HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 99-02; Carlsbad Beach Estates; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (2)Qhe City of Carlsbad Planning DepartmentirSme
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.!
P.C. AGENDA OF: March 15, 2000
Application complete date:
Project Planner:
Project Engineer:
June 26, 1999
Elaine Blackburn
Jeremy Riddle
SUBJECT: CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/PUD 99-01/CP 00-001/CDP 99-02 - CARLSBAD
BEACH ESTATES - Request for a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan,
Planned Unit Development/Condominium Permit, and Coastal Development
Permit to allow eleven residential units on a site located on the south side of
Chinquapin Avenue between Garfield Street and the AT&SF Railroad tracks and
within Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4727
APPROVING a Mitigated Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 4728, 4729, 4730, and 4731 APPROVING CT 99-01, SDP 99-02, PUD 99-
01/CP 00-001, and CDP 99-02 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The proposed project is a request for a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Planned
Unit Development/Condominium Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to develop a
residential project on a 1.113-acre in-fill site. The project would create ten new residential units
and retain one existing residential structure and would provide both single-family detached units
and single-family attached condominiums. Inclusionary housing requirements for the project
would be satisfied by provision of a second dwelling unit and payment of a fee for the remaining
partial unit requirement. The project site has a two General Plan designations (.322 acres of
RMH and .791 acres of RH) and RD-M zoning. The applicant is proposing 3 units fewer than
allowed on the RH portion of the site and 1 unit more than allowed on the RMH portion. The
density on the RMH portion exceeds the low end of the range but does not exceed the growth
control point. The increase over the growth control point would require approval of specific
findings by the Planning Commission. Staff believes the necessary findings can be made and has
included these in the attached resolutions. There are no unresolved issues associated with the
project, and, therefore, staff is recommending approval of all requested permits.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Site Description
The project site is an irregular shaped property consisting of 3 existing adjacent lots on the south
side of Chinquapin Avenue just east of Garfield Street. The site is located approximately 500
feet west of the AT&SF railway line, approximately a quarter of a mile north of the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, and approximately a quarter of a mile inland from the Pacific Ocean. The
CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/PtG9-01/CP 00-001/CDP 99-02 - CARLOAD BEACH ESTATES
March 15,2000
Page 2
total site size is approximately 1.113 gross acres, is approximately 260 feet deep, and has about
225 feet of frontage along Chinquapin Avenue. Topographically the site slopes downward from
the west to the east and to the south. The westernmost portion of the site is undeveloped and is
sparsely covered with native grasses and a few small trees. The middle portion contains a single-
family structure which will be demolished. The easternmost portion of the site (the proposed Lot
4) contains a single-family dwelling unit with a detached garage. This residential unit and garage
are to remain on the site. (The applicant plans to continue to occupy this unit while the
remainder of the site is developed with new structures.)
Project Description
The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Planned
Unit Development/Condominium Permit, and Coastal Development Permit for eleven residential
units on a 1.113 gross acre in-fill parcel. The eleven units would consist of three new single-
family residential structures on individual lots (one with an attached second dwelling unit), one
existing single-family detached structure on an individual lot, and six single-family attached
condominium units on a single common lot. The four single-family detached units would be on
the front of the site along Chinquapin Avenue. These units would maintain the predominately
single-family atmosphere of the properties to the east of the project site and would keep the mass
of the development lowest along the street scene. The detached unit (Unit A) on Lot 1 would
also incorporate an attached second dwelling unit. The six attached units would be located on
the interior and rear of the project site. The scale of these attached units would be in keeping
with, and less than, the scale of the condominium units on the neighboring site. The proposed
buildings would have a Mediterranean architectural theme incorporating an off-white stucco
exterior and red-blend concrete tile roofing. These materials would compliment the existing
surrounding development along Chinquapin Avenue.
Required guest parking would be provided by five open parking spaces dispersed on the site.
Additional, non-required, guest parking would also be available for the detached units in the
proposed driveways for those units. Each of the detached units has a 20' setback from the
Chinquapin Avenue. The required parking space for the second dwelling unit (Lot I/Unit A) would
be within the 20' driveway for that unit. All other resident parking would be provided by a two-car
garage attached to each unit.
The proposed project would include both private yards for each unit and a common active
recreation area consisting of a volleyball court. In addition the project includes patios and decks for
some of the units. The project would provide an on-site RV parking area for one vehicle. This area
would be gated and screened by landscaping. The RV enclosure and all patio railings would be of
wrought iron painted white. A centralized trash enclosure would be provided behind Lot 1 and
screened from the street. A 30-foot wide private drive would provide access to the interior units.
No parking would be allowed or proposed within this drive. Some small retaining walls (each less
than 3 feet high) are proposed. These walls would be primarily internal to the site. A 6-foot
wooden privacy fence would enclose the rear yards of the detached units.
The proposed detached units range in size from 1,780 square feet to 3,256 square feet. The
attached units range from 1,733 square feet to 2,367 square feet. All of the units contain at least
three bedrooms (except, of course the second dwelling unit). Table 1, below, provides a detailed
breakdown of the proposed structure sizes and floor plans.
CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/pO99-01/CP 00-001/CDP 99-02 - CARCSSAD BEACH ESTATES
March 15, 2000
Page 3
Table 1 - FLOOR PLAN/AREA SUMMARY
LOT#
1
1
2
3
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
FLOOR
PLAN
A
2nd du
B
B
Existing
du
C
D
E
F
G
H
TYPE OF
UNIT
SF detached
Attached
SF detached
SF detached
SF detached
SF attached
SF attached
SF attached
SF detached
SF attached
SF attached
# OF BED-
ROOMS
3
1
4
4
3
3
3-4
4
3-4
3-4
#OF
STORIES
2
over garage
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
SQUARE
FEET
3,256
593
2,758
2,758
1,780
1,733
1,888
2,091
2,367
2,101
2,066
# OF UNITS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
The project site has two General Plan designations. The majority of the site (the western two-
thirds) is designated RH. The eastern one-third is designated RMH. The areas surrounding the
project site reflect this transitional nature. The properties to the north, west and southwest are
designated RH. The properties directly east and southeast of the site are designated RMH. The
properties immediately to the west and to the southeast are zoned R-2. All of the remaining
surrounding properties are zoned RD-M. (See Exhibits "X" and "Y", attached.)
The area surrounding the project site is developed with a variety of residential uses. Directly
across Chinquapin Avenue (to the north of the project site) is the Carlsbad Beach Villas
condominium development. Other developments on that side of the street include single-family
residences and attached residential projects. Immediately west of the project site (along Garfield
Street) are several single-family detached homes. To the southwest of the site is the Llewellyn
Shores condominium development. To the east of the project site most of the development
consists of older single-family detached residences.
Most of the existing single-family detached structures in the area were built approximately 30-50
years ago. As redevelopment of these parcels occur, the single-family detached units are being
replaced with higher density housing in the form of attached product types, including
Condominiums and apartments. These higher density developments more accurately reflect the
density of development anticipated by the existing General Plan designations on those properties.
The proposed project addresses the issue of compatibility with the transitional nature of the area
by incorporating a combination of single-family detached and single-family attached products on
the subject site. The proposed single-family detached units would be located along the street
frontage, thus keeping the overall scale of the project lower along the street scene. This also
preserves the more single-family detached character of the site as it exists to the east. The higher
density attached product is proposed for the rear (southwestern) portion of the project site. This
places the higher density attached portion of the development directly adjacent to the similar
existing condominium developments to the southwest and further removed from the street
CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/PLTO9-01/CP 00-001/CDP 99-02 - CARLs3u) BEACH ESTATES
March 15, 2000
Page 4
frontage along Chinquapin Avenue. This design reflects the applicant's concern with
maintaining compatibility with existing surrounding developments.
The proposed grading for the project includes 281 cubic yards (cy) of cut, 2,824 cy of fill and
2,543 cy of import. The import is required to bring the front yards up to street grade. A grading
permit will be required. No off-site grading is proposed. The geotechnical report prepared for
the project indicates that there are no major grading or soils-related issues associated with the
proposed project.
In general, the differences in elevations between existing grades and proposed pad elevations range
from -2 feet to +4 feet. The western portion of the site would be lowered from the existing grade by
1 to 2 feet. The southernmost point of the site would be raised from the existing grade by
approximately VA feet. The greatest elevation change would be approximately +4 feet. That
change would occur at the southwest comer of proposed Lot 4 on the interior of the project site and
would be necessary to transition from the street grade to the currently-low spots at the interior and
rear of the site. The proposed building pads would follow the natural topography of the site and the
differences between the existing and proposed grades are necessary to create level pads for
construction. The project does not create major slopes along property lines of adjacent properties.
IV. ANALYSIS
The project is subject to the following regulations and requirements:
A. Section 65590 of the California Government Code (affordable housing in the Coastal
Zone);
B. Carlsbad General Plan RMH (Residential Medium-High) and RH (Residential High)
designation regulations;
C. Subdivision Map Act and City of Carlsbad Subdivision Regulations (Title 20 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code);
D. RD-M (Residential Density-Multiple) Zone, BAOZ (Beach Area Overlay Zone),
PUD/CP (Planned Unit Development/Condominium Permit), and Parking regulations
(Chapters 21.24,21.82, 21.45, and 21.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
E. Coastal Development regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Coastal Zone, and the
Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapters 21.201, and 21.203 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code);
F. Inclusionary Housing regulations (Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
G. Growth Management regulations (Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
The recommendation for approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project's
consistency with the applicable City regulations and policies. The project's compliance with
each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/pO99-01/CP 00-001/CDP 99-02 - CARI^AD BEACH ESTATES
March 15, 2000
Page 5
A. California Government Code
Section 65590 of the California Government Code limits the conversion or demolition of low
and moderate income housing within the Coastal Zone. While the two single-family residential
structures on the project site were built many years ago, they have not been used to provide low
or moderate income housing. Further, this Code section provides for exemptions for projects
which would demolish 10 or fewer such units. Therefore, the demolition of one (or even both) of
the existing units is consistent with the California Government Code.
B.General Plan
The project site is subject to two residential General Plan designations (RMH and RM). The
easternmost portion of the site is designated RMH. (This area consists of the easternmost 63' of
the site, and coincides with the western property line of the old Lot 4 from the northern to the
southern edges of the project site.) The remainder of the project site is designated RH. (Again,
see Exhibits "X" and "Y", attached.) Table 2, below, demonstrates how the project is consistent
with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan.
Table 2 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT
USE, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE, OR
PROGRAM
PROPOSED USES
OR
IMPROVEMENTS COMPLIANCE
Land Use (Growth
Management & Public
Facilities)
Goal A. 1. "A City
which ensures the
timely provision of
adequate public
facilities and
services..."
The proposed project
would provide all
public facilities
necessary at the time
of development.
Yes
Land Use
(Residential)
Objective B.2. "To
preserve the
neighborhood
atmosphere and
identity of existing
residential areas."
The proposed project
would preserve the
single-family
atmosphere to the
north of the project
site and the higher
density atmosphere to
the south and west of
the site.
Yes
As stated above, this project site has General Plan designations of RMH and RH. Generally the
allowed density on a site is determined by the General Plan density range and growth control
point. However, on sites zoned RD-M, and developed as PUD's, there are other City regulations
which affect allowed density. Therefore, although these other regulations are zoning matters,
they are being included in the General Plan section of the staff report because they affect project
density.
First, when a PUD project site is subject to two or more General Plan designations, the density
for the project cannot be averaged across the two designations to give a single overall density
CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/PlR>9-01/CP 00-001/CDP 99-02 - CARLOAD BEACH ESTATES
March 15, 2000
Page 6
calculation. Each General Plan area must be analyzed separately. Thus, the densities for this
project have been analyzed separately for the two designation areas. Second, in the RD-M Zone
the density allowed for a project is assumed to be the density at the low end of the range (rather
than at the growth control point) unless the decision-making body finds that a higher density is
justified by the provisions of the General Plan. Since this entire project site is zoned RD-M, the
allowed density is the low end of the range unless specific findings are made to allow additional
density.
Table 3, below, provides a detailed breakdown of the acreage in each General Plan designation
on the site, the allowed density and number of dwelling units, and the proposed density and
number of dwelling units for the proposed project site. This table demonstrates that:
A) On the RH portion of the site, the proposed project density (10.1 du/ac) is below the
low end of the range (15 du/ac); and,
B) On the RMH portion of the site, the proposed project density (9.31 du/ac) is slightly
above the low end of the range (8 du/ac) but does not exceed the growth control point.
Therefore, the proposed project would need approval of specific findings by the
Planning Commission to develop the RMH portion of the site as proposed (i.e., with 3
units rather than 2).
Staff believes the necessary specific findings can be made for the proposed project to allow the
one additional unit requested on the RMH portion of the site. The project would provide all
necessary public facilities for the additional density/dwelling unit. No additional facilities are
necessary for the one additional unit, and all necessary facilities are being constructed at the time
of development. The existing street system is well able to accommodate the 88 total average
daily trips to be generated by the project. The existing water, sewer, and wastewater facilities
can also easily accommodate the proposed project. Further, the project would be allowed an
additional 3 units beyond what is proposed on the RH portion of the site. Therefore, independent
of any other projects which have been approved at densities below the allowed density, the
proposed project itself is proposed at a lower density than allowed on the RH portion. Therefore,
staff analysis concluded that all necessary public facilities would be provided at the time of
construction and there would be sufficient additional units available for the requested one
additional unit on the RMH portion of the site. Further, staff believes the development of the
project as proposed is acceptable since the overall scale of the project is in keeping with the scale
of the neighborhood.
CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/pG 99-01/CP 00-001/CDP 99-02 - CARESBAD BEACH ESTATES
March 15, 2000
Page?
Table 3: PROPOSED DENSITY AND NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS
Prop'd
Lot#
1
2
3
5 (part)
Prop'd
Lot Size
(sf)
4,410
3,780
3,798
22,470
Tot
34,458
Prop'd
Lot
Size
(ac)
.101
.086
.087
.515
Tot
.791
Gen'l
Plan
Desig.
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
Allowed
Density
15 du/ac
Prop'd
Density
10.1 du/ac
Allowed #
ofDU's
11.86du's
Prop'd
#of
DU's
2
1
1
4
8 du's
4
5 (part)
6,930
7,110
Tot
14,040
.159
.163
Tot
.322
RMH
RMH
RMH 8 du/ac 9.31 du/ac • 2.57 du's
1
2
3 du's
C. Subdivision Map Act and City of Carlsbad Subdivision Regulations
The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project
satisfies all requirements of Title 20 (Subdivisions) and the State Map Act. The project site is
served by Chinquapin Avenue, and has direct access to that public street. All lot sizes proposed
meet or exceed the minimuni lot size requirements (minimum 3,500 square feet for the single-
family detached lots) and comply with lot configuration requirements. No through lots or flag lots
are being created. The site contains no slopes which would affect the proposed lot line locations.
Finally, no off-site improvements are required for the project, and no standards waivers are
required. A public easement dedication to encompass the proposed potable water and sewer system
is required.
The project will require a grading permit. However, the proposed grading is limited to that
necessary to bring the front yards up to the street level and provide the necessary flat building pads
throughout the site. No excessive grading or pad elevation changes are proposed.
D. RD-M (Residential Density-Multiple) Zone, BAOZ (Beach Area Overlay Zone),
PUD/CP (Planned Unit Development/Condominium Permit), and Parking
Compliance
The project site is zoned RD-M and is also within the Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ).
Because of the BAOZ and the inclusionary housing requirements, the project requires an SDP.
The PUD/CP is required for all small-lot (i.e., less than 7,500 square feet) and condominium
developments. Because the project creates small single-family lots (i.e., less than 7,500 square
feet), it is also required to comply with the applicable architectural guidelines identified in City
Council Policy 44 for small-lot single-family developments. These guidelines-would apply only
to the detached single-family structures in the project.
CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/PUB-99-01/CP 00-001/CDP 99-02 - CARL&PJ} BEACH ESTATES
March 15, 2000
PageS
As noted previously, this project would create 10 new units and retain one existing unit. The
applicant intends to continue living in the existing unit until the project is otherwise fully
developed. At that time, he anticipates remodeling or rebuilding that structure. In anticipation of
that occurrence, staff has included a specific condition ensuring that any remodeling or
rebuilding of that structure would require a PUD/CP Amendment and would, of course, be
required to maintain compliance with all applicable regulations in place at the time of approval.
Table 4 (below) illustrates how the project complies with the RD-M zone, BAOZ zone, PUD/CP
regulations, and the parking regulations. Exhibit "Z", attached, demonstrates how the project
complies with the Small-Lot Single-Family Guidelines.
Table 4: ZONING COMPLIANCE
STANDARD
Max. Density
Min. Lot Size
Max. Lot
Coverage
Max. Bldg. Ht.
Min. Front
Setback
Min. Side Setback
Min. Rear Setback
Min. Bldg.
Setback from
Open Parking
Min. Dist. B/t
Structures
Min. Street Widths
Private Dwy
Resident Parking
Spaces
Guest Parking
Spaces
RD-M ZONE
STD
RMH=8 du/ac
RH=15 du/ac
' Unless PC
approves more
N/A
60%
N/A
t
N/A
5' (interior lots)
10'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
BAOZ
STD
N/A
N/A
N/A
30V2 stories
(w/pitch)
N/A
N/A
N/A
5'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
PUD/CP
STD
Per underlying
zone
3,500 sf
(SF det'd)
10,000 sf
(SF att'd)
N/A
30V2 stories
(w/pitch)
20'
(from ROW)
N/A
N/A
5'
10' (1-story
structures)
30'
20 covered
(2 covered /du)
5
(lsp./2 du's)
PROPOSED
RMH 9.31 du/ac
RH 10.1 du/ac
3,780 - 6,930 sf
(SF det'd)
29,580 sf
(SF att'd)
33-44%
(SF det'd)
26%
(SF att'd)
29'8" A
26' 8" B
26'4" C,D, & E
24'6" F
25'6" G & H
20'-24'9"
(from ROW)
5'
10'
5'
10'
30'
20 (in garages)
5
CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/PlG99-01/CP 00-001/CDP 99-02 - CARLOAD BEACH ESTATES
March 15, 2000
Page 9
Max. Compact
Parking
Recreational Space
1 . Private Passive
2. Common Active
RV Storage
Storage Space
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.25 sp's
(45% of req'd)
Total: 2,000 sf
(200 sfldu)
1. 1,000
2. 1,000
200 sf
480 cf/du or
392 cf (if all for 1
unit is in 1 area)
2 sp's
(40% of req'd)
Total: 3,225 sf
1. 2,250+ sf
2. 1,200 sf
200 sf
5 10-988 sf
E. Coastal Development Regulations
The project site is within the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program. Mello II land use
policies address conservation of agricultural lands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas,
sites for active recreation areas, scenic vistas, and erosion control. The site contains no
agricultural uses or sensitive habitat. The site also could not reasonably provide any water
recreation opportunities and is designated for residential uses. The site also contains no scenic
vistas. Erosion control will be ensured by compliance with all applicable city regulations
regarding grading activities. Therefore, the project complies with all applicable Mello II land use
policies.
The project site is within approximately a quarter of a mile of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Any
site within 300' of a tidal wetland (e.g., the Agua Hedionda Lagoon) are within the Coastal
Commission Appeal Area. Since the southwestern edge of the subject property is within
approximately 150'-200' of the Lagoon (based upon older aerial photos of the area), it is
assumed that the project is within the appeal area. Therefore, any City approval of a Coastal
Development Permit for the project would be subject to appeal to the Coastal Commission.
The Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone applies everywhere within the Coastal Zone.
Therefore, the project site is located within the Resource Protection Overlay Zone. However,
due to the absence of slopes and the absence of any sensitive native vegetation, no resource
protection standards or requirements apply. The project will require a grading permit and will be
required to comply with the City's Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan
and Grading Ordinance to control increased runoff and soil erosion.
F. Inclusionary Housing
The City's Inclusionary Housing regulations require that a minimum of 15% of all approved
units in any residential specific plan or qualified subdivision be made affordable to lower income
households. The inclusionary housing requirement for this project would be 1.5 dwelling units.
(This is based upon the 10 new residential units being built. The existing unit does not go into
this calculation. However, if it is replaced at a later date, that action will have its own
inclusionary housing requirement for payment of an in-lieu fee.) The developer of this project
proposes to satisfy this requirement by providing one second dwelling unit (on Lot 1) and to pay
a fee for the remaining .5 partial unit requirement. The second dwelling unit would be an
attached unit to be located above the garage of the primary unit on Lot 1. The second dwelling
CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/PuW9-01/CP 00-001/CDP 99-02 - CARLSSM) BEACH ESTATES
March 15, 2000
Page 10
unit would contain a total of 593 square feet including a separate bedroom. The second dwelling
unit would also have a small balcony/deck which would overlook the front yard. Access to the
second dwelling unit would be by two means. The first would be direct access from the primary
unit by a connecting door. This door would have a deadbolt lock which could be used to lock off
the second dwelling unit from the main unit. The second would be by means of a private
entrance stairway. The stairway would be contained within the garage, but a door to the stairway
would be located on the side of the garage. Parking for the second dwelling unit would be in the
driveway for the primary unit. This is allowed since the primary unit is set back at least 20' from
the street. The project's compliance with the City's inclusionary housing requirements is
demonstrated in Table 5, below.
Table 5: INCLUSIONARY HOUSING COMPLIANCE
STANDARD
Inclusionary
Requirements(Units/Fees)
Location of Units
Mix of Bedrooms (10% 3
BR)
Incentives Requested
1. Density Increase
2. Standards
Modifications
3. Direct Financial
REQUIRED
l.Sdu's
N/A
N/A
N/A
PROVIDED
1 2nd du and
.5 fee credit
Lotl
N/A
N/A
G. Growth Management
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest
quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance
with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table 6 below.
Table 6: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
STANDARD
City Administration
Library
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
Schools - CUSD
Elementary School Students
Middle School Students
High School Students
Sewer Collection System
Water
L_ IMPACTS
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2cfs
88ADT
Stations No. 1,2,3,&4
N/A
4.57
2.53
.67
1.37
10 EDU (CMWD)
2,200 GPD (CMWD)
COMPLIANCE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
n/a
Yes
Yes
f^ >**\
CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/PlW99-01/CP 00-001/CDP 99-02 - CARLWAD BEACH ESTATES
March 15, 2000
Page 11
The project is 3 dwelling units below the low end of the range allowance of 11 dwelling units for
the RH portion of the site and 1 unit above the low end of the range allowance of 2 dwelling
units for the RMH portion of the subject property. Thus, the project would add 2 dwelling units
to the excess dwelling unit bank for the Northwest Quadrant.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The initial study prepared for this project concluded that the project would not have any
potentially significant impacts when mitigated pursuant to the mitigation monitoring report made
a part of that initial study. The mitigation monitoring report addresses only one issue: traffic at
the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. Traffic impacts to the PAR/ECR
intersection will be mitigated by the payment of a fee to provide for short-term improvements to
the intersection. (See the EIA Part II, attached, for a detailed discussion of the issues and
mitigation measure.)
On the basis of the initial study and the mitigation monitoring plan prepared by staff, the
Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 31,2000.
ATTACHMENTS;
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4727
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4728
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4729
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4730
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4731
6. Exhibit "X", dated March 15,2000
7. Exhibit "Y", dated March 15,2000
8. Exhibit "Z", dated March 15,2000
9. Location Map
10. Background Data Sheet
11. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
12. Disclosure Statement
13. Reduced Exhibits
14. Full Size Exhibits "A" - "R" dated March 15,2000
EBcsmh
c
SITE
EXHIBIT "X"
March 15, 2000
AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
CARLSBAD BEACH ESTATES
CT99-01/SDP99-02/
PUD 99-01/CDP 99-02
SITE
EXHIBIT "Y"
March 15, 2000
AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
CARLSBAD BEACH ESTATES
CT99-01/SDP99-02/
PUD 99-01/CDP 99-02
"zu
March 15, 2000
CARLSBAD BEACH ESTATES
SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
COMPLIANCE TABLE
GUIDELINE
GUIDELINE 1 : Where there are 3 2- story units in
a row which are less than 15' apart, at least 1 of
the 3 Units must have a 1 -story building edge not
less than 101 deep running the length of the
building pad.
GUIDELINE 2: Where there are 3 2-Story units in
a row which are 15' to 20' apart, at least 1 of the 3
units must have a 1 -story building edge not less
than 5' deep running the length of the building pad.
GUIDELINE 3: Per project, 33% of all units must
have a 1 -story building edge for 40% of the
•erimeter of the building.
GUIDELINE 4A/4B:
A. At least 50% of the units in a project must have
at least 3 separate building planes on street side
elevations of lots with frontages of 45" or less.
B. At least 50% of the units in a project must have
at least 4 separate building planes on street side
elevations of lots with frontages greater than 45'.
A & B The minimum offset in planes shall be 18"
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 101,
and a plane must be a minimum of 30 sf to receive
credit under this section.
GUIDELINE 5: Real elevations shall adhere to the
same criteria outlined in Guideline 4 (above) for
front elevations except that the minimum depth
between front and back planes on the rear
elevation shall be 3'.
GUIDELINE 6: Per project, at least 50% of the
units must have 1 side elevation with an average
setback of no less than 7.
GUIDELINE 7A/7B:
A. Where the average lot size is 5,000 sf or less,
no more than 75% of the units can have a 3-car
garage.
B. The project must include a mix of 2-door, 3-
door, and offset (2 planes minimum 12") 2-door
garages.
GUIDELINE 8: 50% of exterior openings doors,
(windows) must be recessed or projected a
minimum of 2" and must be of wood or colored
aluminum window frames (no mill finishes).
GUIDELINE 9: The predominant roof framing for
each floor plan in a project shall exhibit directional
variety to the other floor plans and to the street.
MIN.STD.
N/A
N/A
1.32 (2) units
A: Lots 1,2,3
B: Lot 4
A&B: All Units
All Units
2 Units
A: 3 allowed
B: N/A
All Units
N/A
COMPLIANCE
Yes
100%+
Yes
100% +
Yes
100% +
Yes
100%+
No
Yes
100%
Yes
100%
Yes
100%
Yes
100%
Yes
100%
Yes
100%
PROJECT DESIGN
We only have three (3) two story
houses: Plan A, Lot 1 and Plan B,
Lots 2 & 3. All have 12' single
story edge.
See Above
Of the Four (4) Units, Lot 4 is an
existing single story. Lots 2 & 3
are 37%.
Lot 1 has three building planes.
Lots 2 & 3 have four building
planes.
_ot 4 has an existing single story
house which will remain. If rebuilt,
it would have a four plane.
All houses have at least a 15'
minimum depth between forward
and rear plane.
Lots 1 ,2,3 have three planes. Lot
4 existing 1 story house. All
houses have 3' or deeper back
planes.
Lot 1 has a minimum 7" setback.
Lot 4 has an 1 1' average setback.
All houses have 2 car garages
100% of exterior doors and
windows are recessed 2+
inches.
Lot 1 has 3 directional roof
framing elevation. Lots 2 & 3
have 4. Lot 4 is an existing
single story house.
SITE
AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
CARLSBAD BEACH ESTATES
CT99-01/SDP 99-027
PUD 99-01/CDP 99-02
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/PUD 99-01/CP 00-001/CDP 99-02
CASE NAME: Carlsbad Beach Estates
APPLICANT: Merit Group. Inc.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for an 11-unit residential development on the south
side of Chinquapin Avenue between Garfield Street and the AT&SF Railroad.
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONiPart of Lot 7 of Palisades No. 2 Map 1803 and the SW 63 feet of Lot
6 Block T Palisades No. 2.
APN: 206-080-10.11 & 12 Acres: 1.113 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 5 lots/11 units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RMH andRH
Density Allowed: 8 du/ac (RMH) & 15 du/ac (RH) Density Proposed: 10.1 (RHP & 9.4 (RMH)
Existing Zone: RD-M Proposed Zone: N/A
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning General Plan Current Land Use
Site
North
South
East
West
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M & R-2
RD-M
R-2
RMH&RH
RH
RH&RMH
RMH
RH
Single-Family
Residence
Residential - Condo's
Residential - Condo's
Single-Family
Residential
Single-Family
Residential
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: CUSP Water District: CMWD Sewer District: CMWD
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
/\ Negative Declaration, issued January 31. 2000
I I Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated,
| | Other,
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: Carlsbad Beach Estates - CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/PUD 99-01/CP 00-
OQ1/CDP 99-02 :
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1 GENERAL PLAN: RMH & RH
ZONING: RD-M
DEVELOPER'S NAME: Merit Group. Inc.
ADDRESS: 2171 El Camino Real #202. Qceanside. CA 92054
PHONE NO.: (7601 721-6499 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 206-080-10.11. & 12
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 10 DU
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: N/A
A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) N/A
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = N/A
E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = 2
Identify Drainage Basin = Agua Hedionda
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
F. Circulation: Demand in ADT= 88
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 1.2. 3. & 4
H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = N/A
I. Schools: 4.57
(Demands to be determined by staff)
J. Sewer: Demands in EDU 10
Identify Sub Basin =
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: Demand in GPD= 2.200
L. The project is 3 dwelling units below the low end of the range allowance of 11 dwelling
units for the RH portion of the site and 1 unit above the low end of the range allowance of
2 dwelling units for the RMH portion of the subject property. Thus, the project would
add 2 dwelling units to the excess dwelling unit bank for the Northwest Quadrant.
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessarv.) , ,tf. Dau'.J guctcH**^' , ,
Person Pa JWctt. /4. g.j/r^c */tg.->/g/- Corp/Part Mtirii- Co/-Pep
Title Title Mem
Address Address & "2.OI-
OWNER (Not the owner's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-
owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
H- 0^'PaJvie.it.Person PaJvie.A.
Title - :?</
Corp/Part
Title
1$ eoct./Ju/cjk'
Address Address
'! C-
2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 - (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-O894
NON-PROFIT C>O *NIZATION OR TRUST W
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit/Trust,
Title
Non Profit/Trust.
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) months?
Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s):.
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of owner/date Signature of applicant/date
f. .
j -g-
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2
SITE DATA
EXISTING LOTS INFORMATION,SHEET INDEX
SITE PLAN. SITE DATA
LANDSCAPE PLAN
WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
STREET ELEVATIONS
UNIT A • FLOOR 4 ROOF PLANS
UNIT A - ELEVATIONS
UNIT B - FLOOR « ROOF PLANS
UNIT B - ELEVATIONS
UNITS C/D/E - FLOOR PLANS
UNIT C/D/E • ROOF PLAN/ELEVATIONS
UNIT C/D/E - ELEVATIONS
UNIT F - FLOOR « ROOF PLANS
UNIT F - ELEVATIONS
UNITS G/H • FLOOR • ROOF PLANS
UNITS G/H - ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED LOT* INFORMATION,
PROPOSED DENSITY AND NUMBER OF DWELLNQ UNITS.
PROPOSED BUILDINGS,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
.T M tmt tr LOT » «o *u. <p tor
CT99-01/SDP 99-02/PUD
99-017 CDP 994)2
RECREATION AREAS REQUIRED!
RECREATION AREAS PROVIDED:mp •rtovjL***oermvATmr
SITE PLAN
9 t» Of CtmOH ACTIvt fvOLLCr»4LX OCUHTI
i :
R =1 i u
3
A-1
PLANT LEGEND
r>r MOW nu*co
Cy flMALL HnQUJi
O ^
» OALLOH J«»
f ROOTED CUTTNSft FROM FLAT9J
ri«» » &ALLON. 30K I OALLONJ
• IliiaaLBiM VDC4-MUMBW. M
anmi
I SALLONJ
CT99-01/SDP 99-02/PUD 99-O1
99-O1/ CDP 99-O2
.-.».«• 1 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN
c**n«c sounn.^1
ot; ^ w
*;CE! pi BI if =alt-
!«
ftif
BBUJ
A-2
CT99-01/SDP 99-02/PUD 99-01
99-O1/ COP 99-02
WATER CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES TO BE
IMPLEMENTED UJITHIN THE PROJECT
«• Wn> U* OP «• UtBtCM.
ZONE I PLANT USAGE JUSTIFICATIONS
ACCOflOPATIONS FOR RECLAIMED WATER
PROPOSED LOT» AND USE>
-^>.c- i WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
inId
t£
D
H
O
X
O
o!
i 8
!»*=
«s
o
A-3
CT99-O1/SDP 99-02/PUD 99-01
99-01/ CDP 9942
J
STREET ELEVATION A
STREET ELEVATION B
STREET ELEVATION C
X
u
eA
<
il
88
A-4
\
/
\
I UNIT A - ROOF PLAN
CT99-01/SDP 99-02VUD 99-O1
99411' COP 99-02
nANASTOHM
UNIT A - 2ND FLOOR PLAN /r-vir I UNIT A - 1ST FLOOR PLAN
!i!i
r*ic
I s
If!!!
A-5
UNIT A - RIGHT ELEVATION
I iou.Mr.nr I UNIT A - LEFT ELEVATION
CT99-01/SOP 99-02/PUD 99-01
99-01/ CDP 99-02
«»a=ir-r> i UNIT A - FRONT ELEVATION
I .c«n«-.r.rl UNIT A - REAR ELEVATION
Ul
oi
\A
x
o
at
<
O
ttUJ <(
SfSi:
o
A-6
PLAN* I
;«-..o-1 UNIT B - ROOF PLAN
CT99-O1/SDP 99-02^>UD
9S-01/ CDP 99-02
UNIT B - 2ND FLOOR PLAN UNIT B - 1ST FLOOR PLAN
U]
I1" =I I*
lO
y <
f*'$
A-7
CT99-01/SDP 99-02/PUD 99-O1
99-01/ COP 9W>2
«»fc»r-rrl UNIT B - RIGHT ELEVATION UNIT B - FRONT ELEVATION
«*u:.r.rri UNIT B - LEFT ELEVATION hot* .«••!.• I UNIT B - REAR ELEVATION
ID
O
K
o
ft
I! <
fi*3i raif m 1«i -iSiii
<<Sjsi:« °2
A-8
CT99-01/SDP 99-02A>UD 98-O1
99-01/ COP 994)2
\/
PLAMCSTOMOI
»• cu n.ovoft *» cu ft.IWCU.FT.
FLAN D VTORAOI CALCULATION*
m,t KIQMT wamam <ra«uae> v» ou.fr.
PLAN e CTOIUOE CALCULATIONS
nu. wuu»remo«
ic«:i»-rlr I UNIT COB • 1ST FLOOR PLAN
•c«.«-.r.-_i UNIT CDE - 2ND FLOOR PLAN
\
bihiiiil
U
u
A-9
CT99-01/SDP 99-02/PUD 99-01
99-01/ CDP 99-02
>«ti«-.rr I UNIT CDE - RIGHT ELEVATION I ic«*igi7r1 UNIT CDE - LEFT ELEVATION
**t «••<•«• I UNIT CDE - ROOF PLAN
iI1
Lfiiii
u)
el
D
H
X
U
OJ
<
BQUJ
A-10
CT99-O1/SDP 99-02/PUD 99-O1
99-01/ CDP 99-02
.ou.vr.rir I UNIT CDE - FRONT ELEVATION
I UNIT CDE - REAR ELEVATION
*-*§|!j
1 D
H
X
O
ft
<
2iu x<
o
A-11
KAN F STOMMW CALCULATION*
nu. HKIOMT owiwt fnanmtt •!* 01 n.
UNIT F - ROOF PLAN
CT99-01/SDP 9942/PUD 99-01
99-O1/ CDP 99-02
«»i*ar-r, I UNIT F - 1ST FLOOR PLAN
.«•-.»• I UNIT F - 2ND FLOOR PLAN
*-*£i wml *n *
' »0
i x
o
ob
3
A-12
«**«r.r.-1 UNIT F - RIGHT ELEVATION
UNIT F - LEFT ELEVATION
CT99-01/SDP 99-OZ/PUD 99-01
99-01/ CDP 994)2
.<*-rr I UNIT F - FRONT ELEVATION
UNIT F - REAR ELEVATION
ID
10i x
u
lii
A-13
CT99-01/SDP 99-02/PUD 99-O1
99-01/ CDP 99-02
FOftAOK
UNIT OH • 1ST FLOOR PLAN
UNIT OH-ROOF PLAN UNIT GH - 2ND FLOOR PLAN
ir} »
o I H
'i
o
l
K °s
A-14
CT99-O1/SDP 99-O2/PUO 994)1
99-O1/ CDP 994)2
UNIT OH. - RIGHT ELEVATION UNIT OH - FRONT ELEVATION
i UNIT OH. - LEFT ELEVATION UNIT GH - REAR ELEVATION
o\u<i
«^
2
A-15