting approval of a Site Development Plan to allow the development
of a 106-unit multifamily apartment project within Village Y of the Calavera Hills Master Plan.
All of the proposed apartments would be affordable to lower income households. The 8.16 acre
Village Y site was formed by the Master Tentative Map and Master Plan Amendment for
Calavera Hills Phase I1 (CT 00-02NP 15O(H)/EIR 98-02) and includes both the affordable
housing site and an approximately 1.0 acre Community Facilities site. According to the Master
Plan, a maximum of 140 attached residential units could be placed on the site. The actual
Village Y lot will be created upon the recordation of the Master Tentative Map for Calavera Hills
Phase I1 and will be mass graded in accordance with that map. Development of Village Y with
apartments can proceed once the Master Tentative Map has been recorded and the site has been
graded in accordance with that map.
Since the development of Caiavera Hills Phase I1 has yet to occur, Village Y is currently
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y - SDP 01-05
July 17, 2002
Page 2
surrounded on three sides by vacant land. The project site is bound by the future extension of
College Boulevard and the future single-family development in Village X to the east, the future
single-family development in Village X to the south, the existing single-family residential
development known as The Cape to the west, and the future extension of College Boulevard and
the future single-family development in Village W to the north.
As stated above, Village Y also includes an approximately 1.0 acre Community Facility site
located in the northem portion of the property, which is not proposed for development at this
time but will be graded along with the mass grading of Village Y and the remainder of Phase 11.
This site is designated Community Facility (CF) in the City’s General Plan. The residential
portion of the Village Y site is designated Residential High (RH) in the General Plan, allowing
up to 19 dwelling units per developable acre. The project site is zoned P-C (Planned
Community) and, according to the Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP 150(H)), the site is to be
developed in accordance with the R-3 - Multiple Family Residential Zone, except as modified in
the Master Plan.
The proposed affordable apartment development would consist of 14 residential buildings, a
recreatiodadministration building, 242 surface parking spaces, private streets and driveways,
and three common recreation areas. The residential buildings would be two-stories and measure
a maximum of 28 feet in height; the recreatiodadministration building would be one story and
measure a maximum of 18 feet in height. The buildings would contain a mix of one-, two-, and
three-bedroom units. The project architecture would follow a Mediterranean theme with stucco
walls and tile roofs, incorporating strong relief and a variety of materials and colors similar to
those in the existing Villa Loma apartment development located at the northwest comer of El
Camino Real and Cassia Road. The proposed density is 14.9 dwelling per acre and the total
building coverage for the project is approximately 19 percent (or 1.37 acres). There would be
three recreation areas with both passive and active recreation features, including a basketball
court, play structures, turf areas, skateboard area, and a small amphitheatre area. In addition to
rental offices, the administratiodrecreation building would include a recreation room, kitchen,
and restrooms. In addition, laundry facilities would be included in the site.
The proposed development would necessitate approximately 8,200 cubic yards of balanced
grading subsequent to the mass grading that creates Village Y. The site development would also
include several retaining walls, with a maximum height of six feet. The project would take
access off of the future extension of College Boulevard and would generate 848 average daily
traffic trips, which can be accommodated in the future major arterial roadway. The project
would be required to comply with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit through the implementation of Best Management Practices, thus reducing the
amount of pollutants entering the public storm drain system. Due to the project’s proximity to
College Boulevard, the Master Plan required that a site-specific noise study be conducted. That
noise study indicates that noise attenuation walls are needed along the project’s frontage with
College Boulevard. These walls would range in size from four feet to nine feet high and are
incorporated into the project design.
The Calavera Hills Village Y project is subject to the following regulations:
A. General Plan;
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y - SDP 01-05
July 17,2002
Page 3
B. Calavera Hills Master Plan (MF' 150(H));
C. R-3 - Multiple-Family Residential Zone (Chapter 21.16 of the Zoning Ordinance);
D. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance); and
E. Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project's
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and
tables.
A. General Plan
The Calavera Hills Village Y apartment project is consistent with the applicable policies and
programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the residential development request are
the Land Use, Circulation, Noise, Housing, Open Space and Conservation, and Public Safety
elements. Table 1 below indicates how the project complies with these particular elements of the
General Plan.
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
Element
Land Use
Circulation
Noise
Use Classification, Goal, Obiective or Program
Site is designated for high density
(RH) residential development.
Minimize the number of access points to major and prime arterials
to enhance the functioning of these
streets and thoroughfares.
Require that a noise study be submitted with all residential
projects over five units. Enforce
the City policy that 60 dBA CNEL is the maximum exterior noise
level for residential units.
Proposed Use and Improvements
Proposed residential density of
14.9 dwelling units per acre is below the 19 dwelling per acre
maximum allowed by the City's
Growth Control Point for the RH
designation.
The project design includes only
one connection to College Boulevard, a major arterial, and
provides secondary access via a connection with an existing local
street.
The project includes a noise
reduce traffic noise from College study with recommendations to
Boulevard to 60 dBA CNEL.
Compliance
Yes
Yes
Yes
33
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y - SDP 01-05
July 17,2002
Page 4
Housing
Open Space and
Conservation
Public Safety
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
Provide sufficient new, affordable
housing to meet the needs of
groups with special requirements.
Preserve open space in as natural a
state as possible.
Provision of emergency water
systems and all-weather access
roads.
The entire apartment project is affordable to lower income
households and provides for the
affordable housing requirements of Phase I1 of the Calavera Hills
Master Plan area.
The project is confined to the
the Master Tentative Map and no
area graded in accordance with
encroachment into the adjacent
open space is proposed.
All necessary water mains, fire
hydrants, and appurtenances
must be installed prior to occupancy of any unit and all -
weather access roads will be
maintained throughout
construction.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Given the above, the Calavera Hills Village Y apartment project is consistent with the City's
General Plan.
B. Calavera Hills Master Plan
The proposed 106-unit apartment project is within Village Y of Calavera Hills Phase I1 and,
therefore, subject to the provisions of the Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP 150(H)). Table 2
below summarizes the project's compliance with the requirements of the Master Plan.
TABLE 2 - CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN CONFORMANCE
Standard Conformance Proposed
Allowed Uses:
Maximum of 140 attached residential Proposed project is 106 attached
Arterial Setbacks:
single lot. project.
multifamily apartment units on one units in a single lot apartment
Yes
Minimum 40 foot setback from All structures are setback a minimum Yes
College Boulevard right-of-way. of 40 feet from College Boulevard
right-of-way.
Building Setbacks:
Minimum five (5) foot setbacks from
(5) feet from either the curb line or private driveways.
Yes All structures are setback at least five
the sidewalk of the private drives.
34
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y - SDP 01-05
July 17,2002
Page 5
TABLE 2 - CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN CONFORMANCE
Standard
Building Height:
Maximum building height of 35 feet with a 3: 12 minimum roof pitch.
Recreation Area:
Minimum of 100 square feet per unit of common active recreation area
(for 106 units, a minimum of 10,600
square feet is required).
Hillside Development:
All structures must conform to the
Hillside Development Ordinance’s top of slope setback of 0.7 feet
horizontal per one (1) foot vertical.
Proposed
The tallest proposed structure would measure 28 feet in height, with a
minimum roof Ditch of 3:12.
The three proposed recreation areas contain a total of 13,265 square feet
of common active recreation areas.
As shown on Exhibit “B,” dated July
17,2002, all structures meet the minimum 0.7 foot horizontal per one
(1) foot vertical top of slope setback.
Conformance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Given the above, the proposed apartment project is consistent with the provisions of the Calavera
Hills Master Plan.
C. Multiple Family Residential Zone
According to the Calavera Hills Master Plan, Village Y is to develop in accordance with the
Multiple Family Residential (R-3) zoning designation, except as modified in the Master Plan.
Since the Master Plan already specifies the allowed uses, building setbacks, and building height,
the only standards remaining are building separation and total lot coverage. The R-3 zone
requires that all buildings used for human habitation be located a minimum of ten (IO) feet apart.
The closest building separation within the project is 15 feet, with most buildings being located at
least 20 feet apart. The R-3 zone also allows up to 60 percent lot coverage; the Village Y
apartment project proposes a maximum of 19 percent building coverage. Given the above, the
proposed apartment development is consistent with the Multiple Family Residential Zone.
D. Growth Management Ordinance
The Calavera Hills Village Y apartment project is subject to the provisions of the Growth
Management Program, as contained in Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance. Table 3 below
details the project’s conformance with the requirements of the Growth Management Program.
TABLE 3 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
Standard Compliance ImDactslStandards
City Administration
Yes 106 EDU Wastewater Treatment
Yes 196.55 Library
Yes 368.53 sq. A.
33-
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y - SDP 01-05
July 17,2002
Page 6
I TABLE 3 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE I
Standard Compliance ImpactdStandards
Parks
PLDA B Drainage
Yes 0.74 acres
Yes I circulation I 848 ADT I Yes I
Fire
Yes Carlsbad Unified Schools
Yes Satisfied through MP lSO(H) Open Space
Yes Station #3
Sewer Collection System I 106EDU
Water I 23,320 GPD
Yes
Yes I The project is 29 units below the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance. I
E. Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan.
The project site lies within Local Facilities Management Zone 7. There are no special conditions
or requirements within the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan that apply to this residential
project. The project is conditioned to pay the appropriate public facilities fee, water and sewer
connection fees, and traffic impact fees. The project site is located within a Mello Roos District
for the Carlsbad Unified School District that covers their proportionate obligation for school
fees. All facility improvements necessary to accommodate the development will be in place
prior to, or concurrent with, development. Therefore, the Calavera Hills Village Y residential
development is consistent with the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The potential environmental impacts associated with the creation and grading of the Village Y
site were reviewed through the Environmental Impact Report for the Calavera Hills Phase I1
Master Tentative Map (EIR 98-02, SCH No. 99111082), certified January 15, 2002. The
Environmental Impact Report also reviewed the impacts associated with the development of
Village Y with up to 140 apartment units, 34 units more than is proposed with this Site
Development Plan. This environmental document also reviewed the potential environmental
impacts associated with the hture extension of College Boulevard, which will provide frontage
and access to Village Y. Since the development of Village Y cannot proceed until the Master
Tentative Map has been recorded and the site has been graded in accordance with that map, the
attached environmental analysis deals only with the development of Village Y with the proposed
affordable apartment project.
The proposed Calavera Hills Village Y apartment project, as designed and conditioned, would
not create any significant adverse environmental impacts. The project is consistent with the
applicable regulations; will be graded in accordance with the City’s Grading Ordinance and City
Standards; will comply with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit;
will provide all facilities necessary to serve the development prior to, or concurrent with,
construction; and will provide noise attenuation walls along the College Boulevard frontage.
310
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y - SDP 01-05
July 17,2002
Page 7
Based upon this evaluation the Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration on June 18,2002
in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State
Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. No comments
were received during the 20-day public review period.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5233 (Neg Dec)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5234 (SDP)
3. Location Map
4. Disclosure Statement
5. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
6. Background Data Sheet
7. Exhibits “A” - “IT, dated July 17,2002.
MG:cs:mh
37
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which \\ill require
discretionary action on the part of the Ciry Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, sydicate, in this and any other county, city and county. city
Person is defmed as "Any individual. firm, co-pamership, joint venture, association, social club. fraternal
municipaliry, disnicr or otber 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 properr). owner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corDoration or oartnershio. include the
. . INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES. PLEASE INDICATE NON-
names. title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
APPLICABLE @/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned comoration. include the
names, titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessar& lavera Hills 11. LLC.
Person a California limited CorpIPart
Title liability company
Address- ritv. CA 91 g 5 0 Address
Title 2727. Hoover Avenue -
2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (Le,
partnership. tenants in common. non-profit. corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
comoration or Da'rtnershiD, include the names, title. addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE @/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned corDoration. include the names. titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
pape may be attached if necessary.)
Person McMillin Corflpanfese ..
Title company
Address Nati& ritv. (-A 91 y 5 0 Address P Mar. (L Y .II 0
UelCiWCiLe 1111,LLrCl
2727 Hoover Avenue 12765 Poiqte 3e+ Mar, Ste. 2OU _.
38
2075 LaS Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad. CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 @
_. J. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (I) or (2) above is a nonorofit oreanization or a trust. list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profil
organization or as uustee or beneficiary of the.
Non ProfitiTrust N/A Non Profiflrust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Boards. Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) moml~s? 0 Yes HNo Ifyes. 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
Signature of owner ate Signature of applicantldate Signature of owner ate P
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/appIicant-s agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of ownerlapplicant's agent
~. H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/96 Page 2 of 2 39
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
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: Calavera Hills Village Y - SDP 01-05
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 7 GENERAL PLAN: RH
ZONING: P-C
DEVELOPERS NAME: Calavera Hills 11. LLC
ADDRESS: 2727 Hoover Ave. National City. CA 91950
PHONE NO.: 619-336-3138 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: part of 168-040-29 & 168-050-27
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 7.13
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: July, 2003
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 368.53
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 196.55
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 106 EDU
Park: Demand in Acreage = 0.74 acres
Drainage: Identify Drainage Basin = B
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 848
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = Station No. 3
Open Space: Acreage Provided = Satisfied w/
MP 150 fH)
Schools: Carlsbad Unified
Student demand: Elementary = 27; Middle = 8; High = 15
Sewer: Demands in EDU 106
Water: Demand in GPD = 23,320
The project is 29 units the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: SDP 01 -05
CASE NAME: Calavera Hills Village Y
APPLICANT: Calavera Hills 11, LLC
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a Site Development Plan to allow the construction
of a 106 unit multifamily auartment development, affordable to lower-income households. within
Village Y of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. generally located on the southwest side of future
College Boulevard. south of Carlsbad Village Drive
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A uortion of Lots D and E of the Rancho Agua Hedionda. in the
City of Carlsbad. Countv of San Diego. State of California. according to the uartition Mau
thereof No. 823. filed in the Office of the County Recorder of said Countv on November 16,
1896.
APN: Portions of 168-040-29 & 168-050-27 Acres: 7.13 Proposed No. of LotsLJnits: 106
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Residential Hieh (RH)
Density Allowed: 15 - 19 ddac Density Proposed: 14.9 du.ac
Existing Zone: P-C Proposed Zone: P-C
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning General Plan Current Land Use
Site P-c RH Vacant
North P-C RMH Vacant
South P-C os Vacant
East P-c os Vacant
West P-C RLM Single family residential
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 106
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
[XI Negative Declaration, issued June 18,2002
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
0 Other,
Planning Commission Minutes July 17. 2002 DRAFT e VWT
9. SDP 01-05 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y - Request for a Negative Declaration and a Site
Development Pian to allow the construction of a 106-unit multifamily apartment development,
affordable to lower-income households, within Village Y of the Calavera Hills Master Plan,
generally located on the southwest side of future College Boulevard, south of Carlsbad Village
Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 7.
Mr. Wayne introduced Item #9 and stated that the Commission's action is advisory and would be
forwarded to the City Council. He stated the presentation would be made by Michael Grim and Frank
Jimeno.
Chairperson Trigas opened the public hearing.
for approval of a Negative Declaration and a Site Development Plan for Calavera Hills Village Y. He
Michael Grim, Senior Planner, stated that the item is a request for a recommendation to the City Council
provided a site description stating that the residential portion, 7.13 acres, is currently undeveloped. It will
be graded in accordance with the Master Tentative Map for Calavera Hills Phase II and will eventually be
accessed by the future extension of College Boulevard and a future local street within Village X. Village Y
includes a 1-acre Community Facilities site, however, that portion is not part of this proposal.
the proposed density is actually 14.6. The zoning is Planned Community, which means it refers to an
Mr. Grim stated that the General Plan designation is Residential High allowing up to 19 units per acre and
underlying Master Plan, in this case the Calavera Hills Master Plan. According to that master plan the site
is to be developed in accordance with the R-3 Multi-Family Residential Zoning, except as modified in the
plan.
Mr. Grim reminded everyone that there were previous actions on the property. In December 2001 and
January 2002 the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed a number of entitlements and
approvals for the Calavera Hills Phase II project. Those actions included an Environmental Impact
and Bridge and Thoroughfare District #4. Phase II was approved by the City Council on January 15,2002
Report, Master Plan Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, Master Tentative Map,
and Village Y was officially designated as the affordable housing site within the Master Plan and the
Environmental Impact Report for Phase II. The Master Plan allows 140 units and the proposed
development comes in well below that.
Mr. Grim stated that the proposed actions include a Site Development Pian that will determine Master Plan
consistency of the site and building design and a Negative Declaration for the proposed apartment
development.
parking spaces. The site would include an administration and recreation building and three common
Mr. Grim said there would be a total of 106 units affordable to lower income households and 242 surface
facilities, and a basketball half court with some resident gardening areas. The 106 units will be in 14 two-
recreation areas. The proposed recreation areas are a small theatrical plaza, a turf bowl with barbecue
will be the same as the Villa Loma Apartment development and all buildings will meet the top of slope
story residential buildings with a mixture of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. The architectural style
setback required by the Hillside Development Ordinance.
Mr. Grim stated that Staff is recommending approval of the project because it is consistent with the
various elements of the General Plan, all standards and design criteria of the Calavera Hills Master Plan,
the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan, the R-3 Multi-Family Designation, the Parking Ordinance,
documentation is also consistent with CEQA.
Growth Management Ordinance as well as all other applicable ordinances. The environmental
Applicant, Brian Milich. Corky McMillin Companies, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, stated he was
pleased to be presenting affordable housing as their first project. He thanked Mike Grim and Frank Jimeno for the work they did to get them to this point and also thanked Debbie Fountain and Craig Ruiz for their work with the Housing Department. He reiterated that the Master Plan provided for up to 140 units
and up to 3-story buildings and they have substantial lower density with 106 units and all 2-story buildings.
This addressed a number of concerns the Cape homeowners had in the past. He stated they think the
future College Boulevard, which will provide access to the corridor, and there will be a bus stop
site is very well located relative to the neighbors, in most cases 20 feet below them, and adjacent to the
immediately adjacent to the project. It's within about three-quarters of a mile to the new Calavera Hills 42
Planning Commission Minutes July 17, 2002 Page 12
Elementary School and the future middle school. It's also near the future community facilities site, and
they have received early interest in a daycare facility on that site. In addition, the site is close to open
space corridors and trail systems.
They have over 15,000 square feet of active or passive recreational uses. He stated they have been
Mr. Milich said parking exceeds the requirement and over a third of the site is devoted to open space.
working with the Housing Department to finalize the Site Development Plan and added that Mr. Jim
Schmidt of Chelsea Development Corporation, the developer of the site, was present. He said that
Chelsea has already started the process of obtaining the necessary financing for the project.
Mr. Milich stated there were a number of Cape homeowners present and believed they were going to
address the issue of the location of the proposed basketball court on the property. He said this came as
both an idea of theirs and a suggestion of the Housing Department to put an active use that catered to the teenage population. They believed it was in an area that would not impact the Cape homeowners but if
they or the Planning Commission are concerned with it, they're open to suggestions on some other
recreational use for that property. He said it will not be lighted, it will be fenced, and can be locked.
Mr. Milich said they're using the same architects who did the Villa Loma project that was very well
received and ensuring that they have the same building articulation and color theme so that it is an
attractive project. He added they had some very good experience with Chelsea Development Corporation
on another mixed-use project in the Chula Vista area.
Chairperson Trigas asked if the 106 units fulfill their requirement. Mr. Milich replied that it does.
Commissioner Baker asked if Chelsea Development would be the management company running the site
and have onsite management. Mr. Milich replied that they would be.
Commissioner Whitton asked what the proximity of the basketball court is to other homes. Mr. Milich
replied that he believed the closest home to the court would be about 180 feet. He pointed it out on the
exhibit and indicated where the closest home would be.
Commissioner Dominguez asked where the tree line would be in relation to that area. Mr. Milich replied
the trees would be about two thirds of the way up the slope. He added that there will be a 5-6 foot
wrought iron fence built along the property line to divide the two properties.
they don't have any great ideas for an active use. He said they have some volleyball court on the grassy
Commissioner White asked what the other ideas are to replace the basketball court. Mr. Milich replied
area and they could expand that, they have a play structure that could be turned into a more passive use, or they could do something like Bocci ball or a horseshoe pit. He said at the time it seemed like basketball
was a nice use and it seemed the area was set aside enough that there wouldn't be an impact.
Commissioner Trigas asked about night lighting on the court. Mr. Milich said there are no plans for night
lighting on the court.
Commissioner White asked if someone could speak as to how desirable basketball is as an'activity for the
type of client that will be living in the affordable housing.
Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director, stated that in Villa Loma, their first affordable housing project with 344 units, originally did not include any type of activities for teenagers, and they started to create their own entertainment which wasn't as desirable. The owner of the property did an
analysis within their own development to determine what the most attractive use was to teenagers from an
active standpoint and the basketball court was what won. She said it doesn't mean it's the only type of
they would like to see some type of activity for all age groups for recreational amenities, and they're open
use that could go in, but they found it was one of the uses that seemed to be most desirable. She said
to suggestions if someone has an idea they think would be better or be more desirable. They used the
basketball court as an example because that's what seemed to be most popular with the teens. A
skateboard park was another one, but that was probably less desirable than a basketball court.
Chairperson Trigas stated that she thinks basketball is a wholesome activity for young men in their 20's
and 30's as well as for fathers and sons.
43
Planning Commission Minutes July 17, 2002 Page 13
Commissioner Baker asked if the basketball court solved some of the problems at Villa Loma. Ms.
Fountain replied that it did.
Commissioner White asked if it would be possible to have hours posted that could be enforced. She said
she is concerned about noise at 7:OO a.m. and 9:00 and 1O:OO p.m. Ms Fountain replied that the
management company could make that decision as to what they think is appropriate on the site. She said
she was sure there would be limited hours that the management company could choose to put on. She
added that the Planning Commission could choose to put operational hours on it that the management
company would be obliged to live by, but it may be better to let the management company set the hours.
Commissioner Trigas asked if the landscaping would buffer the noise or if there's more they could do. Mr.
Milich said there may be more they could do. They had the open fence because they wanted the open
feel. Generally landscaping doesn't do a lot to buffer sound and they could put some type of solid wall
to explore other ideas and involve the Housing Commission and Chelsea Development.
around the basketball court area. He added that he would be happy to meet with the Cape homeowners
Commissioner Heineman asked how close the basketball court is to the nearest units in the complex. Mr.
Milich replied it's about 500 feet. He added that there will be a sound wall at the top of the Cape project
because of the noise from College Boulevard.
Sean Rokni, 2955 Lancaster Road, Carlsbad, stated he was present to voice their objection to the
already a recreational area to the west in Calavera Hills Community Center that has many basketball
basketball court. He said they believe that basketball is a good use of recreational time, but there is
courts and is in close proximity to this community. He said it wouldn't be a huge burden for the residents
of the new development to walk to that area and play basketball. He said they feel it would be unfair to
their community to have two recreational areas on both sides of the community. They already deal with all
the issues because the other area is lit and they play basketball until 1O:OO and hang out after hours. He
closer to them than the actual community that's going to use it.
requested that the Commission reconsider the proposal, especially since the basketball court is much
Katie Wheeler, 4653 Woodstock, Carlsbad. stated they're concerned about any noise that might happen,
however, she would like to have them contemplate not letting it be occupied until College is open from El
Camino to Highway 78. otherwise it would be adding 104 units worth more traffic onto Tamarack and
Carlsbad Village Drive. She asked what kind of guarantee do they have that will be a requirement before
this area can be occupied.
Gordon French, 2913 Lancaster Road, Carlsbad, stated he favors Village Y and thinks it's a wonderful
would be some recreation facility for teenagers in that community because the alternative is very
asset to the community. He said he personally has no objection to the basketball court and hopes there
street from the other buildings at the Cape. He said to his knowledge there has never been a complaint
undesirable. He said the basketball court at Calavera Park is used very intensely and it's only across the
from the Cape owners caused by the people on the basketball court. He thought it has been a very
pleasant experience for everyone. He said the baseball games, and especially the girls softball games,
facilities for the young people.
create a great deal more noise than the boys playing basketball. He said he favors any recreational
project. The resident views will be affected, road access and traffic caused by this project will be a lot
Bob Seamans, 2921 Lancaster Road, Carlsbad. stated that his property value will be affected by this
more than anyone realizes. He said when you put 350 people and about 280 automobiles in your backyard, you're not going to like it. He suggested putting in a nice swimming pool to keep the people
entertained; basketball Is a noisy sport and he doesn't want it 60 yards from his back porch. He said the
noise and traffic levels that are going to be generated by this project is something that this Council has to
consider as they represent the people that live there.
Warren Jenks, 4548 Cape Cod Circle, Carlsbad, said he has lots of experience with kids going over
wrought iron fences and he would like to see a solid fence along there and a much higher fence than 5
feet. In addition, the park is at the opposite corner of his section and there is no sidewalk for the kids to
fence.
get there and they're going to come straight through his area over the fence if they don't put up a good
44
Planning Commission Minutes July 17. 2002 Page 14
Marilyn Hope, 4558 Cape Cod Circle, Carlsbad, stated she was concerned when she saw 242 parking
spaces and only 106 units. She said that tells her that there's going to be a lot of multi-family people
possibly living in one unit, or 3 cars per unit. She was concerned that with the magnitude of cars and
people having no access going in or out, that they can see, they would be going over their 5-foot fence. She said a 5-fOOt fence isn't going to stop anybody anytime.
Chairperson Trigas asked if the applicant would like to respond to any of the comments.
Mr. Milich stated that in regard to building the units prior to College and Cannon being completed. there is
a requirement that was imposed by the Planning Commission and the City Council on the Calavera Hills
Master Plan. The requirement is that no more than 2,500 ADT are permitted to be built before the road is
completed and those units can only be built if the road is under construction and making progress toward completion.
and they are providing 242. They think it's good to have a few extra parking spaces but if the Planning In regard to the issue of access and parking, Mr. Milich said the City requirement is 236 parking spaces
Commission wanted to reduce those to the requirement, they could do that. He said there are two points of access to the project that meet all the City requirements and neither go through the Cape project.
basketball court. Staff could also prepare a condition that requires the developer to redesign that site with Mr. Grim stated that they could involve the Housing and Redevelopment Director on alternatives to the
an alternative use to the satisfaction of the Housing Director and Planning Director prior to issuance of any
building permits. He said they could change the timeline or the wording as they see fit.
by the project, Mr. Grim stated those are Master Plan issues that were addressed with Calavera Hills
Regarding comments that property values and views are being affected by the project and traffic caused
Phase II. He said there is less traffic generated by this project than the maximum allowed and approved
would not care whether it is a solid or view fence. Apartment projects are different from ownership by the City Council in January. He stated the City allows up to a 6-foot high fence in residential areas and
projects in that there is an active management agency on board to manage the behavior of the people.' If
there are people going over the fence and cutting through the Cape he is sure the management would
resolve that. There is main access to the project off College Boulevard and access off the Village X local
street. Neither access would involve any necessary circulation through the Cape.
Regarding the question about El Camino to 78, Mr. Wayne said they don't control College between
Cannon and El Camino Real and that may occur at a far later date. Calavera Hills is required to put in
College to Cannon and Cannon to El Camino Real. Cannon west of El Camino Real is now under construction so that is a logical pathway to the freeway and not actually College all the way to El Camino
Real.
when they have that opening or it is substantially undelway.
Commissioner Baker asked about the barrier to 78. Mr. Wayne said the barrier is planned to come down
Chairperson Trigas asked how far the current basketball courts in Calaveras Park are from the proposed
units. Mr. Milich said it's about three-quarters of a mile from Village Y and there will be sidewalk the whole
way. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the lot marked El is empty and kids could cut across that lot for
the closest route. Mr. Milich said they could but they do have temporary fencing up.
Chairperson Trigas closed public testimony.
MOTION
ACTION:
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5233, recommending
Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, that the Planning
adoption of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5234, recommending approval of Site
conditions contained therein.
Development Plan SDP 01-05, based upon the findings and subject to the
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission Minutes July 17. 2002 Page 15
Commissioner Baker stated she would like to see an alternate use for the recreational area other than
basketball considering the fact there is a community park within three-quarters of a mile. Other than that she said she likes the design and thinks it‘s great to have more affordable housing within the community.
Commissioner Dominguez stated he generally concurs with Commissioner White’s statements. He said
he was generally in support until he realized the neighboring houses were closer than the project houses.
With the community center being as close as it is he would support the deletion of the basketball court and
that some other use be designated for it.
Chairperson Trigas asked the Commission to comment if they should allow the Planning Director and
Housing Director to come to an agreeable alternative use rather than having the Planning Commission
dictate it.
Commissioner Dominguez said he thinks that would be best.
a basketball thinks it‘s great they can go three quarters of a mile to play. He added that he thinks the Commissioner Heineman commented he feels the same way and having had experience with the thud of
project is good.
Commissioner Whitton said he concurs with the project but not with the basketball court in its current
location, but if it could be moved somewhere else where it‘s incorporated further into the community, he
would support it.
Commissioner Baker stated she would like to see the basketball court moved to a different location to alleviate some of their concerns because she thinks kids that don’t have enough to do are going to cause
more of problem than having a basketball court.
Chairperson Trigas asked if they could have an amendment to the motion indicating that the decision on
the alternative recreational uses be left up to the Planning and Housing Departments.
Commissioner White said if they move the basketball court from its current projected location, you may alleviate the noise for the neighbors, but if it‘s moved anywhere on the site then there may be some
people who live there that may not want to listen to a basketball. She said she thinks it needs to be made
very clear about what times of day it can be used because they generate a tremendous amount of
repetitive noise.
Chairperson Trigas stated that Staff has their input and concerns and asked that they find a workable
solution, either with or without a basketball court, that will allow for some recreational use for all ages
within the project.
Commissioner Dominguez wanted to confirm that there will be onsite management in the project. Mr
Grim said that‘s correct.
Mr. Grim proposed the following wording be added as a condition. “The proposed basketball court in
andlor redesign the basketball court location to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment
Recreation Area C is not approved. The Developer shall redesign the project recreation areas to replace
Director and Planning Director prior to issuance of any building permits for the development.”
Chairperson Trigas asked if that‘s satisfactory to everyone. Commissioner Heineman said he didn’t think
Chairperson Trigas said that some Commissioners say if it‘s doable the basketball court could stay.
it‘s satisfactory because it still leaves basketball and Commission White does not like that aspect of it.
Commissioner Heineman said he is in favor of eliminating basketball, period. Commissioner Baker said
she doesn’t know what else they could create.
Chairperson Trigas said the concern is the noise factor and if they cannot resolve that, they won’t have a basketball court. She asked if they could accept that statement if it can be resolved somehow.
operation.
Commissioner White said she could accept that statement; her main concern is the time and hours of
Mr. Wayne commented that he thinks their direction is clear. He added that basketball was a desirable recreational facility and if it is internal to the residents of this housing, it really is the job of the onsite
4b
Planning Commission Minutes July 17, 2002 Page 16
management company. The Planning Commission can give them some guidance on hours of operation
but if it's a problem for their residents they will complain and the management company will enforce it.
Commissioner Heineman said if it's moved too close to the units it will affect the people in the housing,
and in its present location it will affect the people across the street or up the hill.
Mr. Wayne said they will try to figure out what will be most acceptable and if they can relocate the
that the management company wants to make their people happy and doesn't want it to get out of control.
basketball court somewhere that makes sense, that also might be desirable. Chairperson Trigas added
hears what the Commission is saying.
Mr. Milich stated they will make sure the management company is involved in the discussions and he
Chairperson Trigas stated they are asking that it be moved to the neighbors internally because that's who
it's serving, and not affect the neighbors externally. If it can be done that way, then the basketball court
under regulation could be an option; if it can't be done then an alternative would have to be found.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION:
The motion stands as amended with the following new condition: The proposed
basketball court in Recreation Area C is not approved. The Developer shall
court location to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director and
redesign the project recreation areas to replace and/or redesign the basketball
Planning Director prior to issuance of any building permits for the development.
VOTE: 6-0-0
AYES: Chairperson Trigas. Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, White, and
Whitton
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
/-18 lb, grn
. ANDAITEMI 18% 17 /6, 88,
e: Myu crq- cltr-
CrtrAttOnul w- PcnulLi
ALL RECEIVED q-/o-oL2
Secretarial Services
(30 yrr. FICC Srcrnanul Exprnencc) . -I September 6,2002
TO: Honorable Mayor Claude Lewis, Ray Patchette, City Manager,
Councilmembers: Julianne Nygaard, Ramona Finella, Matt Hall, Ann Kulchin
I have been attending your City Planning Workshops and City Council Meetings for the past
3 years concerning the rezoning and developments of Villages E-1 and Village Y at The
Cape in Calavera Hills. I commend you & your Staff in your dedication for always considerkg the best iz5xcsts cf it's citizens - it is "oxgoing" which demands nany extra
hours over and beyond the call of duty .. . . you all do an excellent job. At present, McMillin Developers are within a few months of proceeding with their development on E-1 which is my main concern. Future College Boulevard (when completed) will be within 10 ft.
of our southeasterly boundary at Ridgefield Avenue where I live.
Many of our backyards borders the northeastern boundary of our community next to the proposed E-1. McMillin's development plans presently calls for increasing the grading level
to a height of 9 ft. above our present ground level before erecting their 3-story Condos. This was never pointed out to us by the City Planning Staff (Eric Munoz & Don Turner in those
early years) at Staff & Council Meetings or by McMillin Builders. PLEASE NOTE !
1) California is noted for mudslides during a rainy season - drainage will at a
high risk inasmuch as Calavera Hills sets on top of hard mountain shale. Built-up land will easily loosen along with rain & run down the sloped hillside
into our backyards jeopardizing our yards & homes. (Why 9 ft. - no one wants a neighbor looking down into their private domain - OR, their soil !)
2) McMillin had previously told us there would be no windows facing The Cape to preserve the privacy of each homeowner. NOW, their new drawing plans call for windows facing our backyards. (If windows are a MUST, why not
stained, block windows.?)
Q i
Many of us homeowners at The Cape take pride in our backyard, landscaped gardens with
fountains and ponds which brings a calming & aesthetic touch of nature to our lives after fighting the bitter battle of commuting on our freeways to reach the safety of our homes ._. ._ our little comer of the world ! Isn't it enough that we must bear the impact of
busyhoisy future College Boulevard so close to our backyards ? Please take your time to review and give this concern your immediate attention to keep our neighborhood the fine
community that we all enjoy. Thank you for reading my message !
Very truly yours,
cc: Mike Grimm, Planning Dept. Pau't De&+. &a& me .i&&+! -&&) 720-0246
76 h
Y
, , . . . , , 1, Janice Breitenfeld - Calavera Hills Village Y.ppt ,, . .. . , , , . . , . . , , ,
. , ,,, .. , , , .. , , , ,, . -~
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 6% 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego Rece,veci %-33.-0&
I am a citizen of the United States and a Proof of Publication of
resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the
age of eighteen years and not a party to or
interested in the above-entitled matter.iI am the
principal clerk of the printer of i
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have
been adjudicated newspapers of general
circulation by the Superior Court of the County
of San Diego, State of California, for the
County of San Diego, that the notice of which
the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not
smaller than nonpariel), has been published in
each regular and entire issue of said newspaper
and not in any supplement thereof on the
following dates, to-wit:
I certify (or declare) under penalty of pejury
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at San Marcos California
This 19th day
Of August, 2002
I
Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO
p.m. on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 to consider a request for approval of a Negative
Declaration and a Site Development Plan to allow the construction of a 106-unit multifamily
apartment development, affordable to lower-income households, within Village Y of the
Calavera Hills Master Plan, on property generally located on the southwest side of future
College Boulevard, south of Carlsbad Village Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 7, and
more particularly described as:
A portion of Lots D and E of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the
City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego, State of California,
according to the partition Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of said County on November 16, 1896
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing, Copies of the staff report will be available on and after September 6, 2002. If you
have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration andlor Site Development Permit in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described
in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: SDP 01-05
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y
PUBLISH: AUGUST 6, 2002
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
I I
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y
SDP 01-05
NOTICE IS HERE
hearing at the Cou
p.m. on Tuesday,
construction of a 106-unit multifamily lopment, affor b
households, within Village Y of the Calavera Hills Master Plan,’?@%&$ocated on the
lower-income
southwest side of future College Boulevard, south of Carlsbad Village Drive in Local Facilities
Management Zone 5 and more particularly described as:
A portion of Lots D and E of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to the partition Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of said County on November 16, 1896
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after IDATFl. If YOU have any
If you challenge thelSite’Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of
CASE FILE: SDP 01-05
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y
PUBLISH: [DATE]
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST
701 ENClNlTAS BLVD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKSKOMMUNITY
SERVICES
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
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
ENClNlTAS SCHOOL DlST
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
SANDAG
401 B STREET
STE 800
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
MICHAEL GRIM
07l3012002
AERY@' Address Labels 51608
SKEWES
!4ONTEBELLO CA 90640-2647
337 E LOS AMIGOS AVE
"mCES T ROBLES
'962 BRANDON CIR TARLSBAD CA 92006-6546
4MY M SCHWEITZER
.'?955 BRANDON CIR
TARLSBAD CA 92006-6546
"IENRY C MANZOLA
1967 BRANDON CIR
TARLSBAD CA 92006-6546
RICHARD G CROSS
2962 BmDOR C7X
CARLSBAT CA 92096-6546
LEO Z & BEVERLEY MiLLER
2970 BRANDON CIR
CARLSBAE CA 9200E-6546
DENNIS A BROWN
3513 HASTINGS DR
CARLSBAE CA 92006-7041
RYAN J BIRDSYE
CARLSBAE CA 92009
7215 DURANGO CIR
MARIANNE S WALDR3F
2951 BRANDON CIE
CARLSBAE CA ,02006-6546
JOANNE M POMERLEAU
2963 BRANDON CIR
CARLSBAD CA 32006-6546
NICHOLAS M DETURI
1546 AVENIDA DE LAS LIL
MICHAEL L LEWIS
ENCINITAS CA 92024-4106 CARLSBAD CA 92006-6546
2975 BRANDON CIR
'Tm" T T VINCENT F GRILL0 HEBRON EVERGREEN
.2 772 BROOKWOOD CT 2983 BRANDON CIR PO BOX 1454
'XRLSBAD CA 92008-6577 CARLSBAE CA 92006-6546 RANCHO SANTA 92067-1454
7OROTHEA L CLARKE
XRLSBAD CA 92008-6569
' 445 LANCASTER RD .. ~
TJGENE S FORSYTH
-339 LANCASTER RD
ZARLSBAD CA 92006-6569
3ROWN & JOHN SILVIA
13931 LANCASTER RD 'TUtLSBAD CA 32008-6569
(JOHN K & SUSAN HUMPHREY
,2932 LANCASTER RD ZARLSBAD CA 92006-6569
WALTER W & LORRI HAYS WILLIAM H STROUP
3 943 LANCASTER RD
CARLSBAD CA 92006-6569 CARLSBAD CA 92006-6569
2941 LANCASTER RD
RALPH A BELLERUE LORI S BARTLETT
2935 LANCASTER RD 2933 LANCASTER RD
CARLSBAE CA 92006-6569 CARLSBAD CA 92006-6569
BARBARA S GWINN DOYE & LELAH LESTER
2045 JANET CIR 9012 SAINT JEAN CT
OCEANSIDE CA 92054-6120 BAKERSFIELD C 93312-4337
THE CAPE AT CALAVERA HI
6992 EL CAMINO REAL 105
LINDA M MANNES
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4145
4591 SALEM PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6563
?JILLIAM OSBORN FRANK M TORRE
4596 SALEM PL
XRLSBAD CA 92008-6563 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3936 CAELSBAG ?A 3200&65E.;
DAVID C- & RdES JTHNSCI\'
6832 PEAR TREE DR 2958 LEXINGTOX ?:X
.JOAN S WARNER GOEDERT TR ROBERT G BURTON
3960 LEXINGTON CIR 2753 INVERNESS DR 2964 LEXINGTON CIR
lARiSBAD CA 92008-6564 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6521 CARLSBAD CA 92006-6564
,TOAN M BALL JAMES H LAIDERMAN
2966 LEXINGTON CIR 2968 LEXINGTON CIR YARLSBAD CA 92006-6564 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6564 CARLSBAD CA 92006-6564
GERMAN A GUERRERO
2970 LEXINGTON CIR
-4INDY CHRISMAN
'972 LEXINGTON CIR
XRLSBAD CA 92006-6564
ANDRE 0 CHMIELEWSKI
1967 LEXINGTON CIR XRLSBAD CA 92008-6564
,SLJLIE A SEVERINO
lARLSBAD CA 92008-6564
i959 LEXINGTON CIR
~-~ J I UA DAWSON
2953 LEXINGTON CIR
XRLSBAD CA 92006-6564
:)AVID N ANDERSON
945 LEXINGTON CIR -ARLSBAD CA 92008-6564
ALLEN P & VICKI AUTH THOMAS P PERFETTO
4705 TRAVIS VIEW CT
AUSTIN TX 76732-1736 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6564
2969 LEXINGTON CIR
ALFRED0 D DONOVAN RESIDUAL T LALLO
2965 LEXINGTON CIR 2963 LEXINGTON CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6564 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6564
MICHAEL D ADAMS JOHN BORG
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6564
2957 LEXINGTON CIR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-4903
1058 GINGER GLN
EVELYN L SAMMON GARY M WILLIAMS
2949 LEXINGTON CIR 2941 LEXINGTON CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6564 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6564
ANDREAS KALLINIKOS PATRICIA J BROWN
2943 LEXINGTON CIR 2996 LEXINGTON CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6564 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6565
,AWRENCE FARHAT
-528 VISTA CLUE CIR 303
<ANTA CLARA C 95054-3755
:OD1 V SCHMALTZ-TATUM
2990 LEXINGTON CIR
ZARLSBAD CA 92008-6565
JOSEPH D & KRISTI PAYNE
561748 LAIE ST
.JAIKOLOA HI 96738-5122
WRY DEMEO
1330 OAK AVE _'ARLSBAD CA 92008-1931
JZFFRE'J HOYDAL
2994 LEXINGTOE CIR
CARLSBAE CA 52OOE-6565
DAVID A FLOESER
2988 LEXINGTON CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6565
SHARON M LUTHER
CASTRO VALLEY 94546-3518
19524 REDWOOD GLN
ALEXANDRIA BRAVA
2976 LEXINGTON CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6565
DAVID G THOMPSON
CARLSBAD CA 52006-6565
2960 LEXINGTON CIE
MAULTSBY
CASHIERS NC 26717-0070 PO BOX 70
'JLNDOLPH C ADAMS SANDRA R TOLLACK PETER J BURINSKAS '
2977 LEXINGTON CIR 2979 LEXINGTON CIR 2981 LEXINGTON CIR YARLSBAE CA 92008-6565 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6565 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6565
iOBERT P & TAMARA IRWIN WADDY E STEPHENSON ERNEST C ALCANTARA
10586 BAROQUE LN 2985 LEXINGTON CIR <AN DIEGO CA 92124-3006 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6565 1020 S DITMAR ST
OCEANSIDE CA 92054-5007
;TEPHANIE A GROSS MARNI L WALKER
>9?3 LEXINGTON CIR '?ARLSBAD CA 92008-6565
GILBERT
3465 CHARTER OAK DR 2995 LEXINGTON CIR CARLSBAD CA 92006-6565 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2008
THOMAS A MAYER JOHN C SPERO
:!952 LANCASTER RD 2954 LANCASTER RD
lARLSBAD CA 92008-6569 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6569 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6569
ANN B HARRISON
2956 LANCASTER RD
XLiE A RICHTER SANDRA K STAMPER
.-!,a58 LANCASTER RD 2962 LANCASTER RD
TARLSBAD CA 92006-6569
CLYDE E & LINDA HORNER
2964 LANCASTER RD CARLSBAD CA 92008-6569 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6569
,STEPHEN A BELGUM OLIVER J BLOCK
.:.5 0 02 FANTASIA LN 2968 LANCASTER RD ~I'JNTINGTON BE 92649-2206 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6570 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2768
ENGLESON 3502 CELINDA DR
.;ILBERT LAURENCE
:!972 LANCASTZR RD
.:kRLSBAD CA 92006-657C
3ENNARD M KOUNS
134 0 LAS FLORES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1031
SHAHRYAR ROKNI
2955 LANCASTER RD CARLSBAD CA 92008-6569
GLORIA L TOTH
4652 WOODSTOCK ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-6571
WILLIAM F GAVIK
21793 TICONDCROGA LK EL TOi7C ;A 92630-23:?
KATHLEEN M CHANDLER
LEWISVILLE TX 75077-8662
2700 GREEK OAK CT
EARL S PICKELL
4648 WOODSTOCK ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-6571
RICHARD HOPPE
4654 WOODSTOCK ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-6571
LEONARD J SAVALLO
4650 WOODSTOCK ST
CARLSBAD CA 92006-6511
JAY L & LINDA TANK
CARLSBAD CA 92006-6571
4656 WOODSTOCK ST
TOHN A & LISA ERBACHER LEWIS C LAFFEY ROMEO & MARISA APOSTOL
4658 WOODSTOCK ST 4662 WOODSTOCK ST 4664 WOODSTOCK ST
"ARLSBAD CA 92008-6571 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6571 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6571
3RESCOTT ROBERT B EST 0 TERRILL L & HOLLY HART CAROLINE T PRESCOTT
4749 EDINBURGH DR 2740 AUBURN AVE 2727 ROOSEVELT ST B
'ARLSBAD CA 92008-6534 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2170 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1617
7 T & JANICE FLA~G YOUNGJA P CHUN HASAM M SULEMAN
"777 YUCCA RD 320 W HAWTHORNE CT 4661 WOODSTOCK ST
'YEANSIDE CA 92054-6156 LAKE BLUFF IL 60044-2309 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6571
I'AULY ADELLA VINCENT THEODORE A WHEELER
-516 OLD CREEK CT 4657 WOODSTOCK ST
'IARDIFF BY TH 92907-1145 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6571 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6571 4653 WOODSTOCK ST
,4651 WOODSTOCK ST
.i'lRPHY MARJORIE 0
XRLSBAD CA 92008-6571 NATIONAL CITY 91950-6625
2727 HOOVER AVE
CALAVERA HILLS I1 L L C
:'APE AT CALAVERA~ HILLS
3900 HARNEY ST .;AN DIEGO CA 92110-2825
~ll propedy owners/occupants
notlce has been mailed lo
Ifsled ?ere'n.
Date. (l. /~7/o>
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO
p.m. on Tuesday, [DATE], to consider a request for a Site Development Plan to allow the
construction of a 106-unit multifamily apartment development, affordable to lower-income
southwest side of future College Boulevard, south of Carlsbad Village Drive in Local Facilities
households, within Village Y of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, generally located on the
Management Zone 7 and more particularly described as:
A portion of Lots D and E of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to the partition Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of said County on November 16, 1896
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623.
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and afler [DATE]. If you have any
If you challenge the Site Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: SDP 01-05
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y
PUBLISH: [DATE]
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
L
I i
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y
SDP 01-05