Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-02; Planning Commission; ; CT 97-03|PUD 97-03 - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G, K and PTne City of CARLSBAD Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. (1 P.C. AGENDA OF: September 2, 1998 Application complete date: November 27, 1998 Project Planner: Brian Hunter Project Engineer: Kenneth Quon SUBJECT: CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E. F. G. K and P - Request for a Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development Permit to subdivide the 188.34 acre parcel into 396 lots to include 384 single family units, 11 open space lots and 1 private road lot within Villages E, F, G, K and P of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and Local Facilities Management Zone 18. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4385 and 4386 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Tentative Tract Map CT 97-03 and Planned Unit Development PUD 97-03 based on the findings and subject to the conditions therein. II. INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting approval of permits to subdivide a 188.34 acre site into 384 single family lots with a minimum lot size of 3,500 square feet, 11 open space lots and one lot for private street purposes. As designed and conditioned, the project is in conformance with the General Plan, Rancho Carrillo Master Plan (MP 139F) and its proposed amendment (MP 139G), the Subdivision Ordinance, and the relevant Zoning Chapters of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Villages E, F, G, K and P of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan are located adjacent to the City of San Marcos to the east, adjacent to Palomar Airport Road to the north, and to Melrose Drive to the south. The site has been previously graded per Hillside Development Permit HDP 91-17. The proposed subdivision is located in the P-C Zone, within the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan, and has Residential Medium (4-8 du/ac), Residential Low-Medium (0-4 du/ac) and Open Space General Plan designation. As shown on Exhibits "A" - "U", Villages E, F, G, K and P includes 384 single family residential lots for the development of single family detached homes, 11 open space lots and one private road lot. The minimum lot size for Village E is 3,500 square feet, for Villages F and P is 4,500 square feet and for Villages G and K, the minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet. The development of 384 units is 32 units less than the amount permitted by the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan, which allows for the development of up to 416 units. Access to the site is from Melrose Drive. Am:iCT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RAWCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G;T & P September 2, 1998 Page 2 All tentative maps which create lots less than 7500 square feet in size must process a Planned Unit Development Permit .pursuant to Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code concurrently with the Tentative Map per the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan (III. Development Review Process, page 29). The Rancho Carrillo Development Review process allows for delayed architectural review. Consistent with this provision, tentative maps and planned development permits are processed through Planning Commission and City Council with Design Guidelines instead of floor plans and elevations. These guidelines address such things as building envelopes, setbacks from slopes, building separations, the Small Lot Architectural Guidelines, compliance with the Hillside Architectural Guidelines, and the mixture of one and two story units. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting the approval of proposed Design Guidelines for Villages E, F, G, K and P as part of this project. Before obtaining a building permit the applicant shall submit floor plans and architecture for staff review to ensure compliance with these guidelines. After reviewing these plans and determining that they are in conformance with the design guidelines that were approved as a part of the Tentative Map, staff shall present the floor plans and architecture to the Planning Commission as a minor Planned Unit Development Amendment. The Planning Commission's review shall focus on architecture only. The previously approved Tentative Map shall not be opened for review and no new conditions shall be added to the Tentative Map. Any new conditions added to the resolution approving the Planned Development Permit Amendment shall be limited to dealing with architecture and floor plans only. Since all of these Villages have been before the Commission previously, a brief synopsis of their history follows: Village E, a 104 unit duplex project, including 20 affordable two and three bedroom units was approved via CT 95-06/PUD 95-04/ SDP 95-12 by the City Council in 1996. Villages F, G, and P were approved via CT 93-07/PUD 93-06/SDP 94-01. This project consisted of 117 single family lots and 1 multi-family lot (Village F) which had a development potential of 120 dwelling units. The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR 91-04) recognized the environmentally constrained nature of Village G and allowed reduced setbacks to help minimize the impact to the environmentally sensitive areas, and deleted the requirement for common active recreation open spaces. Villages J and K were originally approved via CT 93-01/PUD 95-05/SDP 95-13. The map included 181 single family dwellings and 27 second dwelling units. The map for Village J has finalled and is not part of this action. The current proposal, if approved, will supersede previous approvals on Villages E, F, G, K and P. The project is subject to the following land use plans, policies, and programs and zoning regulations: A. General Plan; B. Rancho Carrillo Master Plan (MP-139F); CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RATOHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, September 2, 1998 Page 3 C. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance), Chapter 21.45 - Planned Development Ordinance; D. Inclusionary Housing (Chapters 21.85 and 21.53 of the Zoning Ordinance) E. Growth Management Ordnance, (Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan); and F. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance). IV. ANALYSIS The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies using both text and tables. A. General Plan As discussed below, the proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan as originally conditioned via the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for that document. Land Use - Villages E, F and P have a General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Medium (RM) which allows 4-8 dwelling units per net developable acre with a Growth Management Control Point of 6 dwelling units per acre. Villages E, F and P are proposing 5.4, 4.0, and 4.0 dwelling units per acre respectively. Villages G and K have a General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Low-Medium (RLM) which allows 0-4 dwelling units per net developable acre with a Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. Villages G and K are proposing 2.4, and 3.4 dwelling units per acre respectively. The density for Village K is higher than the density allowed by the Growth Management Control point designated for this village. The increase in density is allowed per the approved Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and was found to be acceptable because the maximum number of units allowed by the Master Plan, 1816, is below the 2091 units allocated to Zone 18 by its approved Local Facilities Management Plan. The Land Use section of the General Plan includes service and performance standards for public facilities. Public facilities of note are drainage and sewer. A major drainage issue associated with this project is the mitigation of on-site surface runoff so as not to adversely affect on and off-site downstream properties. Runoff attenuation measures have been installed, concurrent with the Rancho Carrillo mass grading operation to mitigate surface run-off impacts. Rancho Carrillo currently does not have any accessible sewer facilities. Therefore major offsite sewer line construction is required. This construction will occur across adjacent property ownership. The tentative map will be conditioned so that occupancy of units cannot occur until such time as sewer facilities are made available to the project. CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RA^HO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G,T. & P September 2, 1998 Page 4 Housing - With the recent approval of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan Amendment of the City Council (Ordinance No. NS-425 adopted on 10-28-97), it is the applicant's intention to relocate the previously approved affordable housing sites to Village B (SDP 97-15, CT 97-02 and PUD 97-02). CT 97-03 has been conditioned that prior to recordation of the final map an affordable housing agreement must be entered into which provides for and deed restricts dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households for the useful life of the dwelling units in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Open Space -189.9 acres (over 35% of the net developable property) of the Master Plan has been left as open space. Circulation - Two items with regards to circulation are associated with this and future Rancho Carrillo projects. First, major roadway infrastructure must be constructed to gain site access. This will include construction of Melrose Drive to the ultimate design configuration. Additionally, each Rancho Carrillo tentative map, as a condition of approval of the project, will be required to complete the roadway system which is needed to access the given site. Noise - Prior to dwelling unit occupancy the applicant shall construct community theme, noise attenuation walls to meet the standards contained within the General Plan and submit a detailed noise study addressing necessary interior noise mitigation measures for these Villages. Parks and Recreation - A parks agreement has been entered into between the City of Carlsbad and the Zone 18 property owners. Public Safety - The proposed project is required to provide sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants, as well as contribute to the public facilities fee program, as shown on the tentative map, or included as conditions of approval. B. Rancho Carrillo Master Plan The Master Plan designates Village E for single family development with a density range of 4-8 dwelling units/acre. The proposed project consists of 95 single family units on 17.7 unconstrained acres for a density of 5.4 du/ac which is consistent with the Master Plan. Village E is to be developed as a single family subdivision with a minimum lot size of 3,500 square feet. The Master Plan designates Village F for single family development with a density range of 4-8 dwelling units/acre. The proposed project consists of 99 single family units on 25.0 unconstrained acres for a density of 4.0 du/ac which is consistent with the Master Plan. Village F is to be developed as a single family subdivision with a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet. The Master Plan designates Village G for single family development with a density range of 0-4 dwelling units/acre. The proposed project consists of 39 single family units on 16.2 unconstrained acres for a density of 2.4 du/ac which is consistent with the Master Plan. Village G is to be developed as a single family subdivision with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RA September 2, 1998 Page5 HO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G;T & P The Master Plan designates Village K for single family development with a density range of 0-4 dwelling units/acre. The proposed project consists of 95 single family units on 27.8 unconstrained acres for a density of 3.4 du/ac which is consistent with the Master Plan. Village K is to be developed as a single family subdivision with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The Master Plan designates Village P for single family development with a density range of 4-8 dwelling units/acre. The proposed project consists of 56 single family units on 14.0 unconstrained acres for a density of 4.0 du/ac which is consistent with the Master Plan. Village P is to be developed as a single family subdivision with a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet. The Master Plan allows delayed architectural review with the adoption of design guidelines at the tentative map stage. Table 1 summarizes the design guidelines for Villages E, F, G, K and P. TABLE 1: VILLAGES E, F, G, K AND P DESIGN GUIDELINES SYNOPSIS ISSUE Unit Mix Plotting of Units Setbacks Architecture Garages Accessory Structures Walls and Fences Signage Lot Drains COMMENT A minimum of 3 floor plans with a minimum of 3 front building elevations for each floor plan. No floor plan shall be plotted for more than 60% of the total units on a street; no two units with identical front facades closer than 100' on the same street; and building coverage may not exceed 50% of the lot area. Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road ROW: 50' minimum Front: All villages except for Village G in accordance with Section 21.45.090(b)(2)(A) of Carlsbad Municipal Code. Village G: 10' minimum, 15' average to livable portion of building or garages turned 90 degrees from the street; and 20' for garages facing the street. Rear: 1 5' deep minimum flat usable yard Side: 5' minimum, 10' minimum for corner lots from street ROW and large slopes Architectural style per Rancho Carrillo Master Plan; two chimney maximum, three color schemes minimum, varied streetscape via varied materials. Minimum 20' x 20' interior dimension. Street-facing garages shall be 20' from ROW for driveway parking. Garage doors shall be set into ,the walls a minimum of 3". Three car garages shall be limited to no more than 50% of the units in a village. Driveways serving 3 car garages shall have a minimum width of 24' at the back of sidewalk. Permitted as allowed by section 21.10.050(1)(D) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Per Villages E, F, G, K and P landscape exhibit. Village identification and directional information. Private lot drains are approved for lots fronting on steep streets. CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RA^HO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G^ & P September 2, 1998 Page 6 Second Dwelling Units Minor Modifications Up to 20% of the lots in Villages E, F, G, K and P may be developed with second dwelling units. All second units to conform with section 21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance, the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and Villages E, F, G, K and P Design Guidelines. Allows a change to five or less of these provisions per Planning Director approval if determined to be in substantial conformance with the approved project. The project is consistent with the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan as discussed below. a) Review of the project plans for the proposed subdivision is consistent with the approved Hillside Development Permit (HDP 91-17) and the subdivision grading design is consistent with the approved mass grading design. b) A 50' landscape setback is required along Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road to screen the units from the roadway and to buffer residential units from traffic noise. The proposed landscaping within this setback area is consistent with the Master Plan landscape guidelines. Streetscape landscaping, community theme walls and fences, village fences, as well as Village entry monumentation into the project, are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan. c) The project is conditioned to require that all public facilities necessary to serve the project are provided prior to, or concurrent with, development in accordance with the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. Two major items with regard to circulation are associated with this and future Rancho Carrillo projects. Major roadway infrastructure must be constructed to gain site access to the Master Plan area. This will include full width construction of Melrose Drive. An assessment district has been formed to help finance this improvement. The circulation systems for Villages E, F, G, K and P have been laid out in accordance with the requirements of the approved Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. The road system consists of a public street system which has been designed to consist of curb, gutter, and sidewalk contained within the street sections specified in the Master Plan. A real benefit from a circulation standpoint is with the redesign of Villages K and P; a through road is now proposed between Poinsettia Lane and the rest of the villages, where previously Village K's internal circulation system at the intersection of Melrose Drive and Poinsettia Lane was a cul-de-sac. Further, the connection between Village G and Village F has been reduced to a 24' all weather emergency access easement, thereby reducing the impact to the natural open space from physical construction as well as from use. CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RA September 2, 1998 Page 7 HO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G,T & P C. Planned Development Ordinance The proposed 396 lot subdivision consists of 384 single family lots, 11 open space lots and one private road lot. All of the Villages are being processed under one PUD. Villages E, F, K, and P are small lot planned unit developments. Village G is being processed according to the Planned Development Ordinance because all lots will front on a private street. Table 2 below summarizes Village E, F G, K and P compliance with the Planned Development Ordinance development standards: VILLAGE E, F, G, K and P PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE Standard Required Proposed Lot Size (min.): Village E Village F Village G Village K Village P 3,500 square feet 3,500 square feet 3,500 square feet 3,500 square feet 3,500 square feet 3,500 square feet minimum 4,500 square feet minimum 7,580 square feet minimum 5,560 square feet minimum 4,360 square feet minimum Front Yard Setback, Villages E, F, K and P: Village G: 20 feet when garage faces directly onto a street; however setbacks may be varied to a fifteen foot average with a ten foot minimum. 10' minimum with a 15' average to the livable portion or garages turned 90 degrees from the street. 20' minimum for a garage facing the street. Same as required Building Separation 10' minimum 10' minimum Building Height 30 feet 30 feet maximum Public Street Width, Villages E, F, K and P: Private Street Width, Village G: 36 feet (parking both sides) 32 feet (parking one side) 30 feet (no parking) Public streets with a minimum 36' curb to curb face width Private streets with a minimum 36' curb to curb face width CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RA September 2, 1998 PageS CHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G,X & P Parking: Resident Guest 2 per unit = 768 spaces (384 -10) x .25 + 5 = 99 spaces 2 car garage/unit minimum = 768 spaces Over 300 On-street parking spaces RV Storage 20 sq. ft. per unit 384 units x 20 = 7,680 sq. ft. Reservation of 7,680 square feet of RV storage in the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan Recreational Vehicle Storage Lot. Storage Space 392 cubic feet per unit Required space provided in 2 car garage Recreation Space:200 sq. ft/unit x 384 units = 76,800 square feet (half of which may be provided as private yards) 124,800 sq. ft. (private rear yards - 86,400 sq. ft.; common rec. areas - 38,400 sq. ft.) With the following exceptions (see the Master Plan specific design criteria), Villages E, F, G, K and P will satisfy the Planned Development Ordinance requirements for single family development: (Theses exceptions are allowed by the Master Plan) l)in Village G single family development with lots less than 7,500 square feet in size shall not be required to provide common recreational facilities if the majority of the lots in the subdivision have a lot size of 7,500 square feet or greater. In addition, this Village is completely surrounded by open space and has several points of access to the community trail system which provides for recreational opportunities; 2) in Village G reduced front, rear and side yard setbacks may be permitted in order to protect sensitive plant species; 3) panhandle lots shall be permitted under certain conditions (see Rancho Carrillo Master Plan; Villages E, G and K Special Design Criteria). The project design is consistent with design criteria specified by the Planned Development Ordinance. The proposed internal circulation pattern, which includes 36' to 40' wide (curb to curb) public streets in Villages E, F, K and P and 32' to 36' wide (curb to curb) private streets in Village G, is designed to provide direct access to individual units which contain at a minimum two car garages. The street system will provide on-street guest parking. The architecture will be consistent with approved and/or proposed development in the surrounding Rancho Carrillo villages. D. Inclusionary Housing (Chapters 21.85 and 21.53 of the Zoning Ordinance) The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan requires project compliance with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; therefore, 15% of the total number of proposed units must be affordable to low income households. Additionally, 10% of the required affordable units must be three bedroom units. The required findings include consistency with General Plan goals and policies, adequacy of the site and street system, and a determination that the affordable units are compatible with surrounding uses, and will not adversely impact the site or surrounding areas including traffic circulation. A^]CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RAHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, September 2, 1998 Page 9 _ : _ & P As mentioned previously most of these units, including the three bedroom units, will be provided in Village B. A portion of the Inclusionary requirement may be provided onsite as second units pending the outcome of SDP 98-12 which is presently being processed. As stated in the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan, the majority of the affordable Housing for Rancho Carrillo will be located in Village B as multi-family condominiums or apartments. Village B is located adjacent to the intersection of Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road. This location puts it in proximity to jobs along the industrial corridor of Palomar Airport Road and bus stops on Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road. E. Growth Management Ordinance - Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan The project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 18 in the City's southwest quadrant and is subject to the conditions of the Zone 18 LFMP. The 384 unit project is 32 units below the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance of 416 units. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows: TABLE 3: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE Standard City Administration Library Waste Water Treatment Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools Sewer Collection System Water Impacts 1,335 square feet 712 square feet 384EDU 2.67 acres PLDA D 3,840 ADT Stations 2, 5, and 6 189.9 acres (Master Plan Performance Standard OS) San Marcos Unified School District 384 EDU 249,600 GPD Compliance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RA^HO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, GC & P September 2, 1998 Page 10 F. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the CMC) The Carlsbad Municipal Code requires a subdivision map to be filed in accordance with Title 20 for any subdivision project. As conditioned, the proposed tentative map is in compliance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance in compliance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance in that the lots are in accordance with the provisions of Title 21 (Planned Development Ordinance) and all of the necessary infrastructure improvements would be provided. The findings required by Title 20 can be made for this project and are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4385, dated September 2, 1998. Essentially, those findings state that the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, is consistent 'with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the project is designed in accordance with the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan; is proposing densities that are consistent with the RM and RLM land use designations of the Land Use Element of the General Plan; prior to the recordation of any final map the deeding of an acceptable school site to the San Marcos Unified School District and a financing plan approved by the San Marcos School District guaranteeing the construction of the necessary school facilities must occur; the mitigation of onsite surface runoff so as not to affect on and offsite downstream properties is required; major offsite sewer line construction is required; prior to recordation of the final map an affordable housing agreement must be entered into which provides for and deed restricts dwelling units as affordable to lower income households for the useful life of the dwelling units; over 35% of the net developable acreage of the Master Plan has been left as open space; the construction of Melrose Drive and access to this subdivision from it is required; prior to occupancy the construction of noise walls to meet the standards contained within the General Plan is required; a parks agreement between the City of Carlsbad and the property owners has been completed; and all setbacks, parking, recreational space, streets and storage meet the minimum standards of the Planned Development Ordinance. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for residential development on the General and the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. The Palomar Airport Road right-of-way separates this site from non-residential uses to the north Plan. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed, in that the product type is in accord with the Master Plan and the dwelling unit count is less than that allowed by the Master Plan. The design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in that all applicable biological mitigation measures required by Final EIR 91-04 and MEIR 93-01 have been incorporated into the project and/or added to the project as conditions of approval. The discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the sewer and drainage requirements of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and EIR 91-04 have been considered and appropriate sewer # CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G, K & P September 2, 1998 Page 11 and drainage facilities have been designed and will be secured. In addition to City Engineering Standards and compliance with the City's Master Sewer and Drainage Plans, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards will be satisfied to prevent any discharge violations. Sewer service to this project will be provided by public sewer lines that will tie into a 12" sewer main to be installed to serve the entire Rancho Carrillo development. This sewer main will then connect with an offsite pump station, which will pump sewage to the existing Buena/San Marcos Interceptor system presently located on El Camino Real. As sewer improvements have yet to be installed for the entire Master Plan area, a condition of this project will specify that sewer line improvements be guaranteed prior to approval of any final map. Domestic water will be provided to the project from trunk lines of the 16" water main beneath Melrose Drive. The 16" water main will be installed concurrently with the construction of Melrose Drive. An 8" reclaimed water line will be installed in Melrose Drive and will be tapped for irrigation of the slope areas. As water improvements have yet to be installed for the entire Master Plan area, a condition of the project will specify that water line improvements be guaranteed prior to approval of any final map. Surface drainage will be conveyed by standard curb and gutter to drain to an underground storm drain system, with various approved outlet areas. A broader drainage issue associated with the entire Rancho Carrillo development is to provide drainage improvements to mitigate onsite runoff upstream of this project to prevent adverse affects to downstream onsite and offsite properties. A condition of this project will specify that construction of drainage mitigation improvements be guaranteed prior to approval of any final map. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is located within the boundaries of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan (MP-139(F)) which regulates the entire 188.34 acre site. The direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impact from the future development have been analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 91-04) certified by the City Council on July 27, 1993. Additional project level studies have been conducted including a supplemental noise analysis and soils contamination assessment. These studies provide more focused and detailed project level analysis and indicate that additional environmental impacts beyond what was analyzed in Final EIR 91-04 would not result from implementation of the project. This project qualifies as subsequent development to both the Rancho Carrillo EIR and the City's MEIR as identified in Section 21083.3 of the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Prior Environment Compliance on August 19, 1998. The applicable mitigation measures of Final EIR 91-04 and MEIR 94-01 are included as conditions of approval for this project. With regard to air quality and circulation impacts, the City's MEIR found the cumulative impacts of the implementation of projects consistent with the General Plan are significant and adverse due to regional factors, therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations. The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those effects, no additional environmental document is required. CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G,TT& P September 2, 1998 Page 12 ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4385 (CT 97-03) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4386 (PUD 97-03) 3. Location Map 4. Background Data Sheet 5. Disclosure Statement 6. Local Facilities Impact Assessment 7. Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance, dated August 19, 1998 8. Environmental Impact Assessment Form Part II, dated August 11, 1998 9. Design Guidelines Village E, F, G, K & P 10. Reduced Exhibits 11. Exhibits "A" -" U ", dated September 2,1998. BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 CASE NAME: Rancho Carrillo Villages E. F. G. K and P APPLICANT: Continental Ranch. Inc. REQUEST AND LOCATION: 396 lot residential subdivision (384 single family lots. 11 open space lots, and one private road lot) and a planned unit development on property generally located south of Palomar Airport Road, North of Carrillo Way, and East of Melrose Drive . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Those portions of Section 24. Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian and a portion of Section 18 and 19 , Township 12 South, Range 3 West. San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. State of California. APN: 221-012-08.09. and 18 and 222-010-02 Acres: 188.34 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 396/284 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: RLM. RM and OS Density Allowed: RLM 0-4 du/acre, RM 4-8 du/acre Density Proposed: 32 d/u less than MP allocation Existing Zone: Planned Community Proposed Zone: Planned Community Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site Planned Community vacant North Planned Community vacant and raceway South Planned Community single and multi-family housing East Planned Community vacant and single family housing West Planned Community vacant PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: San Marcos Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 384 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated-:February 13, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated. Other, Prior Compliance Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 'PLICANTS STATEMENTOFDISCLOSURE OR CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS ! HIGH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR ANY •'POINTED BOARD. COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE Prim) 2 following information must be disclosed: Applicant List the names and addresses of all persons bavins a financial interest in the application. Continental Ranch. Inc. 12636 High Bluff Drive, Ste. 300 San Piece-, CA 92130 Owner List the names and addressees of all person having any ownership interest in the propeny involve-. .Continental Ranch. Tnr 12636 Hioh Bluff Drive. Ste. 300 Dipqo. TA 92130 If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the nam and addresses of all individuals owning more than ICFr of :he shares in the corporation or - any partnership interest in the partnership. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list names and addresses of any person sen-ing as officer or director of the non-profit organization as trustee or benefician- of the trust. DISCLOS.FRM PAGE \ of 2 2O / = uas Paimas Drive - Cansoac. Caiuc^rr-.ia 92COS-15T5 i 6-. 9%> -38-: i 6 Disclosure Statement (O\<er) Page 2 5. Have you had more than S250.00 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No x If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, dry municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary) Signature of Owner/date Signature of applicant/date Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant DISCLOS.FRM 2/96 PAGE 1 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF CORPORATE RESOLUTION OF CONTINENTAL RANCH, INC. I, Julie E. Collins, Secretary of CONTINENTAL RANCH, INC., a Delaware corporation ("Corporation"), do hereby certify that I am a duly elected, qualified and acting officer of the Corporation and, as such, I am familiar with the books, minutes and records of the Corporation; that no provision of the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws of the Corporation requires that any action or signature of the Corporation be attested by a corporate officer; that there is no provision in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws of the Corporation limiting the power of the Board of Directors to adopt the hereinafter stated resolutions; that the following is a true and accurate copy of resolutions duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, on October 14, 1996 either at a duly held meeting of the Board of Directors or by unanimous written consent of all members of the Board of Directors of the Corporation; and that said resolutions have not been modified, rescinded or revoked and are now in full force and effect: RESOLVED, that one signature from the President or any of the Vice Presidents of the Corporation listed below is required for any and all documents related to planning, engineering, mapping, development or construction associated with property owned by Continental Ranch, Inc.; including but not limited to maps, easements, agreements, permits, dedications, etc.; and RESOLVED, the following persons are the duly elected President and Vice Presidents of the Corporation: Chris Chambers President Donald R. Loback Vice President W. Thomas Hickcox Vice President Donald W. MacKay Vice President David Lother Vice President RESOLVED FURTHER, that one signature from the President or any of the above-designated Vice Presidents is sufficient by itself to bind the Corporation in furtherance of these Resolutions. WITNESS my hand on this 14th day of October, 1996. CONTINENTAL RANCH, INC., a Delaware corporation By E. Collins Secretary 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: Rancho Carrillo Villages E. F. G. K and P. CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 18 GENERAL PLAN: RLMRMOS ZONING: PC DEVELOPER'S NAME: Continental Ranch, Inc. ADDRESS: 12636 High Bluff Drive. Suite 300. San Diego. CA 92130 PHONE NO.: (619) 793-2580 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 221-012-08.09. and 18 and 222- 010-02 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 188.34 ac. ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: unknown A. B. C. D. E. City Administrative Facilities: Library: Demand in Square Footage = 1,335 Demand in Square Footage = 712 2.67 D F. G. H. I. J. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 384EDU Park: Demand in Acreage = Drainage: Demand in CFS = Identify Drainage Basin = (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADT = 3.840 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 2,5, and 6 K. L. Open Space: Acreage Provided = Schools: (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Interceptor (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD = 250 by Master Plan San Marcos Unified Demands in EDU Identify Sub Basin = 384 Buena/San Marcos 249.600 The project is 32 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. City of Carlsbad Planning Department PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Please Take Notice: The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project described below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed. Project Title: Project Location: Rancho Carrillo Village "E,F,G,K and P" (CT 97-03/PUD 97- 03) South of Palomar Airport Road, West of Eastern City Boundary, North of Carrillo Way, East of Bressi Ranch Project Description: A 396 lot, 384 dwelling unit tentative map and planned development permit. Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of publication. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: AUGUST 19, 1998 CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES "E,F,G,K AND P" PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 19, 1998 MICHAEL J. ROLZlvnLLER Planning Director 2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-O894 ® -PAL RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, F, G, K, P CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 97-03/PUD 97-03 DATE: August 11. 1998 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Rancho Carrillo Villages "E.F.G.K and P" 2. APPLICANT: Continental Ranch . Inc. 3. 4. 5. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 12636 High Bluff Drive. Suite 300. San Diego. CA 92130 (619)793-2580 DATE El A FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 2-13-97 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a Tentative Map and a Planned Unit Development Permit. The Tentative Map and Planned Unit Development Permit will allow for the development of 384 single family units within Villages "E.F,G,K, and P" of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan . 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. ^ Land Use and Planning P] Population and Housing Q Geological Problems Q Water rn Air Quality | | Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services | | Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems | | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics ( | Hazards [| Cultural Resources | | Noise | | Recreation | | Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 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 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. An 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 EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature Date Planning Directors Signature Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City 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 following pages in the form of a checklist. This 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 all 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. Rev. 03/28/96 • 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. • 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 EIA-Part II 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. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (Potentially significant unless mitigated) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (No impact; 1; p. 122-144) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (see I.b above) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (see I.b. above) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (see I.b above) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D D D D II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (No impact; 1; p. 247) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (see II a above) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (see II a above) D D D D D D D III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (No impact; 1; p. 107) b) Seismic ground shaking? (No impact; 1; p. 102 - 109) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (No impact; 1; p. 99-101) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (No impact; 1; Appendix E) e) Landslides or mudflows? (No impact; 1; p. 107- 111) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (No impact; 1; page 99-101 and 106-111) g) Subsidence of the land? (No impact; 1; Appendix E) h) Expansive soils? (No impact; 1; p. 102-111) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (No impact; 1 p. Appendix E)) D D D D D D D D D D D D D IV.WATER. Would the proposal result in: Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (No impact; 1; p. 96-100) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (see a.) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (No impact, 1; p. 99 and 101) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (see a.) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (see a.) f) 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? (No impact; 1; p. 95-100) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (see f.) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (see f.) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (see f.) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D D D D n nn n n n nn V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (No impact; 1; p 120 and 228, see attached explanation) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (No impact; l;p 112-120) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (see b.) d) Create objectionable odors? (see b.) n n n n n n n VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (No i—i impact; 1; p. 164-188, see explanation attached) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp i—i curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (see a.) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby i i uses? (see a.) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? i i (see a.) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? I—I (see a.) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting i i alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (see a.) n n n n n n n 6 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (see a.) Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, result in impacts to: Would the proposal a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (No impact; 1; p. 54- 81) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (No impact, 1; Appendix B) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (No impact; 1; p. 54- 81) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (No impact; 1; p. 54-81) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (see a.) D D D D D D D D D D D D VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (No impact; 1; p. 247) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (see a.) 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? (see a.) D D D D D D D 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)? (No impact; 1; p. 247) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No impact; 1; p. 248) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (see b.) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (see a.) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (No impact; 2; p. IV.F1-F3) D D D D D D D D D X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (No impact; 1; p. 189-207) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (see a.) D D D D 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: 7 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a) Fire protection? (No impact; 1; p. 218 and 220) b) Police protection? (No impact; 1; p. 218) c) Schools? (No impact; 1; p. 219 and 221) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (No impact; 1; p. 220-221) e) Other governmental services? (No impact; 1; p. 218-221) Potentially Significant Impact D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D Dn No Impact XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (No impact; 1; p.247) b) Communications systems? (No impact; 1; p. 249- 250) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (No impact; 1;; p.219-221) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (see c.) e) Storm water drainage? (No impact; 1; p. 99-100) f) Solid waste disposal? (No impact; 1; p.224) g) Local or regional water supplies? (see c.) n nnn nn n nnn n n XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (No impact; 1; p. 156) b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (No impact; 1; p. 156 and 161-163) c) Create light or glare? (No impact; 1; p. 247) n n n n n n XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (No impact; 1; p. 82-92) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (see a.) c) Affect historical resources? (see a.) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (see a.) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (see a.) Dn n nnn n nnn n XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (No impact; 1; p. 218 and 220) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (No impact; 1; p. 208-221) n n n Rev. 03/28/96 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D D D D Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan is located on approximately 690 acres north of Alga Road, south of Palomar Airport Road, east of Bressi Ranch, and west of the City of San Marcos. The last revision to the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan was made in October of 1997. This project is a request for a subdivision and planned unit development permit to allow the development of Villages E,F,G,K, and P, which would have 396 lots and384 single family units. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan was evaluated in the "Rancho Carrillo Environmental Impact Report" (EIR 91-04) approved by the City Council on July 27, 1993. EIR 91-04 analyzed the following environmental issue areas: Agriculture, Biology, Cultural Resources, Paleontological Resources, Hydrology, Water Quality, Geology, Soils, Air Quality, Land Use, Visual Aesthetics, Grading, Circulation, Noise, Public Facilities, Solid Waste Disposal, and Cumulative Effects. A Mitigation and Monitoring Program has been approved for the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and all mitigation measures applicable have been incorporated into the project design or are required as conditions of approval for the project. The proposed Master Plan amendment will not alter any mitigation measures previously determined for the Master Plan. The proposed development is less intense than what is allowed by the Master Plan. Applicable references are provided next to each item on this environmental impact assessment form. A few of the items required further explanation: LAND USE A Master Plan Amendment is being processed as part of this application and will result in the project being consistent with the City's General Plan as the Zoning Code implements the General Plan and it requires underlying zoning for the Master Plan. AIR QUALITY: The Previously certified EIR for the existing Rancho Carrillo Master Plan made the finding that if the Master Plan incorporated the recommended mitigation measures that direct impacts to air quality would be mitigated to below a level of significance. Subsequent to the certification of that EIR, the City of Carlsbad prepared a Master EIR for the 1994 update of the General Plan. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in 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 buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. 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 subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout 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 buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, 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 buildout 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 Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 Minor revisions to the internal circulation system of the Master Plan will delete the public street connections between Villages F and G. A public street connection has been established between Villages K and p to provide a second access into the northeast corner of the Master Plan. The Traffic Study Update prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. for the previous General Plan and Master Plan Amendment approved by the City Council in October of 1997 address the proposed closure of the access between Villages F and G and concludes that it will have no adverse impact on circulation within the Master Plan. Source Documents All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (760) 4381161. 1. "Rancho Carrillo Environmental Impact Report" (EIR 91-04) certified by the Carlsbad City Council on July 27, 1993. 2. "Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update" March 1994. 3. "Traffic Study Update for the proposed Rancho Carrillo Master Plan Amendment" prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. January 1997. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 12 Rev. 03/28/96 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 13 Rev. 03/28/96 VILLAGES E,F,G,K,&P DESIGN GUIDELINES INTRODUCTION Villages E,F,G,K,&P cover 188.34 gross acres and consist of 382 single family lots, 11 open space lots, and 1 street lot in the northeastern portion of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan (MP 139E). The minimum lot size for Village E is 3,500 square feet, for Villages F&P is 4,500 square feet, and for Villages G&K is 5,000 square feet. UNIT MIX & SIZE The project shall include a mix of floor plans and elevations as follows: Village E Minimum Maximum Number of floor plans Number of front elevation treatments per floor plan Village E,F,G,K,&PDesign Guidelines October 1997 Village F Number of floor plans Village G Number of floor plans Village K Number of floor plans Minimum Number of front elevation treatments per floor plan 3 Minimum Number of front elevation treatments per floor plan 3 Minimum Number of front elevation treatments per floor plan 3 Maximum 8 Maximum 8 Maximum 8 Village P Number of floor plans Number of front elevation treatments per floor plan Minimum Maximum 8 The maximum size of the units in Villages E,F,&P shall be as follows: Single Story Units - Maximum Size - 2,300 sq. ft. (including the area of a second dwelling unit) Two Story Units - Maximum Size - 3,500 sq. ft. (including the area of a second dwelling unit) Village E,F,G,K,&PDesign Guidelines 2 October 1997 The maximum size of the units in Villages G & K shall be as follows: Single Story Units - Maximum Size - 2,800 sq. ft. (including the area of a second dwelling unit) Two Story Units - Maximum Size - 4,000 sq. ft. (including the area of a second dwelling unit) 3. PLOTTING All units shall be plotted within the prescribed building envelope as shown on the Architectural Data Exhibit approved as a part of the tentative map for Villages E,F,G,K,&P. Plotting shall alternate floor plans so that no individual floor plan is plotted for more than 60% of the total units on any individual street. No two units with identical front facades shall be plotted closer than 100 feet of each other on the same street. Units may be plotted in phases or sequences as long as they are plotted in conformance with the requirements of the Villages E,F,G,K,&P Design Guidelines. If the units platted on these lots by the builder do not utilize the entire building envelope, future homeowners shall have the ability to construct a room addition within this envelope, as long as the overall building coverage does not exceed 50% of the lot area. Room additions or accessory structures that are within the building envelopes will not require an amendment to the Planned Development Permit for this project. The matrix included as Exhibit A of these conditions shall be attached to the plot plan for each building phase of each village. This matrix shall show how each phase and the overall village complies with the percent requirements of Sections 3 (Plotting), 5 D, E, F & G (Architecture), 6 C (Garages) and 10 (Lot Drains) of these guidelines. This matrix may be modified subject to the approval of the Planning Director when the floor plans and elevations for each village are approved. 4. SETBACKS Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road All units shall maintain a 50' minimum setback from Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road ROW Front All villages except for Village G shall have front yard setbacks in accordance with Section 21.45.090(b)(2)(A) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The front yard setback for Village G shall be from the backside of the sidewalk as follows: 10' minimum with Village E,F, G, K, &P Design Guidelines 3 October 1997 a 15' average to the livable portion or garages turned 90 degrees from the street. 20' minimum for a garage facing the street. Rear All units shall have a minimum 15' deep, flat usable rear yard. Side 5' minimum 10' minimum for corner lots from street ROW and large slopes (Per grading ordinance). Building Separation All units shall comply with the building separation requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance, Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.45.090(5). 5. ARCHITECTURE A. The architectural theme of this project shall be selected from one or more of the following styles that have been approved as a part of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan: Spanish Colonial Revival Craftsman California Mission Bungalow Monterey Prairie Spanish Eclectic California Ranch Whichever style or combination of styles is used, it should be compatible with the surrounding Villages. Architectural styles are described in the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan, General Community Development Standards pages 31-35. B. When three or more 2 story units are in a row situated less than 15 feet apart, at least one of the three units shall have a single story building edge with a depth of not less than 10 feet adjacent to one of the other units. The roof covering the single story element shall be substantially lower than the roof for the 2 story element to the unit (this is not intended to preclude long shed-type roofs falling to a single story element). C. When three 2 story units in a row situated between 15-20 feet apart, at least one of the three units shall have a single story building edge with a depth of not less than 5 feet adjacent to one of the other units. The roof covering the single story units shall be substantially lower than the roof for the 2 story element to the unit (this in not intended to preclude long shed type roofs falling to a single story element). Village E,F,G,K,&P Design Guidelines 4 October 1997 D. Thirty-three per cent of all units shall have a single story edge for 40% of the perimeter of the building. For the purpose of this guideline, the single story edge shall be a minimum depth of 3 feet. The units qualifying under the 33 % shall be distributed throughout the project. E. At least 50% of the units in this project shall have at least four separate building planes on street side elevations. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inched and shall include, but not be limited to building walls, windows and roofs. The minimum depth between the faces of the forward-most plane and the rear plane on the front elevation shall be 10 feet. A plane must be a minimum of 30 square feet to receive credit under this section. F. Rear elevations shall adhere to the same criteria outlined in paragraph E for front elevations, except that the minimum depth between front and back planes on the rear elevation shall be 3 feet. G. At least 50% of the units in this project shall have one side elevation where there are sufficient offsets or cutouts so that the side yard setback averages a minimum of 7 feet. H. 50% of exterior openings (doors/windows) in the front of each unit shall be recessed or projected a minimum of 2" and shall be with wood or colored aluminum window frames (no mill finished). I. The building materials for each unit shall be compatible and complementary to one another as well as being compatible with surrounding villages. J. The design of the units shall be varied to create variety and interest within the village. K. A maximum of two chimneys shall be permitted on any on residence. L. At least three color schemes shall be provided for the stucco portions of the units within this village. M. Windows shall be phased to maximum privacy. Windows shall be located so that they are offset from windows in adjacent units, where that is not possible landscaping or opaque windows shall be used to provide privacy. N. At least three different roof colors shall be used on this project. O. A combination of the following materials may be used in the front elevations of these units to create a varied streetscape: vinyl, brick or brick veneer, wood trim, stucco and stone. Village E,F,G,K,&PDesign Guidelines 5 October 1997 6. GARAGES A. All garages shall have a minimum interior dimension of 20' by 20'. B. All garages that face on to the street shall provide a minimum of 20' between the face of the garage and the ROW to allow for driveway parking. C. No more than 50% of the units in a village shall have three door garages. Units with three car garages shall be distributed throughout the project. Driveways serving three car garages shall have a maximum width of 24' at the back of the sidewalk and have a curvilinear side flaring to its greatest width at the entrance to the garage. D. Garage doors shall be designed to set into the walls a minimum of 3" rather than being flush with exterior walls. 7. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Accessory structures shall be permitted as allowed by section 21.10.050(1)(D) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (R-l Zone). Accessory structures constructed in conformance with this standard shall not require an amendment to the Planned Development Permit for this project unless the lot coverage as provided for hi these guidelines would be exceeded. 8. WALLS AND FENCES Walls and fences shall be provided as shown by the Villages E,F,G,K,&P Landscape Exhibit. 9. SIGNAGE Signage will be provided to identify the Villages and provide directional information. All Signage will be developed in accordance with the Villages E,F,G,K,&P Landscape Exhibit. The exact location of these signs will be determined prior to issuance of the first building permit. Signage shall be approved pursuant to Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Village E,F,G,K,&P Design Guidelines 6 October 1997 10 LOT DRAINS Private lot drains are approved for lots fronting on steep streets. Lot drains allow pad elevations to be lowered along steeper streets thereby increasing rear yards and setbacks from the tops of slopes. The maximum number of lots using these drains shall be limited as follows: Street Maximum % of Lots <2.5% 50% :<2.5-5% 75% ^5-7.5% 90% <7.5 -12% 100% 11. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE All development in Villages E,F,G,K,&P shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 21.45 (Planned Development Ordinance) of the Carlsbad Municipal code, except as may be modified for the approved affordable housing incentives package for the combined affordable housing site. 12. SECOND UNITS Up to 20% of the lots in Villages E,F,G,K,&P may be developed with second dwelling units. All second units shall be developed pursuant to Section 21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and processed in conformance with the requirements of the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance, the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan, and the Villages E,F,G,K,&P Design Guidelines. The developer has the option to develop the second units concurrently with the primary units. The units may be approved as part of the Minor Planned Development Permit that approves the floor plans and architecture as long as they are processed consistent with Section 21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 13. MINOR MODIFICATIONS A cumulative change to five or less of these provisions of these guidelines is considered a minor modification and may be approved by the Planning Director. However, each change must be determined to be hi substantial conformance with the approved project. Second dwelling units shall be processed pursuant to the requirements of Section 21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Village E,F,G,K,&PDesign Guidelines 7 October 1997 Exhibit A Matrix for Compliance with Design Guidelines - Villages E,F,G,K,&P Requirement Single Story Edge 33% of all units to have a single story edge for 40% of the building perimeter. Building Planes -Front 50% of all units to have at least 4 separate building planes on street side elevations. Building Planes - Rear 50% of all units to have at least 4 separate building planes on rear elevations. Lot Drains :: Street Grade Less than 2.5% - 50% of lots. Street Grade Between 2.5% and 5% - 75% of lots. Street Grade Between 5% and 7.5% - 90% of lots. Street Grade Between 7.5% and 12% - 100% of lots. Side Elevations ; * At least 50% of the units shall have one side elevation where there are sufficient offsets or cutouts so that the sideyard setback averages a minimum of 7 feet. Number of Units Complying to Date Including This Phase Units in This Phase Total Units Plotted to date Remaining Units Total Units Required to Comply with This Requirement Matrix for Plotting Compliance - Villages E,F,G,K,&P Requirement: No individual floor plan shall be plotted for more than 60% of the total units on any individual street. Street A - A Floor Plan A Floor Plan B Floor Plan C Floor Plan D Proposed Percentage Cumulative Percentage to Date Street E - B Floor Plan A Floor Plan B Floor Plan C Floor Plan D Proposed Percentage Cumulative Percentage to Date Page 1 of 2 Street E - C Floor Plan A Floor Plan B Floor Plan C Floor Plan D Proposed Percentage Cumulative Percentage to Date Exhibit A Matrix for Plotting Compliance - Villages E,F,G,K,&P Requirement: No individual floor plan shall be plotted for more than 60% of the total units on any individual street. Street E - E Floor Plan A Floor Plan B Floor Plan C Floor Plan D Proposed Percentage Cumulative Percentage to Date Street F - A Floor Plan A Floor Plan B Floor Plan C Floor Plan D Proposed Percentage Cumulative Percentage to Date Street F - B Floor Plan A Floor Plan B Floor Plan C Floor Plan D Proposed Percentage Cumulative Percentage to Date Street F - C Floor Plan A Floor Plan B Floor Plan C Floor Plan D Proposed Percentage Cumulative Percentage to Date Street K - A Floor Plan A Floor Plan B Floor Plan C Floor Plan D Proposed Percentage Cumulative Percentage to Date Street K - B Floor Plan A Floor Plan B Floor Plan C Floor Plan D Proposed Percentage Cumulative Percentage to Date Street K - C Floor Plan A Floor Plan B Floor Plan C Floor Plan D Proposed Percentage Cumulative Percentage to Date Street K - E Floor Plan A Floor Plan B Floor Plan C Floor Plan D Proposed Percentage Cumulative Percentage to Date Street P - B Floor Plan A Floor Plan B Floor Plan C Floor Plan D Proposed Percentage Cumulative Percentage to Date Private Street A Floor Plan A Floor Plan B Floor Plan C Floor Plan D Proposed Percentage Cumulative Percentage to Date Private Street B Floor Plan A Floor Plan B Floor Plan C Floor Plan D Proposed Percentage Cumulative Percentage to Date Page 2 of 2 C.T. 97-037 P.U.D. 97-03 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 1. Some mprme CarfsbjkJ Dra or City of Assessment- Plittrlet, *r.r. City of CaHsbBd OrmAnf Ho. 331-O1. [r-at rlflht-of-way widths a* Itfttrairt design to conform 1arrillo looter Plan.unlsBS ot i (Mr typiejl dactlonc). i *tandat-dB as modified by Kanchoc ehowti nereen (Includes etreet Ifghte). G. Easement* wiKlw provided a» required by the City Engineer or District. 7. Finish jjnid** shown hareor, ara per Hillside Development Permit HDP 91-17. B. Finish grades shown Mrson jre approximate only And subject to changn In Retaining valle lee* than y In height for side yjird drjitnu^e and it drain [jyout irg »-J Ihe BaUsfa- .. -.-..._ ^ .. per GS-lS Wheia this In not posslWe.yard drainage »hould enit through th, 14. As specif ed )n Section 66466.1 of tha Sut-oMBlon M«p Act, muttlple mips may i>e filed on this project. 15 Building «etbackB: 5aa Housing Product Plotting Enhlblt T. Fropo-isd SuMMoton Grot* acreage. WS.34 «crfli> 2. Exlstlna aid Propowd Zoning: P-C 5. GincritPtan Peoijnattoni RM, RLM and 06 4. Local Facilities Management HaniZora IB 6. Soured of Topography: MI»Bton Aarl*l Photo, dated H> 16-91 7. Easting Contour Interval: 2 feet >» Kepcrt by: GEOCON Incorporated 9. e«tJ Import: 5O.OOO CT P*"y Traffic; 5P2O - VHbje E 5.4 rAJ'AC 95 SMgle Fawn, - 2 Open Space - Vlla^t f 4.0 DU/AC 99 Single Family - 2 Open Space - VHlaje & 2.4 PU/AC 33 Single Family - 2 Open Spate 5 Pm*te KoiM Lot - Village (- 3.3 DU/AC 96 5lr^I« Family - 2 Open 5p*co - Vlllagr P 24 OU/AC 96 Single Family - 3 Open Spare Those portions of Section* 18 and 19. Township IE South, Range 3 Wei San Pomardlno Meridian. In the Cits of Carlsbad. County of San Plejo, 221-012-08 221-012-09221-012-18 222-010-02 Continental Ranch, Inc. 12636' High Ptuff Drtve. Suite ZOO 5«n Diego. CA 0Z13O (619) 795-256O 6620 FrlBfe Eoad Sin Dleac.CA 9211O-; (619) 291-O7O7 Oat and Electricity: San D\tja G»» & Elfrt Telephone: Pactflc Cell Flro Protection: City of CirtebadSelioola: San Marecs Unified School fl Wiltr. Carf»H«d Municipal WirUr CHst Sewer, Carlebad Municipal Water Dist N SHEET 1 OF 10 I RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY NO. 1 REVISKJN P«PARED BY __ I_MTf~ TENTATIVE MAP C.T. 97-03/P.U.D. 97-03 RANCH SHEET 2 OF 10 RICK ENONEEJUNG COMPANY RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY R A N C H O RRIL1 SHEET 4 OF 10 SEE SHEET 4 TENTATIVE MAP C.I. 97-03/P.U.D. 97-03 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET 5 OF 10 A N C H O CL so' HIDE: PUBLIC ftoto - tASEMENt <RS T5TIno REMAN! TENTATIVE MAP C.T. 97-03/P.U.D. 97-03 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY R A N C H O 4 « ET 7 TENTATIVE MAP C.T. 97-03/P.U.D. 97-03- RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY TENTATIVE MAP C.T. 97-03/P.U.D. 97-03 R A N C H O RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY EDGE LEGEND Concept Landscape Architecture X >' <Communily Th.md F.nc. ^--" _x' / ,X" Q'^-^iy/^b^JiBC V *L^m^^s^^ Concept Landscape Architecture fi-tpofof'an n/pfrtTitd b? tvbirt F. WiHinson ft IA / 1999 PLANT PALETTE COMMUNITY ENTRY STATEMENT PALOMAR AIRPOHTHOAP STREETSCAPEJSljOPE PLANTING ZQNS2 toCruz'.. „. _. StoodR»dT(unK>«Wn» COLLECTOR STREETSCAPE A Th«n»frtKn UM cuA to w>n Itonu o( WDM ti*d la vmH or t«nc* ._ Trtfuig Gaanwf l roc^ VU1AGE roENTTTY/ENTHY STATEMENTS Flint MMcrutMeop IKTERIQR SLOPE PLAMTINQ PHttMHMtu: • Trau: NOTES R A N C H O Landscape Plant Palette VILLAGE G VALLEY EDGE- SLOPE PLANTING VILLAGEGHDXSIDE EDGE-SLOPEPLANTING CoolUw Otk ~ CoycM Bnoh flS" ocj> VILLAGE F VALLEY EDGE - SLOPE PLANTING ....... ________ ......... _ ....... Syeamor* S2S5 ». ^ ™. Parkways with Wails Community Theme Wall Community Theme fence wo s Village Fence Village Wood Fence Primary Community Monument Sign NO sca» Village Entry Sign H O Landscape Concept Details Village E Mm. 3,500 S.F. Lots a Ml tot depth Wkwnvrpadiati »irad«panduby wod tMbada *. .We**, may b* p«W bnd Front Yard Modificalion Notes Village F Win. 4.500 S.F. Lots ,. Fran) .o-lf Itlback mo> b* r.duc.d to 1 (I. bitxon lh< go4oor and iwb; 15 (1. bcti-Hfl *. l»abl< «..(. and back i I. Go'tgii 'u.r.d 90 d*nr» Building Envelopo (or J UREC/OS Stondordi \f| Ii| |U l| Housing Product Plotting sumi! opa/b./, / / / / ?<<^5»/ / //• •/— S,rfypkol PJcmng- ' teifc>77 ///// Vlltag«G-- __, \ • Qe-ata Iwind »0 d.\ c.:::;::i,^> «>h*« nalid cl 'C' an \\\\\\\\ R A N C H O / Housing Product Plotting 'CONDITION A* - Mo 'CONDITION C' - M B.I B-3 , AREAS •"'••• 'CONDITION B- . Manufaelur«d Slop«i 'CONDITION D- - Manufactured Slope A N C H O Fire Suppression Details LEGEND NOTES Water Conseruatfon Ptan Water Conservation Plan I T> h Hom*l*M*°^t'*i'eli*n'Ma*iniwn** t^Jj I *J- O?f*_St*tt Let I/** j Individually Own«d and Maintained Pro parly T'-OcsP ^-"\ -Vi-,$F#yf , iF\?sfeV' !kf in \ v '&* l-v \ \::,&>^*^_gff^&^^^t^^^^^i^1 \M*rl V\^k 1if^vJS"*te--%*'4 V*^5 ^•\ \ v\ v.xy\Xpf^^/i i,, r^-4^ ^3®^^:\ ^B? )t>- T\x^ % W x-Xi ,.<S) !f4^. VH ^' ^f i V1 V-^A^1 fe—^4""^ fcj\^';'\ %r ,*& /^ ..,.4 ^.A-<.?i\ Vv'^i./iiiA N ,'. •;--"- ~*\ 1 "-•*57 If ~^*--f,J)*Jl !L. .At jP^ 'II V l*r.lftt. fy l'^\ VW^>k^^^^^^ PM.-u\ v^xr<>jr <r Ik ^iSi ^ J£>' $')./fw'W f..~ '^i/i f'^i^.,.%;"" _>x^- ^i^^'^t."t^^f^f%f ^%: ,u^^r': ••fc&r^VJarV^w-'^fv-V fj!y>--^r ft/ .WTSL *V»^/:/"/•" "XNii!=S^i^' ^,-f''sr ..•' // ^-yfffV J-ii* ':m-^•••/ / B3 .y ^,—..^-'^-x ..- ,< .//B3-y R A N C H O X5%^Q 5 KEYMAP Vy Landscape Maintenance Responsibility ± Maintenance Responsibility