HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 80-46; Swab; Tentative Map (CT)STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 14, 1982
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: MINOR CHANGES TO PUD-27 (SWAB)
PUD-27 was approved by the Planning Commission on June 30, 1981.
The project is a five unit PUD on the east side of Highland Drive
north of Elm Avenue (location map attached). The applicant,
Mr. Jim Swab, objected to several conditions, however, the Plan-
ning Commission retained the conditions pending the outcome of
the new Planned Development Ordinance. Now that the new PD
Ordinance has been approved by the City Council, the Planning
Department has been working with the applicant to make appropri-
ate modifications to the conditions of approval. Staff believes
that all these modifications are minor in nature based upon the
previous wording of the conditions of approval and the new
ordinance. These modifications are as follows;
1) Delete the requirement for a separate common recreation lot
since the individual lots are large enough to have private
recreation use on each one.
2) Delete the requirement for a separate R-V storage lot.
Rather, R-V's would be required to be stored on individual
lots.
3) Allow Lot 5 to have a driveway off Highland Drive to serve
the rear portion of the lot now that the lot will not be a
separate R-V storage lot.
This item is being brought to the attention of the Planning
Commission for informational purposes only and no action is
required.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Reduced Plot Plan
3. Resolution 1816
MJH:kb
\ \
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 10, 1981
TO: Plannning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: CT 80-46/PUD-27, SWAB - Request for approval of a
Tentative Subdivision Map and Planned Unit Development
to create five single-family lots on the east side of
Highland Drive between Elm Avenue and Elmwood Drive in
the R-1-10,000 zone.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Subdivision
Map and Planned Unit Development to create five single-family
lots, and 3 common lots, located, as described above. The
requested 1.36 acre subdivision would provide separate lots for
the two existing single-family homes. The three remaining lots
would be reserved for future single-family development.
The applicant proposes to create three additional lots for
common ownership and maintenance. As shown on Exhibit A, these
would include a common driveway lot, a storage lot and a lot for
recreation area.
II ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1. Is the site physically suitable for the type and
density of proposed development?
2. Does the development satisfy all design criteria and
development standards required by the PUD Ordinance?
III. DISCUSSION
The purpose of a Planned Unit Development is to facilitate the
development of comprehensively planned projects, emphasizing
imaginative and innovative design by utilizing the natural
features of the site. The subject property is a heavily
landscaped lot sloping upward from Highland Drive providing an
ocean view. The palm-lined driveway, as shown on Exhibit A, is
existing to serve the two homes.
The 1.36 acre property is suitable in size and shape to
accommodate the type and density of the proposed development.
Applying the flexibility of the Planned Unit Development
Ordinance, the applicant is proposing to utilize the existing
driveway, thereby creating irregularly shaped lots and preserving
landscaping. The driveway is below the standard right-of-way
width serving Planned Unit Developments of this size. Staff,
however, believes that the driveway, paved to a minimum width of
14' will be adequate to service this development. Although the
Fire Department indicated that a wider driveway would be
desirable, they felt 14 ft. would be acceptable if the driveway
is posted with no parking signs and widened at the entrance.
Staff also believes that the resulting lots, for future
construction, should be suitable for compatible development
permitted in the R-l zone.
The project, as proposed, satisfies all development standards of
the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, except for
open/recreation space requirements. Both existing homes and the
indicated locations of proposed garage structures would observe
required setbacks. Required resident parking would be provided
in these garages. Ample area would exist in the proposed and
existing driveways to accommodate guest parking. Storage space
would be provided in a common lot. Staff does not believe
however, that the project meets useable open space requirement.
A development of this size and density would require a provision
of 3000 square feet of common open space. Examples, given by
the ordinance, of amenities to be provided for recreation areas
include swimming pools, tennis courts, children's playgrounds
and picnic areas. Section 21.45.120(9)(B) of the Planned Unit
Development Ordinance makes the following provision regarding
useable open space:
"The City Council may require the preservation of
scenic natural features such as rock outcroppings,
creeks, wooded areas, vistas or other features deemed
worthy of preservation. Credit for the usable open
space requirement may be given on an equal ratio up to
fifty percent of the requirement."
The applicant is requesting this 50% credit for preserving the
mature palm trees which presently line the driveway. The
balcince of the recreation area would be provided in a common
lot. This area would include a patio and gazebo. Staff does
not feel that the palm trees satisfy the intent of either this
provision or the requirement for recreational area. While staff
considers the trees a desirable feature of the site, it is not
felt that they can be enjoyed in the same fasion as a useable
recreation facility.
It is in utilizing the flexibility of the Planned Unit
Development Ordinance that a subdivision could be created using
the alignment of the existing driveway and saving these trees.
-2-
In exchange for this flexibility, the Ordinance requires
provision of extra amenities for these developments. Recreation
area is one of the most significant of these amenities and one
which staff feels should not be traded for space which cannot be
similarly enjoyed. Staff has, therefore, recommended, as a
condition of approval, that this space be increased to 3,000
sq.ft. to comply with the Planned Unit Development Ordinance.
With this condition, staff believes that the project will comply
with all other development standards of the Ordinance.
The proposed subdivision relates well to the natural features of
the lot, topography, landscaping and views. The proposed lots
are large with adequate open space and landscaping. With the
added condition to provide additional common recreation area,
the project will satisfy all applicable design criteria.
CC&R'S (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions) have been
drafted by the applicant, and will be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Director to ensure the compliance to the design
criteria and development standards of the Planned Unit
Development Ordinance of future development.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that the project will not
have a significant impact on the environment, eind therefore, has
issued a Negative Declaration on May 14, 1981.
V. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the
Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and APPROVE
Resolution Nos. 1815 and 1816, recommending APPROVAL of CT
80-46/PUD-27, based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Resolution Nos: 1815 and 1816
2) Location Map
3) Background Data Sheet
4) Disclosure Form
5) Environmental Documents
6) Exhibits "A" and "B", dated November 13, 1980
CDN:ar
6/2/81
-3-
LOCATION MAP
1777777777
SUBJECT^
o
< ELn AVI
CASE NO.CT60-%/PUP>^7
APPLICANT 6U^B
BACKGROUND DATA S!IE':Kr
^^,iv,S^ —- . .-• . .
CASE KO: CT 80-46/Ptw27
APPLia\rW: SWAB
FULCUEST AND LCX:.\T.tON: Tentative Subdivision Map and Planned. Unit Development
on the east side of Highland Drive, between Elmwood Drive & Elm Street.
LoGVL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Tract 121, according to Map No. 1661
filed March 1, 1915^
Assessors Parcel Nuinber: 156_ 200^14
Acr :-e3 1-36 No. of Lots
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
General Plan Land Use Designation RLM (0-4 du's/ac)
Density Allcved 0-4 Density Proposed ^ • ^
Existing Zone R-1-10 ,000 Proposed Zone R-l-lOfOOO
Surrounding Zoning cmd Land Use:
Zoning Land Use
North R-1-7500 SFRS/Vacant
wSouth R-1-10,000 SFRS/Vacant
East R-1-7500/10,000 SFRS/Vacant
West R-1-10,000 SFRS/Vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Schocl District Carlsbad Unifipjrl
Wacsr Disbcict Carlsbad Unifif^d
Sever Di stx ic i:. Carlsbad Unified FOU's
Public Facilities Fco Agreement, dated ___NqveiraDer_12_^
(Other:
H.T\/:f.rxQi<i!MEisrrAi. IMPACT ASSESSMi^srr
X Neqatdve Declaration, issued _.M§Z_..L4jr_19_81__ Loy Ko.
__ E.I.R. Certified, dated
Other,
' - .)
If after the information you have submitted has been reviewed, it is determined
that further information is required, you will be so advised.
APPLICANT: James R. Swab an individual
Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication)
2924 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Business Address
434-1827
AGENT;
Telephone Number
BRIAN SMITH ENGINEERS» INC,
Neune
2656 State Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Business Address
729-8981
Telephone Number
MEMBERS:
Name (individual, partner, joint
venture, corporation, syndication)
Home Address
•
Business Address
•
Telephone Number Telephone Number
Name Home Address
Business Address
Telephone Nuinber Telephone Number
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis-
closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be
relied upon as being true and correct until amended.
'Applicant
BRIAN SMITIL-iJNGINEERS, INC.
Agent, Owner, Partner
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD. CALIF=0H.'^IA 92003
T^LE?HO^:=:
(TW) 423-5521
PROJECT ADDRESS/LODMIQN:
Elmwood Drive.
NEGATIVE DECLAR.ATIQM •
East side of Highland Drive between Elsa Avenue and
PROJECn* DESCRIPTION: Tentative subdivision map and planned unit development to
create five hcn^ites in the R-1-10,000 zone.- Two existing residences would remain,
the three rannaining. lots would, be. developed as single family hones at a future date.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental reviexif of the ahr^'e described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califomia
Environinental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the
City of Carlsbad. As a result of said revie\^, a Negative Declaration (declaration
that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hoz'cby
issued for the subject project- Justification for this action is on file in tlie
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration \<ith supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Departrreiit, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, QLTIsbad, G\. 9200S. Coniments
from the public are invited. Please submit conui^ts in writin^/''t^'fHe~^l^iino
Department witiiin ten (10) days of date of publi^PHE^T^ss^^:^^ f '
D-MIiD: May 14, 1981
CASE NO: CT 80-46/tUD-27
APPLICANT: SWftB
Director of Pla
City of Carlsbad
PUBI-lSIl DVrH: May 16^ 1981
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
• Assistant city Managw
(714) 438-5596
• Building Departmant
(714) 438-5525
D Englnearino Department
(714) 438-5541
• Housing & Redevetopment Departmant
(714)438-5611
• Planning Department
(714) 43&fiS91
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Citp of Carls^bali
PUBLIC NOTICE OP PREPARATION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
The Planning Department of the City of Carlsbad intends to prepare a
Ne^tive Declaration for the following project:
Project Description: Tentative Subdivision Map and Planned Unit
Development to create five homesites in the R-1-10,000 zone. Two
existing residences woiold remain, the three remaining lots would be
developed as single-family homes at a future date.
Project address/Location: East side of Highland Drive between Elm
Street and Elnwood Drive.
Anticipated significant impacts: NONE
We need to know your ideas about the effect this project might have
on the environment and yoiu- suggestions for ways the project could be
revised to reduce or avoid any significant environmental damage.
Your ideas will help MS decide what issues to analyze in the environ-
mental review of this project.
Your comments on the environmental impact of the proposed project may
be submitted in writing to the Planning Department, 1200 Elm Avenue,
Carlsbad, CA 92008, no later than May 22, 1981 .
DATED: May 1 , 1981
CASE NO: CT 80-46/PUD-27
APPLICANT: SWAB
PUBLISH DATE: May 6, 1981
SIG]
JAMES C. HAGAMAN
Planning Director
^ND5
5/81
ENVIRON^'ill'TrAl, IMRACT ASSESSMENT FORM - Part II
(To Be Completed By Tlie'
•pL/\I'^^':L\'G DEPARTMLNT)
CASE NO.^T &D'ALf/'(^\AXP-^1
I. BACKGROUND
1. _ APPLICAiNT: ^A-Mg^ '&\AJ/^
2. ADDI^SS im PHONE RmER OF i\PPLICANT:
3. DATE CHECKLIST SUBxMITIED:
II- EN^IRONMENTU PPACTS
(EXPLAN^riONS OF ALL AFFIR1MA.TIVE ANSl'ffiRS ARE TO BE imilTEM UNDER
Section III - DISCUSSION OF ENVIROIMIENTAL R'ALUATION)
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth Will the proposa} have signi-
ficant results in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, com-
paction or overcovering of tlie soil?
c. Change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
d. n^e destruction, covering or
modification of any unique geologic
or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or i/ater
erosion of soils, either on or off
tl)e site?
f. Changes in deposition or ero-
sion of beach sands, or changes
in siltation, deposition or erosion
wliich may modify the cbaimcl of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
ND 2
2. Air: Will the proposal have signi-
results in:
c. Alteration of air movanent,
mositure or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
b. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage pattems, or the rate and
amount of surface water ranoff?
c. Alterations to the course or
flow of flood waters?
f. Alteration of the direction
or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of
ground waters, either througli
direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the ajiiount of
water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Yes Maybe No
a. Air emissions or deterioration ^
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable • ' ' ^
odors? • .y^
3. Water: Will the proposal have sigi-
'ficant results in:
a. Changes in currents, or the
course or direction of water move-
ments, in either marine or fresh
waters?
d. Change in the amount of sur- •
face water in any water body? ^ '
e. Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of surface
water quality, includLig but not
limited to temperature, dissolved
o.x>'gen or turbidity?
Yes Maybe No
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal have signi-
Ticant results in:
a. Change in the diversity of
species, or numbers of any species
of plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora arid
aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of
any unique, rare or endangered
• species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species
of plants into an area, or in a
barrier to the normal replenish-
ment of existing species?
d. . Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop?
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal have signi-
jTicant results in:
a. Changes in the diversity of
species, or numbers of any species
of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shell-
fish, benthic organisms, insects or
microfauna}?
b. Reduction of the numbers of
any unique, rare or endangered
species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species
• of animals into an area, or result
in a barrier to the migration or
movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing
fish or wildlife habitat?
6. ' Noise, Will the proposal signi-
Hcantly increase existing noise
levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the pro-
posal significantly produce new
light or glare?
8. Land Use. Will tlie proposal have
signiLicant results in the alteration
of the present or pliUincd land use of
an area?
Yes Maybe No
^' Natural Resources. Will the pro-
posai have significant results in:
a. Increase in the rate of use
of any natural resources?
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal
involve a significant risk of an
explosion or the release of haz-
ardous substances (including, but
not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the
event of an accident or upset
conditions?
Population. Will the proposal
signiricantly alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of
an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal signi-
HcantiV affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional
housing?
13. • Transportation/Circulation. Will
tHe proposal have significant re-
sults in;
a. Generation of additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking
facilities, or demand for new
parking?
c. Impact upon existing trans-
portation systems?
d. Alterations to present
patterns of circulation or move-
ment of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterbome,
rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards
to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
•A-
Yes Maybe No
Public Services. V/ill the pro-
posal have a significant effect
upon, or have significant results
in the need for new cr altered
governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection? .
b. Police protection? _. _
c. Schools?
e. Maintenance of public facili-
ties, including roads?
f. Other governmental services? ,
15. Energy. Will the "proposal have
significant results in;
a. Use of substantial amounts of
fxiel or energy?
b. Demand upon existing sources
of energy, or require the develop-
ment of new sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal have'
significant results in the need for
new systems, or alterations to the
follovv'ing utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b^ Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
C Stonn water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17^ Human Health. Will the proposal
have signigacant results in the
creation of any hcaltli hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
•5-
d. Parks vor other recreational
facilities? ^'
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have
significant results in tlie obstruc-
tion of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or will the pro-
posal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
^^^^
Yes Maybe No
19. Recreation. Will the proposal have
significant results in the impact
upon the quality or quantity of . ^
existing recreational opportunities? . '
20. Archeological/Historical. Will the
proposal have significant results •
in the alteration of a significant
' archeological or historical site,
stmcture, object or building? '
21. ANALYZE VIABLE ALTF.RNATm;S 10 THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) PHASED DUv'ELOPMENl' OF 'HE PROJECT; b) Al/i'ERNmE SITE.
DESIGNS; c) ALTEK^TE SCALE OF DEVELOPi^EOT; d) ALTERNATE
USES FOR HE SITE; e) DE\''ELOPMENT AT SOME FIFIURE TIME RAl-RER
THAN mW, f) AJ-,TERNAIE SITES FOR THE PROPOSED USE; g) NO
PROJECT AI.TEr%NATIVE.
^TE- e» B>U\L.O\iAi2:^ L-iOrS?. -TW<£) ^^^TT;;^
UOT^ Wi^^'UL.CP ^EK.te>TitAdbi -S"^^ *^^-TV^
Yes Maybe No
22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTEN-
TIAL TO DEGRADE TIE QUALITY OF
TIE ENVIR0>2>ENT, OR CURTAIL TIE -
DIVERSITY IN THE ENVIRONf.IENT?
b) DOES THE PROJECT RWE TIE POTEN-
TIAL TO ACHIBTE SHORT-TERM, TO
THE DISADVANTAGE OF LONG-TEPvM,
ENVIRONNesTAL GOALS? (A SHORT-
TERM IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONNENT
IS ONE 1\HICH OCCURS IN A RE-
LATIVELY BRIEF, DEFINITIVE
PERIOD OF TINE WHILE LONG-TERM
IMPACTS WILL ENDURE TVELL INTO
THE FUTURE.)
c) DOES THE PROJECT HAVE DvlPACTS
WHiai ARE INDIVIDUALLY LIMITED,
BUT CUMUIATR/ELY CONSIDERABLE?
(A PROJECT MAY IMPACT ON TWO
OR MORE SEPARATE RESOURCES
V«TERE THE IMPACT ON EACH RE-
SOURCE IS RELATIVELY SMALL,
BUT WHERE THE EFFECT OF IHE
TOTAL OF THOSE IMPACTS ON IHE
ENVIRONNENT IS SIGNIFICANT.)
d) DOES THE PROJECT HA^/E ENVIRON-
MENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WILL
CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE
EFFECTS ON m>m BEINGS,
EITHER DIRECTLY OR INT)IRECTLY?
III.- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONNENTAL EVALUTION
^r^ir^u'^viBi^ T2>/"TW<:P ^\^U& -«^iLy P»)Se»LC>Et-^ci^3>
^^H^'^ V--7ec^^ vAoprm ^-N-I^CO^
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL B^ALUATION (Continued)
IV. DETERMINATION. (TO EE COMPLETED BY 'HE PL'\rN^>IING DEPARHvEM*)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NTEGATIVE DECLAl>lATION \^ill
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 conditional negative declaration will
will be prepared.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the enviroronent, and an ENVIRONNENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required.
Date:
Signature
V. MITiaATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
-9-
MITIGATING MI-ASURES (Colffinued) E^(CO1T
VI 'APPLICANT^ CONCURP^ENCE V/ITH MITIGATING ME/\SLTiES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HA\'E REVIBVED IHE AEOTO MITIGATIQs'G NEA-
SURES AND CONCUR WITH THE .^DDITION OF IHESE NEASUxRES TO THE PROJECT.
Date:
Signature ofAppl icant
-10-
•"xhibit A to
.vosolution Ko. 621'1
CTVJ nONMT-NTAL TM1>^CT Ar..'^T•:r:.^•M•^^n^ FOFM - Part I
-• . (To Be Cornplc'tcd By Aopl j :ant)
100. ; •
FEK: 00 .. EIA MO.
Jfeccipt VsoAU?\^^ • ••
GEMER.^L TN]''0R:'.AT] ON . -• • •• •
1. Name and address of developer or project sponrior
ames R. Swab, 2924 Highland Drive ,Carlsbad , CA Q?nn«
2. Address of project: On owner/subdivider's property,same as above
/vsscssor's Block and Lot Nuinbor : 156-200-14 ^
3. Name, addiress, and telephone number of person to be cont.ncl;cd
• concerning this project: Dave Macabee @ BRIAN SMITH ENGINEERS,INC,
2656 State- Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008
C. Indicote nimber of 1:he periTi.it .-ipplicotion for toe proj.^r! lo
v.'hich tilis •f.orm pertains: '
Li5;t and describe any ot-her related permits ano' civh^T IJ'.M?
approvals required for tins pi"oject, including tl;yr-,e roqi
by city, regional, state and federal agcncJ.es:
Tentative Subdivision Map and P.U.D. applications.
! 1
Existinq zoning district: R-1-10,000 •
7. Proj-)0.';erl vse cf s.ite (projec:!- for vvOiich tViis foim is fi]n(;w :
Residential -Planned Unit Development
?^ACT;r.i;0UNP TNFOPMATT ON ' , . • '
1. Give a brief descript.ion of tlic proposed activ.i ty (.Ul ai.:!-)
any preliminary devcd opment plans); include a di ;;cu:-r-i "M
of site size; square footo'ie of pir'ojr'ct; ..mount of ofT
street parking; proposed scliedn ] .i ng cuul related oi.' ar.soci.ated
p)'oj(^cts and ontici jx'itod i ncren.ental development.
This is a 5 lot residential development on 1.36 acres. Each lot
will have the required parking within the lot. The utilities and-
"access will be constructed in the near future. Custom homes will
be constructed on the three vacant- lots as the market will justify.
2. Describe the activity area, including distiguishing
natural and manmade characteristics; also provide precise
s.lope analysis when appropriate.
A-
The site is a very large presidential lot with two.homes. There is a
. curvilinear paved.driveway with brick curbs lined with, palm trees more
-or less up the middle. The entire property is planted with irrigated
•, trees - avocados and. citrus primarily. .-•
Describe energy conservation ineasure.5 incorporated into
the design and/or operation of the project. (For a more
specific discussion of energy conservation requirements
see of the City's EIR guidelines).
This is a Residential development. Energy conservation can be
achieved by • minimi Sang outside lighting and designi-ng future homes
to be energy'efficient.'
4; If residential, include the number of units, schedule of
unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of
-household size expected.
The two existing homes will remain unchanged. The market will
dictate the .aize of the three future homes.
5. If commerciai, indicate the type, whether neighbor?ood,
city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area,
and loading facilities,
N/A ' .. - , ; • •
,6. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift,
and loading facilities. ,
• N/A. • - * •
7. If institutional, indicate tho major function, estimated
Gmployment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities,
and community benefits to be derived from the project.
N/.A , ; ..
r? 10. Does the activity area serve afe a habitat, food
• source nesting place, source of water, etc. for
rare or endangered wildlife on fish species?
11. Could the activity significantly affect fish,
wildlife or plant life?
12, Are there any rare or endangered plant species
in the activity area?
X
I. ENVIRONMENTAL 'IMPACT ANALYSIS •.' . ',•
• .Answer the follov/ing questions by placing a check in tho
. • appropriate space. (Discuss all items checked yes. Attach
-\ additional sheets as necessary). .
Yes No
1. Could the project significantly change present
land uses in the vicinity of the activity? \ • X
2. Could the activity affect the use of a recrea-
• tional area, or area of important aesthetic value?
.3. Could the activity affect the functioning of an
•established coirimunity or neighborhood? ^
.4. Could the activity result in the displacement of
_ community residents? - . . ^ X
5. Could the activity increase the nuinber of low and
modest cost housing units in the city. ^
6. Could the activity decrease the number of low and
modest cost housing units in the city. X
.7. Are any of the natural or man-made features in the
activity area unique, that is, not found in other
. • parts of the County, State, or Nation?
. 8. Could'the activity significantly affect a histor-
ical or archaelogical site or its settings?
9. Could the activity significantly affect the
potential use,•extraction, or conservation of a
, scarce natural resource? •
X
X
X
X
X
X
13. Could the activity change existing features of
any of the city's lagoons, bays, or .tidelands? *_
14. Could the activity change existing features of
any of the City's beaches? •'
15. Could the activity result in the erosion or
elimination of agricultural lands? ' '
16. Could tho activity servo to encourage develop- •
ment of presonLly undcvcloj?ed areas or intensify
• development of already developed areas?
X
X
•• YGS NO
17. Will the activity require a variance from
established environmental standards (air, water,
noise, etc)?. ^
18. V7ill the activity require certification,
authorization or issuance of a permit by any
local. State or Federal environmental control
agency? • •' • ^
X
X
19. Will the activity require issuance of a variance
or conditional use permit by the City?
20. Will the activity involve the application, use, .-
or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? _X_
21. Will the activity involve construction of
facilities in a flood plain? x_
22,. 'Will the activity involve construction of
facilities on a slope of 25 percent or greater?
23. Will the activity involve construction of
facilities in the area of an active fault? _x
24. Couid the activity result in the generation
of significant amounts of noise? _X_
25. Could the activity result in the ger-^ration of
significant amounts of dust?
26. Will the activity involve the burning of brush,
trees, or other materials? .
27. Could the activity result in a significant
change in the' quality of ahy portion of the
region's air or v/ater resources? (Should note,
surface, ground v/ater, off-shore) .
28. Will tho project substantially iricrease
fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural
gas, etc.)?
29. Will there be a significant change to existing
land form? " ,
(a) indicate estimated grading to be done in . .
cubic yards. ~0-
(b) percentage of alteration to tho present "land
form. _,Q_
(c) maximum hciglit of cut or fill slopes. -0-
30. Will the activity result in substantial increases
in the use of utilities, sewers drains or. .
streets? " •
31. Is tho activity carried out ns part of a
larger projoct or series ol projects? x_
I-I. STATE OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
If you have answered yes to one or more of. the questions in
., • Section I but you think the activity will have no significant
t environmental effects, indicate your reasons below:
5. The s'ubdivi§ioh of the-land and subsequent sale of building sites
without home's'.tiiereon could .permit a property owner to Oonstruct a
low or moderate priced home'.. At this time, .the property owner would
like to build homei=;..but canno-t forsee future housing demands or costs,
III. COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS. TO ANY OF" THE QUESTIONS IN SECTION I
(if additional space.is needed for answering any questions,
, attach additional sheets as may be needed.)
Signature Sg< y^^^li^^j^^Af^u^A^:^^
. , (Persbri cohipleting report) ^^^^.^ ^lacabee
• .. BRIAN SM*[^H ENGINEERS, INC
Date Signed; " . . " >' , . . '
Conclusions (To be completed by the Planhing Director). Place
a check in the appropriate box.
(. ) Further information is required.
( )' It has been determined that the project will not have
significant environmental effects. ( ) You must submit
•a preliminary environmental impact statement by the
follov/ing date. . ( ) You- should mak.o an
appointment with the Plannxng Director to discuds- further
processing of your project, in accordance with Cliaptor 19.04
of the Municipal Code.
DATE RECEIVED:
BY
Planning Director, or.
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
County of San Diego
220 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Citp of Carlfliljab
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
438-5591
This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad on July 7, 1981,
approved the following project:
Project Description: Tentative subdivision map and planned unit
development to create five homesites in the R-1-10,000 zone. Two
existing residences would remain, the three remaining lots would be
developed as single family homes at a future date.
Project Address/Location: East side of Highland Drive between Elm
Avenue and Elmwood Avenue.
The City made the following determinations regarding the environmental
impact of the above described project:
1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environ-
ment.
2. Mitigation measures were not made a condition of the approval of
this project.
»
A copy of the Neqative Declaration with supporting document is
available for public review at the Planning Department, City Hall,
1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008^
DATE: July 13, 1981
CASE NO: CT 80-46/PUD-27
APPLICANT: SWAB
JAMES C. HAGAMAN
Planning Director tor
Carlsbad Joumal
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of Son Diego County
3088 PIO PICO AVENUE • P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • 729-2345
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am prmcipa I clerk of the printer of the CaNsbad Joumal a newspaper of general circulation,
published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which
newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established and published at regular intervals in the said
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year
next preceding the date of publication of the
notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice
^*.|| of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
PUBLIC NOTICE
OF PREPARATION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: The Planning Department of the City of
Carlsbad intends to prepare a
Negative Declaration for the fol-
lowing project:
Project Description: Tentative
Subdivision Map and Planned Unit
Development to create five home-
sites in the R-1-10,000 zone Two ex-
isting residences would remain,
the three remaining lots would be
developed as single-family homes
at a future date.
Project Address/Location: East
side of Highland Drive between
Elm Street and Elmwood Drive.
Anticipated Significant Impacts:
NONE.
We need to Itnow your ideas about
the effect this project might have on
the environment and your sugges-
tions for ways the project could be
revised to reduce or avoid any sig-
nificant environmental damage.
Your ideas will help us decide what
issues to analyze in the environ-
mental review of this project.
Your comments on the environ-
mental impact of the proposed
project may be submitted in writing
to the Planning Department, 1200
Elm Avenue. Carlsbad, CA 92008,
no later than May 22, 1981
Dated: May 1. 1981
Case No: CT 80-46/PUD-2'?-
Applicant: SWAB
JAMES C. HAGAMAN
Planning Director
CJ W854: May 6. 1981
.May .6 19. .8.1
lM/1/81
19
19.
19
19
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California on the 6th .
day of May 19R1 ,
Clerk of the Printer
Carlsbad Journal
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
3088 PIO PICO AVENUE • P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • 729-2345
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Joumal a newspaper of general circulation,
published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which
newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established and published at regular intervals in the said
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year
next preceding the date of publication of the
notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice
of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
P
.•,i?P0JECT ADDRESS/LOCA-
TION East side of Highland Drive
between Elm Avenue and Elmwood
Drive.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tenta-
tive subdivision map and planned
unit development to create five
homesites in the R-1-10,000 zone.
*rwo existing residences would re-
gain, the three remaining lots
'Would be developed as single fami-
ly homes at a future date.
• The City of Carlsbad has con-
ducted an environmental review of
the above described project pur-
suant to the Guidelines for Imple-
raentation of the California En-
vironmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordi-
nance of the City-of Carlsbad. As a
result of said review, a Negative
Declaration (declaration that the
project will not have a significant
impact on the environment) is
hereby issued for the subject proj-
ect. Justification for this action is
on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declara-
tion with supportive documents is
on file in the Planning Department,
City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carls-
bad, CA. 92008. Comments fi-om the
public are invited. Please submit
comments in writing to the
Planning Department within ten
(10) days of date of publication.
Dated: May 14, 1981
Case No: CT 8(M6/PUD-27
Applicant: SWAB
JAMES C. HAGAMAN
Director of Planning
City of Carlsbad
S372: May 16, 1981
.May .1^) 19..81
19
19,
19
19
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California on the ie)th
day of Ni^y 19R1
lM/l/81 Clerk of the Printer
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (tyir
NOTICE IS HEREBY G^IVEN that the Planning CommTssion of the City
of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Cham-
bers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 7:00 P.M. on
Wednesday, June 10, 1981, to consider approval of a tentative
subdivision map and planned unit development to create 5 single-
family lots and 3 common lots on property generally located on
the east side of Highland Drive between Elmwood Drive and Elm
Street and more particularly described as:
a portion of Tract 121 of Carlsbad Lands, according to
Map thereof No. 1661, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder March 1, 1915.
Those persons wishing to speak on this
invited to attend the public hearing,
please call the Planning Department at
proposal are cordially
If you have any questions
438-5591.
CASE FILE:
APPLICANT:
PUBLISH:
CT 80-46/PUD-27
SWAB
May 30, 1981
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
LGCATgOi^ . MAP
-CT"
•3:
O
<
77777777777
'SUBjilCT///
Ztn AVE
CASE HO.CHdOAUmOJJ
APPLIC A NT_ SL4AB .
Carlsbad Journal
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
3088 PIO PICO AVENUE • P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • 729-2345
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, js.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am prmcipa I clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Joumal a nev^spaper of general circulation,
published twice vyeekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which
newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established and published at regular intervals in the said
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year
next preceding the date of publication of the
notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice
of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
tlie Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the City Council Cham-
bers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad,
Califomia, at 7:00 P.M. on Wednes-
day, June 10, 1981, to consider:
approval of a tentative subdivision*
map and planned unit development
to create 5 single-family lots and 3
common lots on property generally'
located on the east side of Highland
Drive between Elmwood Drive and
Elm street and more particularly,
described as:
a portion of Tract 121 ofCarlsbad
Lands, according to Map thereof
No. 1661, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder March
Those persons wish
on this proposal are
vited to attend the public hearing.
If you have any questions, please
call the Planning Department at,*
438-5591. I
Case File: CT 80-4fl?PUD-27 I
Applicant: SWAB
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
CJ S403: May 30, 1981 .
i Office of the:
rch 1, 1915. 1
hing to speak I
! cordially in- '
May. 19. .81
19
19,
19
19.
lM/1/81
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California on the 30th day of May 1981 11 ,
Clerk of the Printer
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
• Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-5596
• Building Department
(714) 438-5525
• Engineering Department
(714) 438-5541
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Ci'tp of Carlsfbab FUeOPY
. • Housing & Redevelopment Department
3096 Harding St.
(714)438-5611
Planning Department
(714) 438-5591
June 17, 1982
Jim Swab
2924 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: CT 80-46 - Storage Area
This letter is intended to respond to your letter of "May 18
regarding storage area for your Planned Unit Development. I
have delayed my response pending the outcome of the City
Council hearings on the new Planned Development Ordinance, as it
proposed certain modifications to the storage requirements.
As you are doubtless aware, the City Council has reaffirmed the
need for storage areas in planned developments. The new
ordinance will allow the same flexibility in providing either
common storage or areas on each individual lot. As we have
previously discussed, staff would still prefer that you provide
the required storage area on each lot. I believe you have
recently expressed some interest in this concept. If you would
like to pursue this alternative, staff would he willing to
present this modification to the Planning Coiranission as a minor
change to your approved P.U.D.
Should you choose to continue with the common storage
alternative, we would suggest the use of landscaping to
accomplish screening. The Sunset Western Garden Book, available
•for review at the library, contains listings of screening plant
materials suitable for this area.
If you have any further questions concerning thus matter, feel
free to call me or Catherine Nicholas at. 438-5591 .•
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Michael J. HolzmT.iler
Land Use Planning Manager
CN:MJH:jp
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2924 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
May 18, 1982
Director of Planning
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Hagaman:
In that I am in the process of buying fencing materials for another property
and desire to consolidate the orders, I need to know what the height of the yiet/
obscuring fence for the commonly owned recreational vehicle parking lot in PUD
#27 must be. Also, in the event there are any ordinances or specific guidelines
available as to type of materials (plywood sheets, wood slats, cyclone with
metal inserts, etc.) and colors preferred, I would appreciate being so advised.
Sincerely,
^^^^
J9'^^7.-^ _ ^A^^^ ^/u^
^ ^ — ^ 3 ^v^-yJcu^^d ^
1
avasidvo do Alio
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
• Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-5596
O Building Department
(714) 438-5525
• Engineering Department
(714) 438-5541
• Housing & Redevelopment Department
3096 Harding Sf.
(714)438-5611
^'''pianning Department
(714) 438-5591
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CAUFORNIA 92008
Citp of Carliibab
April 7, 1982
James Swab
2924 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: SECOND NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE
AT: 2924 Highland Drive
Dear Mr. Swab:
It has come to our attention that you have not removed the
freestanding sign identifying the property as the "Future Site -
Recreational Vehicle Parking Lot" at the above address. As my
previous letter indicated, freestanding signs and the use
indicated by the sign are not permitted in the R-1 zone.
This is your second notice of violation. Unless this violation
is discontinued within 7 days of receipt of this letter, the
matter will be turned over to the City Attorney for further
action.
Please contact me at 438-5591 to resolve this matter.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Michael J. Holzmiller
Catherine' D. Nichaia£
Planning Department
MJH:CDN:rh
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
D Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-5596
O Buiiding Department
(714) 438-5525
• Engineering Department
(714) 438-5541
• Housing & Redevelopment Department
3096 Harding St.
(714)438-5611
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Citf> of Carlsbab
r (71
Planning Department
(714) 436-5591
March 3, 1982
James Swab
2924 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Swab:
It has come to our attention that
standing sign on your property at
of this sign identifies the locat
recreational vehicle parking lot
for reservations. This sign viol
Carlsbad Municipal Code regarding
fees, sign areas and types of sig
property. Please remove the sign
are misdemeanors and each day tha
constitutes a separate offense.
you have erected a free-
2924 Highland Drive. The copy
ion as the future site of a
and lists a phone number to call
ates several sections of the
required permits, reviews,
ns permitted on residential
immediately as these violations
t the violation continues
Please allow me to clarify the status of the storage lot created
for your Planned Unit Development. The PUD Ordinance requires
this storage space to "... be located in specifically designated
areas and made available for the exclusive use of the residents
of the PUD." Section 21.45.120(6)
Please remove the violation immediately and call to inform me
when this has been accomplished.
Sincerely,
CATHERINE D. NICHOLAS
Planning Department
CDN:ar
A^scy^ (^.f^e^
t^^-^^-fi^ / ^y//' / ' J ^ 2924 Highland Drive
f (f U '^'^/i^<^^ S 't^t-^Ci-rf^ Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Mayor Packard
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Dear Mayor Patkard, ,
Now that the highest approval authority in Carlsbad has established the
precedent of making exceptions to their street naming "policy", whatever
that may be, I do not believe it is asking too much for the city to re-
consider my request to name my private drive "Highland Court".
It was quite evident from the discussion we had on street names this past
council meeting that the City Council fully supports my logic. As we all
heard, Casler doesn't have any problem with using the word "courtV, Alriear
isn't really certain when the term court is appropriate and Kulchin appears
to agree that using names that even Council members can't pronounce or
spell might be a hindrance in an emergency situation.
I have worked for the Federal Government for over 15 years and find in
comparison that our city bureaucracy is twice as inefficient and unreason-
able than even the worst group I have ever dealt with at the Federal level.
The frustrations of continually being bombarded with some pretty idiotic
ideas and requirements along with having to fight like hell for even those
things that the City Council agrees with is unbelievable. Some of our
city clerks and managers need to be reminded that their only customers
and their sole employer are the tax payers of this community. Unfortunately
for us and fortunately for them it is pretty hard to take our business
elsewhere as we can do in the private sector.
I am not asking for a change in an established street name but only for
approval of a name that I feel is very appropriate. As a property owner
who now lives on his property and will continue to even after development
I think I am entitled to call ray private drive Highland Court. Highland
Drive has a good reputation and I would like to have the name of my private
drive associated with it. The use of "Court", "Way", "Circle" are very
useful in assisting people in finding a street, and once found it is easy
to remember as you are at least aware of the street it feeds from. It is
certainly more logical and safer than to continue assigning names no one
can pronounce or spell. If our fire chief^were sincerely concerned about
names and how they assist inbr distract«£inding a place he would object
to this (LaCosta) practice. Also, he wouldn't be able to support changing
East/West "Tree" Street to a North/South "People" name. I also have trouble
understanding why almost every town within 35 miles except Oceanside and
Carlsbad not only approve but actively encourage the use of "Court", "Way",
"Circle", etc. in order to have names that relate to more prominent streets.
Certainly our home owners and/or emergency support employees aren't any
more or less intelligent that we have to have a different policy. If we
were talking about the street name for a hospital or emergency/£acj]^t)j^^j^^j^^^^^j_;^|^^
I could better understand why some city employee might think^-about using
the word "court", but we aren't. We are talking about a resident owner/
developer in an established older part of town where the word court, way,
etc. is in use. When I bought my home I paid a premium for the Highland
street address and would like to benefit from it. If you want to restrict
the use of these words in the newer areas where the contractors are
allowed to rape the land and they care less about street names because
they aren't going to live in their eyesores, fine, but please don't be so
quick to take away the few things that really can't be that important to
the city. It is bad enough that so many of the city's decisions are the
primary cause of the high cost of housing.
If after full consideration and review the city still can not make a
decision in my favor, I think I am at least entitled to a written expla-
nation as to why my request had to be denied. Hopefully, in the review
process, the city will finally realize that this private drive shouldn't
be given a street name and will agree with the ovmer and Postmaster that
Highland Drive street numbers in the 2900 series ought to be used. As
the Postmaster desires that mail boxes be on Highland Drive it would
really be ludicrous to have numbers on them in the 1400 series as would
be appropriate if my private driveway had q»street name.
IM SWAB
V...,,.
C-.' 41981
SP^.OFCAR. BAD
December 1981
Mr. James C. Hagaman
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA. 92008
Dear Mr. Hagaman:
I am in receipt of your letter of Nov 30, 1981 and am very pleased to
learn that the City is willing to delete Fire Department Condition #16
("A street name shall be approved and posted for the private driveway
and all lots shall be addressed on the approved street name") on
resolution 1815 signed on June 10, 1981 by the Chairman and the Secretary
of the Carlsbad Planning Coiranission and resolution 6609, adopted by the
Carlsbad City Council on July 2, 1981 signed by the Mayor and City Clerk.
I know the Postmaster will also be pleased to hear that the five lots
in this subdivision can be addressed off Highland Drive as we both have
always felt that my private driveway should remain unnamed.
CC: Mayor Packard
Frank Aleshire
ypmS R. SWAB
VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR.
CITY ATTORNEY
DANIEL S. HENTSCHKE
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
(714) 438-5531
November 23, 1981
Mr, James R. Swab
2924 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, CA 9 2008
Dear Mr. Swab:
Thank you for your letter of November 19, 1981. We appreciate
citizen interest in our processing and in City ordinances.
However, I am sorry to say your letter left me at a loss as to
what you were talking about and I am not sure what kind of reply
is in order. It is, of course, the practice of this office to
advise City Departments to comply with City ordinances. Perhaps
you could be more specific as to who is not doing what they are
suppose to be doing.
Very truly yours.
VINeENT P. BIONDO,//JR.
City Attorney
VPB/mla
cc: City Manager
2924 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
November 19, 1981
City Attorney
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Re: Illegal procesring/approving of Planned Unit Developments (PUD) without
common areas designed for recreational use.
Dear Mr. Vincent F. Biondo, Jr.,
Since CT81-13/PUD 25 is in the Planned Community (PC) zone and any subdivision
of it, whether it will be a part of a master planned community or just in-
dependent lots, must be processed under the PUD ordinance. Therefore, this
project or any other project in a PC zone must meet all the legal/technical
requirements of the current PUD ordinance regardless of how inadequate and
ridiculous this ordinance may be.
Regardless of the city's desires, position papers and past practices, etc.,
there does not appear to be any valid legal basis for arbitrarily deleting
any or all of the PUD requirements. You either comply \iith the PUD ordinance
or you don't process. I don't believe the city has authority to process or
pass a PC zoned project on the basis that as long as the project meets all
minor subdivision standards it should pass. That may be very logical but I
doubt that it would withstand a court challenge in that the only means of
processing is in accordance with the PUD ordinance. While the number of
proposed lots in an R-l zoned project are important in deciding minor verses
major subdivision, that is not the case in PC zoned projects as the current
PUD ordinance does not differentiate between minor and major.
There currently appears to be discriminatory, arbitrary and inconsistent
application of a poorly written ordinance. Discussion with City Planning
Personnel have not lessened my convictions ;that the city is on shaky legal
grounds. All I ask is legal compliance with the current ordinances and
that they be uniformly applied.
/yMAES R. SWAB
CC: City Manager
Frank Aleshire
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
• Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-5596
Q Building Department
(714) 438-5525
D Engineering Department
(714) 438-5541
• Housing & Redevelopment Department
(714)438-5611
D Planning Department
(714) 438-5591
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Citp of €avUhah
November 30, 1981
James Swab
2924 Highland Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Swab:
This letter is written in response to your letter of November 25,
1981 and, hopefully, will explain the processing procedures for
projects that are located in the P-C (Planned Community) zone.
As you are aware, our existing ordinance requires that the PUD
(Planned Unit Development) process be used for projects that are
less than 100 acres in size and are located in the P-C zone.
This is the only process available for those few remaining par-
cels in the city which are zoned P-C. The Planning Department
has consistently interpreted the way in which the PUD is used in
this zone.
The Planning Department's interpretation has always been that the
PUD application be used in the P-C zone to allow for development
of a standard single family subdivision at a density consistent
with the city's General Plan. This interpretation v/as used for
three other subdivisions: CT 80-1/PUD-14 (Rombotis); CT 80-39/
PUD-23 (Rombotis); and CT 81-13/PUD-25 (Schwab). In all three
cases, these subdivisions met all requirements specified by the
R-1 zone relative to lot size, lot width, building height, public
street standards, etc. The owners/developers of these properties
could have changed their zoning from P-C to R-1 and could have
accomplished exactly the same development, hov/ever, this would
have required one more needless procedure.
On the other hand, your property is located in the R-1 zone and
you used the PUD Ordinance to reduce certain zoning standards.
Specifically, you developed your property with a private street
which is only allowed by the PUD Ordinance. Clearly, entirely
different circumstances applied to your application which did not
apply to the other three.
James Swab
Page 2
November 30, 1981
You had the right to develop your property under the provisions
of the R-1 zone without the necessity of a PUD application; the
other three properties did not have this choice. For this rea-
son, the Planning Department developed its administrative inter-
pretation of the use of a PUD application in the P-C zone. This
interpretation has been consistently used by this department for
all projects less than 100 acres in size which are located in the
P-C zone.
I hope this letter clears up any misconceptions that may have
arisen during the processing of your application. If you have
any questions, please call me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
^i\MES C. HAGAWAN^^.
Planning Directqr'^
JCH:wl
DEVELOP|M^TAL
SERVtCES /
• Assistant City Manager
(714)438-559a
n Building Department
(714) 438-5525
• Engineering Department
(714) 438-5541
• Housing & Redevelopment Department
(714)438^11
D Planning Department
(714) 438^91
c
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92C08
€itp of CarliSbab
November 30, 1981
James Swab
2924 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Swab:
In response to your letter of November 23, please allow me to
elucidate the city's street naming policy with respect to your
request for approval of Highland Court as the name for your pri-
vate street.
The city attempts to avoid the use of a name on more than one
street, such as Highland Drive and Highland Court. The practice
of repetition of street names has led to confusion in the past,
particularly in emergency situations. As a matter of fact,
several street names in La Costa were changed subsequent to ap-
proval to eliminate such duplication and confusion.
It was for this reason that Highland Court was not among the
names tentatively approved for your private street. The city,
however, would have no objection if this street remained unnamed
and the project be addressed off Highland Drive. If this would
be an acceptable solution, please notify the Planning Department.
We will in turn notify the Building Department to issue addresses
for your project on Highland Drive.
I hope this will resolve the matter to your satisfaction.
Sincerely,
AMES C. HAGAMAN'
Planning Director
JCH:wl
c
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
• Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-5596
• Building Department
(714) 438-5525
• Engineering Department
• (714)438-5541
• Housing & Redevelopment Department
(714)438-5611
• Planning Department
(714)438-5591
August 28, 1981
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Citp of Carlj^bab
James Swab
2924 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: CT 80-46, PROPOSED STREET NAMES
As requested, proposed street names for the above-referenced
subdivision, have been processed and reviewed. The following
street names have approved:
Kensington Place
Palm Hill Court
Windsor Court
Pepperwood Lane
Please advise me of the name you wish to use and it will be
reserved. The street name should appear on the final
subdivision map.
Sincerely yours,
JAMES C. HAGAMAN
Planning Director
Planning Department
JCH:CDN:nar
08/28/81
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
• Assistant City Manager
(714)43a«5W
D Building Department
(714) 43a«529
• Engineering Department
(714) 43M641
• Housing & Radaveioprnent Departmant
(714)43»6ei1
• Planning Dapartmant
(714>43»<e01
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CAUFORNIA 92008
€itp of Carls^bab
June 24, 1981
Jim Swab
2924 Highland Drive
Carlsbad CA 92008
Dear Mr. Swab: ^
The Planning, Engineering, and Parks and Recreation Departments,
over the last several months, have participated in a coordinated
effort to improve the quality of landscaping along the subdivi-
sion frontages of Royale Homes. The results, unfortunately, have
been far less than satisfactory. The developer, John McCoy, is
unwilling to provide irrigation or additional plant materials.
At the time that this subdivision was approved, in 1977, no spe-
cific condition was included to ensure landscaping in these
areas. Our staff agrees that landscaping, particularly along Elm
Avenue, would greatly enhance the appearance of this area. How-
ever, it does not appear that the city can legally make this re-
quirement at this time.
Please be assured that the city staff shares your disappointment
that this area will remain in its present state and that we will
all endeavor to avoid such oversights in the future.
Sincerely,
CATHERINE D. T^ICHOLAS
Planning Department
CDN:1s
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
• Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-6596
• Building Department
(714) 438-5525
• Engineering Department
(714) 436-5541
• Housing & Redevelopment Department
(714)438-5611
C
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Citp of Cartebab
Planning Department
(714) 438-5691
June 26, 1981
Jim Swab
2924 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, California
Dear Mr. Swab:
92008
Please- find enclosed the legal description accompanying your
Public Facility Fee Agreement. The Carlsbad City Clerk has
informed me that the County Recorder will hot accept this
document as it will not yield legible reproductions. The City
Clerk has suggested that the description be retyped and the
original forwarded to us.
We will need the legal description, to complete your Public
Facility Fee Agreement, prior to-the City Council meeting of
July 7, 1981.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
CATHERINE D. NICHOLAS
Planning Department
CDN:ar
Enclosure
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
• Assistant City Manager
(714)436-5SM
• Building Departmant
(714)4364925
• Engineering Dapartmant
(714)438^1
• Housing & nedavalopmawt Dapartmant
(714)438«ei1
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CAUFORNIA 92008
Citp of €avl^ha'ii
Planning Dapartmant
(714)43M601
March 13, 1981
James Swab
2924 Highland Drive
Carlsbad CA 92CX}8
Dear Mr. Swsib:
Please he advised that the public hearing of proposed zone code amendment,
ZCA-132, revisions to the condominium and planned unit development ordi-
nances, vras continued from the Planning Commission meeting of March 11, to
a special meeting to be held on April 1, 1981. This meeting will be held
in the City Council Chambers and will conmence at 7:00 p.m. This will be a
public hearing and all interested parties are invited to attend.
Sincerely,
JATHERINE D. NICHOLAS
Planning Department
CDN:ls
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
• Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-5596
• Building Department
(714)4384525
• Engineering Department
(714)438-5541
• Housing & Redevelopment Departmant
(714) 4365611
{^'''^lannlng Departmant
P14) 43*6691
c c: 1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CAUFORNIA 92008
Citp of Carl£fbab
February 10, 1981
James Swab
2924 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Swab:
I am writing to inform you of a rescheduling of proposed
zone code amendments to the condominium and Planned Unit
Development ordinances, ZCA-132. These revisions, origi-
nally scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on
February 25, have now been scheduled for the meeting of
March 11th. The Planning Commission meeting will be held in
the City Council Chambers and will commence at 7:00 P.M.
We have received your letter, regarding these proposed
revisions, and copies are being forwarded to the Planning
Commissioners. Thank you for your interest.
Sincerely,
CATHERINE D. NICHOLAS
Planning Department
CDN:jt
2/10/81
DATE: March 13, 1980
TO: Frank JvlcEhirc, City Manacjer
FROM: V. Bud Plcnder, Planning Department
SUBaECT: CT GO-l/PUD-14,. ROMSQTIS
•To batter understand v;hy this pro;jcct is being dGvcloped r.s: a Planned
Unit Developrr.cnt, a brief history of tho P-C zone and PUD process needs
to be briefly reviGv;ed. The P-C rogulaticns at the tii-ie tr.iit the subject
property vas r.onsd P-C v.'ere quite different than they ere today- Orininr.lly
the P-C zone provided no developrnent standards or procedural i-cquircir.e.'its-
A specific plan, based upon a master plan was required v.-ith er.ch develo;:-;r.ent
and vas to provide developinent standards and land use regulations. The
intent of this original P-C zone v.'as to provide a tv/o-fold process.
First," to provide a. Kastei" planned corrcnunity, such as La Ccsta. Secojid,
to provide for innovative development as is normally thour'r;t of virith.
planned unit developments. Without fully nnalyi:ing the ability of the
P-C zone to achieve these coals, many parcels in the city v.-ere zoned P-C.
Later, recognizing'that tho P-C zone needed further refincv.tent and
guidelines, the city modified the P-C zone and .developed the planned
unit development procedure. The new I?-C ^.one is to plan l;.>rge areas and
therefore has a Kvinimum zone district area of 100 acres. Ho'.veve.r, there
are vxar.y existing P-C zoned areas of less than "100 acres that are nov?
non-conforming. The P-C zone requires that those non-confonning P-C
zones be developed by plaimed unit developments or by condo^inivira.permits.
A plann-sd unit development norwally is considered a project that is
planned in An innovative manner relatiiig to the surrounding area,
toi^ography, and natural characteristics of the site. It also provides
design flexibility. In the case of planned unit dcvcloprr-.cntr: in a non--
conCorining P-C zone, hov;ever, the city has used tlic procc;;s as a tool to
provide dovcloj;:>!iient standux-ds, since the P-C zono has no standards.
Tlie subject jproject is a normal detached single-family subdivision", not
a true ))lanTifjd vniit development, hov/ovcr, the j-.taff and I'lannincj Com.ii ssion
found thii; accc)»l.ab] o 1K;CC!USC the jirojecL i.s an. cxicnsj on of tho alro.idy
built sinylu~f.iini.ly detached projt^ct directly to the onr.t.
To provide proper developm.ent standards tho Planning Cou:n:.ir.\:^ir.ri approved
a condition requiring that all devc-lop:^cnt and u.=?e regulations shall
reeet the.; R-l zone standards v/ith scne slight modification to tho yard
requirements.
They also added a condition reguiring that the tentative map be modified
to include tho entire 30 acre parcel to be subdivided'of v;hich only 3.3
acres are to be developed as single faiaily residences. This v;ill indicate
the configuration of the remaining 26.7 acre lot after the subdivision
of tho 3.3 acre subject site. 'The Planning Comrnission also added four
engineering conditions that were inadvertantly left off the staff report.
BP:ar
3/24/80
RECEIVED
2 1981
CITY OF CARL AD
Planning Departr
2924 Highland Drive
Carslhad, CA 92008
September 1, 1981
Director of Planning
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Case No: CT80-46
Dear Mr. Hagaman,
In reply to your letter of August 28, 1981 please reserve
"Highland Court" for the name of my private drive. In the event
the City Council disapproves the final map because of my name
selection it will be renamed "Kensington Court".
Sincerely,
im Swab
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
• Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-5596
• Building Department
(714) 438-6525
• Engineering Department
(714) 438-5541
• Housing & Redevelopment Department
(714)438-5611
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
dtp of CarMab
Planning Department
' (714) 438-5591
June 26, 1981
Jim Swab
2924 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, California
Dear Mr. Swab:
92008
Please find enclosed the legal description accompanying your
Public Facility Fee Agreement. The Carlsbad City Clerk has
informed me that the County Recorder will not accept this
document as it will not yield legible reproductions. The City
Clerk has suggested that the description be retyped and the
original forwarded to us.
We will need the legal description, to complete your Public
Facility Fee Agreement, prior to the City Council meeting of
July 7, 1981.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
CATHERINE D. NICHOLAS
Planning Department
CDN:ar
Enclosure
ived
% -lr • •• •
•r
P'
s tar • ^jf A
hiQQjA)i;tA.
-7 >^-7)- 77?-/^^
.-U' - .
-TP^yl^j^ (l^ihi^xjL^
L -A
• •t; t
....-4-
A
a-
BRIAN SMITH ENGINEERS, INC.
i
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
2656 STATE STREET • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 • PHONE 729-8981
a
May 27, 1981 P* oV
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008 >j O''^^
Attention: Planning Department
Engineering Department
Our J. N. 5079
SUBJECT: Your Case No. V-311
James R. Swab
2924 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
Gentlemen:
This letter is to inform you that since certain changes to the
tentative map are to be made by the owner of the subject property,
our firm no longer assumes any responsibility for the tentative map.
Sincerely,
BRIAN SMITH ENGINEERS, INC.
oflund
resident
JH:ab
2924 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
May 18, 1981
Mr. James Hagaman
Director of Planning
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Hagaman,
During my meeting with Catherine Nicholas on May 14, 1981 she addressed
those items of concern and some points needing further clarification.
This letter addresses only that one item we seem to be furthest apart on.
Hopefully, all others can be readily resolved.
As I totally disagree with the staff's position of not recommending/
allowing for an allowance of 1,374 square feet for preservation of scenic
natural features the following is provided in support of my position:
a. If my project had a higher density such as 4.0 dwelling units per
gross acre rather than just 3.7 the ordinance would only require 2,000
square feet of common open space; therefore, it seems to me the common
sense approach would be to concur with the use of the preservation credit
for at least 1,000 square feet so the net requirement would be 2,000
square feet, the same as if I had the higher density of 4.0. Just because
I have a third of a dwelling unit less per gross acre, which I think would
be in the City's best interest, it doesn't seem fair that I should be
penalized for this. Does the City really want to be on record for providing
incentives to encourage greater density and penalize lesser density?
Through the use of the preservation credit you can remove this inequity.
b. Why your staff insists on taking such an inflexible position along
with a subjective calling (negative opinion on the preservation credit) to
ensure absolute, to the letter, compliance with this magic chart, when we
all know this chart is illogical, out of tune with reality and wouldn't
hold up under a court challenge is beyond me.
c. To require absolute compliance with the 3,000 square feet when
the table of requirements is illogical and absurd appears very non-professional
almost to the point of being negligent. It certainly doesn't seem to demon-
strate that the City is really sincerely interested in having these difficult
lots in the older areas developed.
d. Now in the final days of the life of this ordinance is no time to
become nit-picky and subjective, especially in view of the fact that just
within the very recent past your Planning Department, the Planning Commission
and City Council recommended/approved PUD's without any common recreational
lots whatsoever. Why only in the final days of this ordinance is there a
sudden shift from total indifference to these illegal acts to a complete
2924 Highland Drive 1
Carlsbad, California 92008
May 18, 1981
swing in the other direction to the point of being fanatical about enforce-
ment, interpretation and even further imposition of subjective decisions in
those areas that are illogical to begin with? Once the horse is out of the
corral is no time to be worrying about closing the gate and requiring the
installation of a second one.
e. I have met the legal requirement for a common lot and feel I have
been more than understanding with this project. There has got to be some
give and take/understanding on both sides. My project already is one of ^
the most highly landscaped lots in Carlsbad and will be even more so when
there are additional buildings and surfaced areas to hide. Also, there
will be very little, if any, grading at all. No ugly cuts in the land,
retaining walls or steep banks. It really seems at times that the City
can more easily relate to those developments where there is a complete
bulldozing and redoing of the terrain. Then everything is straight forward,
lots are perfect rectangles and no interpretations or imagination is required.
f. It wouldn't be so hard to understand the staff position if it con-
tained a little more logic other than, "That is what the ordinance requires."
With the lot sizes ranging from 8,662 to 15,239 square feet and all being
in town, only .5 miles from Holiday Park, .4 miles from Pio Pico and Knowles
recreational area, .6 miles from community pool and 1.0 miles from the ocean
there doesn't appear to be much rationale for imposing more than the legal
minimum, which I have met. If a developer, potential buyer, etc. or even
a city planner could demonstrate a legitimate need for any common open space
in the project, let alone why 3,000 is absolutely essential rather than 1,626,
I might be able to relate better to the requirement. When you weren't able
to relate to the inequities in paragraph 21.45.120(a) and didn't even attempt
to amend them when such were pointed out, I guess we better not only leave
the development of a new PUD ordinance to others but the interpretation as
well. The fact that the Planning Commission and taxpayers so overwhelmingly
rejected your work in this area ought to be some indication that your staff
may not be on the right track.
g. I'm trying to preserve some o£ the few specimen trees in this town
and don't feel that just because paragraph 21.45.120(B) of the current PUD
ordinance hasn't been used before that that is a valid reason not to recommend/
consider its use now in order to accomplish a logical objective.
In conclusion if you are still unwilling to consider/recommend the use of the
preservation credit in order to permit the open space to be 2,000 or even the
1,626 which I prefer, I would appreciate my application being processed so
that in the event the Planning Commission and/or City Council doesn't concur
with me the project can go forward with whatever size recreational lot they
require, whether it be 2,000 or 3,000 square feet.
Sincerely,
«
Oim Swab
2924 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
May 18, 1981
Mr. James Hagaman
Director of Planning
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, Califomia 92008
Dear Mr. Hagaman,
During my meeting with Catherine Nicholas on May 14, 1981 she addressed
those items of concem and some points needing further clarification.
This letter addresses only that one item we seem to be furthest apart on.
Hopefully, all others can be readily resolved.
As I totally disagree with the staff's position of not recommending/
allowing for an allowance of 1,374 square feet for preservation of scenic
natural features the following is provided in support of my position:
a. If my project had a higher density such as 4.0 dwelling units per
gross acre rather than just 3.7 the ordinance would only require 2,000
square feet of common open space; therefore, it seems to me the common
sense approach would be to concur with the use of the preservation credit
for at least 1,000 square feet so the net requirement would be 2,000
square feet, the same as if I had the higher density of 4.0. Just because
I have a third of a dwelling unit less per gross acre, which I think would
be in the City's best interest, it doesn't seem fair that I should be
penalized for this. Does the City really want to be on record for providing
incentives to encourage greater density and penalize lesser density?
Through the use of the preservation credit you can remove this inequity.
b. Why your staff insists on taking such an inflexible position along
with a subjective calling (negative opinion on the preservation credit) to
ensure absolute, to the letter, compliance with this magic chart, when we
all know this chart is illogical, out of tune with reality and wouldn't
hold up under a court challenge is beyond me.
c. To require absolute compliance with the 3,000 square feet when
the table of requirements is illogical and absurd appears very non-professional
almost to the point of being negligent. It certainly doesn't seem to demon-
strate that the City is really sincerely interested in having these difficult
lots in the older areas developed,
d. Now in the final days of the life of this ordinance is no time to
become nit-picky and subjective, especially in view of the fact that just
within the very recent past your Planning Department, the Planning Commission
and City Council recommended/approved PUD's without any common recreational
lots whatsoever. Why only in the final days of this ordinance is there a
sudden shift from total indifference to these illegal acts to a complete
W ^924 Highland Drive I
Carlsbad, Califomia 92008
May 18, 1981
swing in the other direction to the point of being fanatical about enforce-
ment, interpretation and even further imposition of subjective decisions in
those areas that are illogical to begin with? Once the horse is out of the
corral is no time to be worrying about closing the gate and requiring the
installation of a second one.
e. I have met the legal requirement for a common lot and feel I have
been more than understanding with this project. There has got to be some
give and take/understanding on both sides. My project already is one of
the most highly landscaped lots in Carlsbad and will be even more so when
there are additional buildings and surfaced areas to hide. Also, there
will be very little, if any, grading at all. No ugly cuts in the land,
retaining walls or steep banks. It really seems at times that the City
can more easily relate to those developments where there is a complete
bulldozing and redoing of the terrain. Then everything is straight forward,
lots are perfect rectangles and no interpretations or imagination is required.
f. It wouldn't be so hard to understand the staff position if it con-
tained a little more logic other than, "That is what the ordinance requires."
With the lot sizes ranging from 8,662 to 15,239 square feet and all being
in town, only .5 miles from Holiday Park, .4 miles from Pio Pico and Knowles
recreational area, .6 miles from community pool and 1,0 miles from the ocean
there doesn't appear to be much rationale for imposing more than the legal
minimum, which I have met. If a developer, potential buyer, etc. or even
a city planner could demonstrate a legitimate need for any common open space
in the project, let alone why 3,000 is absolutely essential rather than 1,626,
I might be able to relate better to the requirement. When you weren't able
to relate to the inequities in paragraph 21.45.120(a) and didn't even attempt
to amend them when such were pointed out, I guess we better not only leave
the development of a new PUD ordinance to others but the interpretation as
well. The fact that the Planning Commission and taxpayers so overwhelmingly
rejected your work in this area ought to be some indication that your staff
may not be on the right track,
g. I'm trying to preserve some of the few specimen trees in this town
and don't feel that just because paragraph 21.45.120(B) of the current PUD
ordinance hasn't been used before that that is a valid reason not to recommend/
consider its use now in order to accomplish a logical objective.
In conclusion if you are still unwilling to consider/recommend the use of the
preservation credit in order to permit the open space to be 2,000 or even the
1,626 which I prefer, I would appreciate my application being processed so
that in the event the Planning Commission and/or City Council doesn't concur
with me the project can go forward with whatever size recreational lot they
require, whether it be 2,000 or 3,000 square feet.
Sincerely,
Oim Swab
€(2i[FDgIe)(fii(9l yiniQffodxdl g(glh(o)(o)[l (d)ogihrD(gif
001 pine avenue cQrlsbodcQlifornlQ 92000 729-9291
Mc^y 1, 1981
Reference; Ronald S, Schwab
Parcel Split
Tamarack Avenue at
Skyline Drive
Ms, Mary Marcus, Chairperson
and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. James C. Hagaman, City Planning Director
Gentlemen:
Our district has reviewed the proposed parcel split which would create
three additional building sites generally located on the northeast corner
of Tamarack Avenue and Skyline Drive, as referenced above, and has evaluated
the impact of that project on the facilities of this district.
The governing board wishes to advise the city officials and the
residents of Carlsbad that as residential units are added to the community,
it is likely that many classes in the distnct will be crowded, resulting
in possible impairment to the educational and transportational services
offered to the students. It is also likely that school schedules may have
to be changed, resulting in an increase in the year-round program, or double
sessions, or both. However, the district is able to assure you that school
physical facilities will be available concurrent with need for this develop-
ment as it is presently proposed.
Very truly yours.
Robert A, Crawford
District Superintendent
aw
ROBERT A. CRAWFORD
DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT BOARD OF EDUCATION THOMAS L. CURTIN, M.D. W. ALLAN KELLY JOHNJ.MAMAUX RICHARD R. O'NEIL, M.D. MARY A. SCHERR
2924 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
April 27, 1981
Mr. James Hagaman
Director of Planning
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Hagaman,
I appreciate the time given by you, members of your staff and Dick Allen,
Engineering, on April 22, 1981 for the discussion of my proposed PUD. It
is the intent of this letter to get my project back into full consideration
and on its way to the Planning Commission and City Council. I have enclosed
12 copies of subdivision map along with landscaping plans for the common
areas. In the event I have failed to cover any area we discussed I would
appreciate it being brought to my prompt attention.
Common Open Space Areas Designated For Recreational Use
As I addressed in my February 5, 1981 letter to the Planning Commission and
my public comment to them on April 1, 1981, I still can not see the rationale
for arbitrarily imposing a mandatory requirement for common open space; however,
since I now realize there doesn't appear to be a legal means of getting around
this technicality, I have designated a commonly owned area for the "benefit"
of all lot owners. With over 93+feet of frontage onto the commonly owned and
maintained entrance way it will certainly be readily accessible to everyone.
Also, it is adjacent to the maximum number of lots possible, will not be a
distraction to any one lot, and development of it will not require destruction
of any specimen trees.
We had an extremely difficult time, however, trying to identify the most useful
purpose for this commonly owned "recreational" space. As each lot has adequate
space for normal family functions and a nice view of either both the town and
ocean and/or back country hills and mountains in reality it will probably only
be used for extra large social events such as weddings, receptions, anniversaries,
memorial services, combined garage sales, etc. During the last five years we
have already had three weddings on the property so proposed usage will be consis-
tent with past tradition. Also, in the event there ever is a time all lot owners
can't stand one another, this area with its picnic bench will provide a neutral
meeting place for association meetings. Having the commonly owned lot adjacent
to a public street will be a tremendous convenience to guests, and will allow
excellent access for any handicapped persons.
Received
APR 2 7 19B1
CITY OR CARLSBAD
PAGE 1 OF 3
As I consider the current hot tub and jacuzzi trend to be a passing craze
and don't believe swimming pools are really necessary when one has a direct
ocean breeze, I do not want to burden future lot owners with the legal
liability and ever increasing maintenance costs associated with these items.
In view of our concern for conservation of dwindling supplies of water and
energy resources such so called "amenities" are not truly in the best interest
of the community. My actual experience with such so called amenities has been
that many owners and tenants really prefer not to have such costly items. In
fact, the tenants in a 28 unit apartment complex of mine have petitioned me to
remove the swimming pool as they would prefer to have a $14 a month reduction
in rent. As it is a very emotional and subjective area I think it is best
left to the market place.
Every effort has been made to preserve all mature landscaping and specimen
trees for the visual benefit of the community and lot owners. As an extra
eleven feet of entrance way has been dedicated for this sole purpose (preserving
the specimen palms and adjacent landscaping - scenic natural features) it is
felt that the project is deserving of credit in an equal ration up to fifty
percent of the usable open space requirement. With a density of 3.676 dwelling
units per gross acre the magic chart on page 430.6a of the PUD ordinance
indicates these five lots "require" 3,000 square feet of open space; however,
with credit of fifty percent for the extra eleven feet of width on the 249.83
feet of commonly owned land already proposed for the preservation of scenic
natural features the legal net requirement for common open space is only
1,626 square feet (5 x 600 = 3,000 - 1,374 (11 x 249,83 = 2,748.1 x 50%) = 1,626),
As it may be years before lots 2, 4 and 5 are built on and occupied, I really
feel it is unrealistic to require immediate development of this common open
lot. However, rather than waste further energy on trying to arrive at an
acceptable common sense solution it is easier for me to put the damn things
in now and at least the birds will have another target and place to rest.
Proposed Driveways, Covered Parking Spaces and Visitor Parking
While I was surprised to hear for the first time during our meeting that
proposed driveways, covered parking spaces and visitor parking had to be
shown, even though we are dividing for the sole purpose of creating lots
without the immediate intent of building, I have designated most probable/
likely spaces. As it is quite premature to be locking into actual house
layouts at this time, this was done for the sole purpose of showing you that
each one of the three vacant lots are quite buildable. I would hope that
when I or God forbid, some other owner in the event I die prematurely, will be
allowed to change these spaces to accommodate his dream home.
Designating individual driveway accesses from the common owner entry way is
certainly no problem in that this area had to soon be established anyway as it
will influence location of utility feeds. Here again, depending on actual
house size, configuration and position that the developer and the City eventually
agree on, these proposed areas may have to be adjusted accordingly.
Storage Space
It would appear that with the ever increasing costs of fuel the ownership of
campers, recreational vehicles, boats, etc. will continue to decline and hope-
fully the City will soon recognize this trend and their concern for storage
space will parallel the decline in current usage and procurement.
PAGE 2 OF 3
Since I firmly believe that each individual lot owner should have the freedom
of choice, I have decided it is best for the overall project to meet the mini-
mum of 200 square feet (5 x 40) of commonly owned storage space rather than
requesting a waiver from the City Council which would then require a quintupling
of the amount of land needed to meet this requirement.
I really don't believe it is the intent of the City to arbitrarily impose this
requirement on the eventual lot owner if he choses not to own such items. This
could certainly be quite a detriment to my project if prospective lot buyers
ever learned that just because the lots were created through the PUD process
and I chose not to have a common storage lot they must site their homes in such
a way as to allow and provide for storage space even though they have no desire
whatsoever or need of such spaces.
As all the upper elevation on this proposed PUD has premium views that should
be reserved entirely for living areas, it is felt that the common storage space
should be in some of the lower less desirable area. Also, as I don't care to be
near such vehicles, I felt that other lot owners might possibly feel the same
way so I put the space in the remotest area possible. The proposed location
appears ideal in that it will allow ingress and egress without disturbing any of
the residents, and it won't require removal of any specimen trees.
Having the common storage area on the northern side of the project is also most
consistent/compatible with the surrounding area in that 58 percent (188,83' of
the 324.83') of this lot line is adjacent to the City's industrial storage area
while 100 percent of the other three sides are exclusively adjacent to R-l zoned
areas. Also, as this location has proven to be quite satisfactory in the past
for occasional storage of excess vehicles, it will be consistent with past
practice.
Re commendat ion
As I have had a communications problem with City personnel, I would appreciate
it if all further requirements, recommendations and comments which will affect
the progress of this PUD be relayed to me in writing. I can assure you as a
novice in this procedure it is a most frustrating experience and emotional
expressions have not been intentional nor meant to be of a personal nature.
Sincerely,
/^m Swab
PAGE 3 OF 3
) ELM AVENUE
SERVICES H'^^^H CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
DEVELOPMENTAL BL '^J^ 1200 ELM AVENUE
• Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-5596
O Building Department , * ^ « « ^
(714)438-5525 0f ^WCU\SSiti
• Engineering Department
(714) 438-5541
• Housing & Redevelopment Department
(714)438^611
Planning Department
(714) 4384591
fl'^iann
February 10, 1981
James Swab
2924 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Swab:
I am writing to inform you of a rescheduling of proposed
zone code amendments to the condominium and Planned Unit
Development ordinances, ZCA-132. These revisions, origi-
nally scheduled to be ..heard by the Planning Commission on
February 25, have now been scheduled for the meeting of
March 11th. The Planning Commission meeting will be held in
the City Council Ch^ibers and will commence at 7:00 P.M.
We have received your letter, regarding these proposed
revisions, and copies are being forwarded to the Planning
Commissioners. Thank you for your interest.
Sincerely,
nd)
CATHERINE D. NICHOLAS
Planning Department
CDN:j t
2/10/81
(QiinisisjQKoi lyiLnjoiriKsxQj s(sinj(Qxo)u (oj
001 pine ovenuc corlsbod. cQlifomlo 92000 729-9291
October 30, 1980
Reference: James R. Swab
Parcel Split
Three Additional Building Sites
Mr. Edwin Schick, Jr., Chairman
and Members of the Planning Conmission
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. James C. Hagaman, City Planning Director
Gentlemen:
Our district has reviewed the proposed parcel split, dividing one lot
into five lots but creating only three additional building sites, generally
located at 2924 Highland Drive as referenced above and has evaluated the
impact of that development on the facilities of this district.
The governing board wishes to advise the city officials and the
residents of Carlsbad that as residential units are added to the community,
it is likely that many classes in the district will be crowded, resulting
in possible impairment to the educational and transportational services
offered to the students. It is also likely that school schedules may have
to be changed, resulting in an increase in the year-round program, or double
sesMons, or both. However, the district is able to assure you that school
physical facilities will be available concurrent with need for this develop-
ment as it is presently proposed.
Very truly yours,
Robert A. /rawforoV
District Superintendent
aw
cc James R. Swab
NOMRT A. CMWPOm
mtnilCT •UKMNTCHOCNT MAMO OF EDUCATION THOMAS LCURTW. HO. W.ALLAN KELLY JOHNJ.MAMAUX WCHAUD R. O'NEIL. MJ>. MARY A. WHERR
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
Engineering, Fire Departir.ent. Building, and Parks
and Recreation
Planning Department
SUBJECT: Request for Review and Comment on Application
Proposal ^(/p f=hiL ^'h^ -
Project Planner
This item has been tentatively scheduled for the Planning
Commission meeting of ^^oAjf /O /^S/ Please
review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the
Planning Department by /^^Y'/ f /A^Q/ • If not
received by that date, it vriil be assumed that you have no
comment and that the proposal has your endorsement as sub-
mitted. Thank you.
Comment Vrar
ATTACHMENTS
Location Hap
Project map or plans (if any)
MH: jt
' ' c ^ . Becefvec?
Receipt No. U^y?^
NOV 12 1980
APPLICATION NO. CARLSBAD TRACT Q-U?
CITY OP CARLSBAD ^'^'^ SJARUSBAQ
(Please Type or Print) DATE: I \/fs/gsQ C\/
REQUEST: Tentat.\ve Subdivision Map for:
Land Division (P.U.D.)
TLand (division - air space division - combination land and
air space divisionO
LOCATION: The s\»bject property is generally located on the
^^^^ side of Highland Drive between Elmwood/Buena Vista
and Elm street
ASSESSOR'S NUMBER: Book 156 page 200 Parcel 14
Book Page Parcel \ (If more, please list
on bottom of page).
OWNER(S) : Name Address City Zip Phone
- James R. Swab, 2924 Highland -Drive, Carlsbad,CA 92008 434-1827
5. Person responsible for preparation of Map:
David K. Macabee (a
Name Address City Zip Phone
BRIAN SMITH ENGINEERS, INC. 2656 State Street. Car 1 sh^^d . CA Q?nn« 4^4-1 »97
Registrc;bion or License No. : RCE 13,817
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE:
I hereby declare that all information contained within this
application is true; and that all standard conditions as
indicated on the attachment have been read, understood and
agreed to.
Name A Address City Zip Phone
Sf^n^ /?: yd^>^''V^ ' '.' ' 2924 Highland Drive,Carlsbad,CA 92008 434-1827
Representing (Company or Corporation) Self
Relationship to Property Owner(s) Owner
As per State Law the City has 30 days to determine if your
submitted application is complete and ready for acceptance.
Incomplete applications may delay acceptance. To better ensure
complete applications, the Planning Department would appreciate
working with the applicant during the planning stage of the
proposed development. This request is not a requirement, however,
It may avoid revision of plans or non-acceptance of the application,
ATTACHMENTS;
Supplemental Information Form - Planning 20
Timo Extension Agreement - Planning 37
Standard Conditions - Planning 28
Preparation Chock List - Planning 33
Procedures - Planning 36
pnnM. P1,-inn1na R Dnfo nf Plnnninrr CnrnTm'?i n i on Annrovnl
O • . O ' V-)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
SPECIFIC PLAN/MASTER PLAN/TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP/SPECIAL USE PERMIT/
PUD/ CONDOMINIUM PERMIT/PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
1) Gross Acres (or square footage if less than acre) 36
2) Number of Lots or Units 6 lots - 5 units
3) Type of Development Residential
Residential, Commercial, Industrial
4) Present Zone R-l (10,000) Proposed Zone R-l (P.U.D.)
(If change requested)
5) General Plan Land Use Designation Residential/Low-Medium Density
6) 'source of water supply^^^^ Municipal Water District
7) Method of sewage disposal^°^^^ ^^^^ Municipal Water District
8) Types of Protective Covenants to be recorded Standard with
driveway use and maintenance covenants.
9) Transportation modes available to service the development
Private automobile and North County Transit System
10) School District(s)' serving the property ' ^^^l^bad Unified School'
District
11) If your project is for or anticipates being for more than 50 res-
idential units do you prefer to dedicate land
pay fees , or^ a combination thereof
12) Methods proposed to reduce sound levels No anticipated increase
in. .sound' levels.
13) Methods proposed to conserve energy Standard Code
reguirements at the'time of construction.
Additional sheets may be attached if necessary to answer any of the above
questions. .
FORM PLANNING 20 - February 1, 1979
STATEMENT OP AGREEMENT
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
CITY OF CARLSBAD
The Subdivision Map Act and the Carlsbad Municipal Code sets a
fifty (50) day time restriction on Planning Commission processing
of Tentative Maps and a thirty (30) day time limit for City
Council action. These time limits can only be extended by the
mutual concurrence of the applicant and the City. By accepting
applications for Tentative Maps concurrently with applications
for other approvals which are prerequisites to the map; i.e.,
Environmental Assessment, Environmental Impact Report, Condominium
Plsui, Planned Unit Development, etc., the fifty (50) day time
limits and the thirty (30) day time limits are often exceeded.
If you wish to have your application processed concurrently,
this agreement must be signed by the applicant or his agent. If
you choose not to sign the statement, the City will not accept
your application for the Tentative Map until all prior necessary
entitlements have been processed and approved.
The undersigned understands that the processing time required by
the City may exceed the time limits, therefore the undersigned
agrees to extend the time limits for Planning Commission and
City Council action and fully concurs with any extensions of
time up to one year from the date the application was accepted
as complete to properly review all of the applications.
«, lAlT^
Sigiya^ure Date
James R. Swab Owner
Name (Print) Relationship to Application
(Property Owner-Agent)
FORM: PLANNING 37, REVISED 3/80