HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 95-06; Rancho Carrillo Village E; Tentative Map (CT) (2)SEPTEMBER 4, 1996
TO: CITY MANAGER
VIA: Planning Director
FROM: Associate Planner
CT 95-06 AND CT 93-01 -RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES E, J, AND K -
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The attached Housing Commission Resolution for Rancho Carrillo Villages E, J and
K was not available when the Agenda Bills for the subject projects were prepared
and is not listed as an attachment. The project is scheduled for City Council
hearing on September 10, 1996. Please distribute this resolution to City Council
members during their briefings so that they will be aware of the Housing
Commission recommendation for twenty-six affordable duplex units in Village E and
20 second dwelling units in Villages J and K. At the Planning Commission public
hearings, the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Plan for 20
affordable duplex units in Village E and 27 second dwelling units in Villages J and
K. If the Council decides to accept the Housing Commission recommendation, the
Council will have to direct the City Attorney to return with documents which add a
condition to: 1) require the designation of six additional affordable duplex units in
Village E; 2) reduce the number of second dwelling units in Villages J and K from
27 to 20; and direct staff to process appropriate amendments to the related and
approved site development plans.
If you have any questions, please call me at extension 4477.
ANNE HYSONG (^
c: Michael Holzmiller
Brian Hunter
1 HOUSING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96-009
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT
4 OF TWENTY-SIX (26) TWO AND THREE BEDROOM
TOWNHOMES AND TWENTY (20) SECOND
5 DWELLING UNITS AFFORDABLE TO LOW
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS WITHIN THE RANCHO
CARRILLO MASTER PLAN FOR VILLAGES E, J
7 AND K TO SATISFY INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
REQUIREMENTS.
8 APPLICANT: UDC HOMES, INC
CASE NO.: AHP 96-04 (CT #93-01. PUD #95-05 and SDP 195-13)9
10 WHEREAS, an Affordable Housing Project (AHP) Application (No. 96-
11 04) has been submitted to the City of Carlsbad's Housing Commission for review and
12 consideration;
13
WHEREAS, said Housing Commission did, on the 8th date of August,
14
1996, hold a public meeting to consider said application; and
1 3
15 WHEREAS, at said public meeting, upon hearing and considering all
1? testimony, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
18 factors relating to the application.
19
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing
20
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:21
22 1. The above recitations are true and correct.
23 2. That based on the information provided within the application and
testimony presented during the public meeting of the Housing
Commission on August 8, 1996, the Commission recommends
25 APPROVAL of Affordable Housing Project (AHP) No. 96-04
containing 26 affordable two and three bedroom townhomes and 20
26 second dwelling units to be affordable to low income (80% or below of
county median) households subject to the findings and conditions
outlined herein.
28
1 HC Resolution No. 96-009
Page 2
2
3
3. That the Commission's recommendation for approval of said affordable
4 housing project does not include support for any financial assistance for
the project.
5
6 FINDINGS:
7
1. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Carlsbad's
Housing Element and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the Density Bonus Ordinance and the
affordable housing requirements of the approved Zone 20 Specific Plan.
10
The project will provide a total of 26 two and three bedroom townhomes and 20
second dwelling units (1 bedroom) affordable for rent to households at 80% or
below of the county median which meets a "medium priority" affordable
housing need as outlined within the City of Carlsbad's approved 1995-2000
13 Consolidated Plan. The project, therefore, has the ability to effectively serve the
City's housing needs and priorities as expressed in the Housing Element and the
14 Consolidated Plan.
15 CONDITIONS:
16
Recommendation of approval is granted for AHP No. 96-04, as shown on Site
17 Development Plan 95-13, incorporated by reference and on file in the Housing
and Redevelopment Department. Development shall occur substantially as
shown unless otherwise noted in the conditions of project approval by the City
19 Council.
20 2. Recommendation of approval is granted for AHP No. 96-04 subject to the
condition that the applicant submit an acceptable schedule for construction of the
required ratio of income restricted units for inclusion in the final Affordable
22 Housing Agreement to be approved prior to Final Map. The schedule shall
indicate acceptable construction phasing for the affordable units in relation to
23 the construction of the market rate units.
24 3. For the second dwelling units, the applicant shall maintain rents at the allowable
25 affordable rate (based on household size) for low income households with
incomes equal to 80% or below of the county median upon lease up of units and
26 continuing for the full period of affordability.
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HC Resolution No. 96-009
Page 3
4. For the for-sale townhomes, the units must either remain affordable for their
useful life or the developer shall allow for the transfer of the initial fianancial
subsidy to another qualified household if there is a resale at a market price.
5. For Villages J and K, the affordable housing units must be deed restricted for
"the useful life of the project" which means a minimum of 55 years.
6. Upon final approval of said affordable housing project and prior to final map
approval, the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with
the City of Carlsbad. The agreement shall be binding to all future owners and
successors in interest. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall include all
terms and conditions of said project approval and outline the incentives
(financial or other), if any, to be provided by the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Housing Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 8th day of
Augustl, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Calverley, Schlehuber, Walker, Sato, Rose, Escobedo,
Noble, Scarpelli
Wellman
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
NANCY O
Chairperson
Housing Commission
ATTEST:
EVAN E. BECKER
Housing & Redevelopment Director
San Marcos Unified School District
1 Civic Center Drive, Suite 300, San Marcos. CA 92069 (619) 744-4776 FAX (619) 471-4928
August 12, 1996
Michael Holzmiller
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: School Site in the Rancho Carrillo Master Pian
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
During the past year the Rancho Carrillo property owners have been meeting with representatives
from our office to discuss impact financing and the deeding of the school site within the Rancho
Carrillo Master Plan to the San Marcos School District. These negotiations have included lengthy
discussions regarding the various financing mechanisms for the development of the school and
the timing of construction. The District realizes that the ownership of the school site can not be
transferred until a final map is approved which will create the school site as a legal parcel. The
District also recognizes that the school site must be improved as provided in the mass grading
plans before construction of the school site can begin. However, the District also realizes the
need of the Rancho Carrillo property owners to start the mass grading of the Master Plan in
August of this year, before the tentative maps are finaled.
Therefore, the District has no objection to allowing the Rancho Carrillo property owners to start
the mass grading of the Master Plan prior to the transfer of the school site to the District or prior to
District approval of the school impact financing plan; however, the District will insist that both of
these items must occur prior to the first recordation of final map in Rancho Carrillo. We feel
comfortable with this decision based on the following:
First, the District will not need the site until it has been graded and all weather access
is available to allow the site to be developed.
Second, the Rancho Carrillo property owners and the San Marcos School
District are working on a school impact financing plan. It is not necessary
to delay the grading while we finalize the school impact financial agreement.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at 619-752-1234.
Respectfully,
Lettie Boggs
Director of Facilities
copy:
Brian Hunter - City of Carlsbad
Rancho Carrillo Property Owners ; .
Don Rideout - City of Carlsbad .
Governing Board: *
Mary Boreuifz Alan Brown Lucy Gross James Polll •'•• Seena Trigas
Larry B. Maw, Ed.D., Superintendent
FROM 4.17. 1996 15:15
-)c.
P. 2
/, IY
San Marcos Unified School District
1290 W. San Marcos Blvd., San Marcos, CA 92069-4076 619-744-4776 FAX (6)9) 471-4928
March 10, 1993
Mr. Brian Hunter
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Dear Mr. Hunter:
On February 23, 1993, the Governing Board of the San Marcos Unified School District took
action to accept the proposed Rancho Carrillo school sile. Attached is an excerpt from the Board
minutes relative to that action.
David
Assistant Superintendent
Business Services
pjk
att.
co: Robert Ladwig/Ladwig Design Group, Inc.
RECEIVED
LADWIG DESIGN GR
AGENDA ITEM Q 2
FROM 4.17.1996 15:15 P. 3
SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
1290 W. San Marcos Boulevard
San Marcos, CA 92069
EXCERPT FROM BOARD MINUTES
The following Is an excerpt from the minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Governing Board of the San
Marcos Unified School District held on February 23,1993;
Trlgas moved, Poltl seconded, and it was carried 4-0 with Gross abstaining to accept the proposed
location of the Rancho Carriito school site and authorize staff to proceed with site approval
studies.
hereby certify the above to be a true and correct copy of the minutes as indicated,
Larry B. Maw, Ed.D.^/
Secretary/Clerk oTVfe Governing Board
***END***
UDC HOMES,
INC.
July 29, 1996
Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: UDC's Tentative Maps for Villages E,
Ranch Master Plan
K of the Carrillo
Dear Ms. Hysong:
At the City Council meeting on July 23rd, the Council continued CT
95-06/PUD 95-04/SDP 95-12 for Village E to their August 20th
meeting. This continuance was to allow the Carlsbad Housing
Commission to review the affordable housing proposal for Villages
E, J and K at their August 8th meeting.
UDC would like to formally request that the CT 95-06/PUD 95-04/SDP
95-12 for Villages J and K also be scheduled for the August 20th
City Council meeting. We feel that it is important for City
Council to review villages E, J and K together since part of the
affordable housing for Villages J and K will be provided in Village
E.
When these Tentative Maps were presented to the Planning Commission
they went to separate hearings due to staff's workload. We were
assured, however, that they would go together when presented to the
City Council so that the Council could fully understand UDC's
affordable housing proposal. We appreciate your cooperation in
this.
438 Camino del Rio South, Suite 112B • San Diego, California 92108 • (619) 298-8070 • (619) 298-3514 FAX
Please feel free to call me or Mike Howes of HPA if you have any
questions regarding this request.
Sincerely,
Dennis M. Ferdig
Land Development Manager
cc : . Ray Pachett .:
"Mike Holzmiliier
.Brian Hunter./
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF DECISION
May 1, 1996
UDC Homes
Suite 112B
438 Camino del rio South
San Diego CA 92108
RE: CT 95-06/PUD 95-04/SDP 95-12 - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E"
At the Planning Commission meeting of April 17,1996, your application was considered.
The Commission voted 7-0 to APPROVE AS AMENDED your request. Some decisions
are final at Planning Commission, and others automatically go forward to City Council.
If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call
the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161.
Sincerely,
\MjujS^M
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:AH:kr
Enclosed: Planning Commission Resolution No. 3919, 3920 and 3921
c: Mike Howes
Hofman Planning Associates
2386 Faraday, Suite 120
Carlsbad CA 92009
2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894
April 17, 1996
TO: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CT 95-06/PUD 95-04/SDP 95-12 - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E"
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the following corrections and additions to
Resolution No. 3919:
The last line of Finding No. lOd:
Add the word "in" between the words UDC Homes and Villages.
Correct Item e. of Condition No. 14, under Village HOA:
e. Provisions for the maintenance of the slopes within the open space and maintenance
easement on Lots 6, 7, and 21 through 30.
Add Item f. Condition No. 14, under Village HOA:
f. Ventilation systems are provided and should be maintained in units which would
exceed the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard with open windows.
Reword Condition No. 22:
22. Prior to occupancy of individual units, the applicant shall submit a detailed noise
study addressing necessary interior noise mitigation measures for Village "E". Prior
to issuance of building permits, the following mitigation shall be ensured: (1) the
interior noise levels shall be mitigated to 45 dBA CNEL when openings to the
exterior of the residences are closed; (2) if openings are required to be closed to
meet the City standard, mechanical ventilation shall be provided; (3) the Developer
shall prepare and record a Notice of Restriction for those lots requiring openings
(e.g.. windows, doors, vents, etc.) to be closed and mechanical ventilation to be
provided in order to satisfy the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard; (4)
units requiring openings to be closed and mechanical ventilation to be provided in
order to satisfy the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard shall be identified
in the sales office prior to the sale of any units; and (5) all useable exterior space
above the first floor shall be mitigated to the adopted City standard.
Correct the last line of Condition No. 30:
maintenance easement to the Village E Homeowner's Association on Lots 6, 7, and 21
through 30.
Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission make the following correction to Resolution
No. 3921:
Line 6 of Finding 2a:
Add the word "the" between the words serve and project.
MEMORANDUM
April 8, 1996
TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER - ANNE HYSONG
FROM: Associate Engineer - Land Use Review
S*£?l^ I'^^t,VIA: Principal Civil Engineer - Land Use Review
CT 95-06: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E"
DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE (DCC) MEETING
ENGINEERING CONDITION REVISIONS
In accordance with discussion at today's DCC meeting, Engineering Conditions of Approval
No.'s 55, 70 and 86 for Planning Commission (PC) Resolution No. 3919 are hereby revised
as follows (bold and strike-out format fonts are being used for the revisions:)
55. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall comply with the
requirements of the City's anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such
a program is formerly formally established by the City.
70. The following improvements as required in the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan (MP) and
Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 18 shall be guaranteed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. These improvements, unless otherwise modified
by the final decision-making body, shall be substantially completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit within
the entire project.
jx/ious condition No. 86 is hereby deleted and now reads as follows:
The developer shaTTreifn^urse the City forthejjropertiGnate share of frontage cost
of constructing half street irngre)£e^ents*oriCity Project No. 3166, Palomar Airport
Road. Said reimbjjjse^fieTffshall be Ies5-thenon-discretionary funds designated for
the fjuwrtagtTconstruction as determined by tTTe~-€ity Engineer and Finance Director.
These revisions make this project consistent with the adjacent previous
CT 93-07: Rancho Carrillo Villages F, G and P.
If you have any questions, please either see or call me at extension 4388.
pproved project,
MICHAEL
Associate Engineer - Land Use Review
\
I
Hofman Planning
Associates
Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis
MEMO
DATE: APRIL 8, 1996
TO: ANNE HYSONG - CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM:MIKE HOWES - HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES
SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO CONDITIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 3919
Condition No. 7.d.
The following wording should be added to the end of this condition to make it consist
with the conditions that have been applied to Continental Homes' tentative maps in the
Rancho Carrillo Master Plan: "As provided for in the Zone 18 LFMP, if any
reimbursement anTor school fee credits are to be given, the school
agreement/financing plan shall provide a mechanism to do so."
Condition No. 10
The following wording should be added to the end of this condition: "unless the
Planning Director determines a mixture of 5 and 15 gallon slope trees would
create a more effective screen."
Condition No. 28
The following wording should be added to the end of this condition to reflect that the
Rancho Carrillo property owners are working on obtaining an overall permit from the
USFW for the Master Plan ",unless a permit is issued for the entire Rancho
Carrillo Master Plan."
Condition No. 70
The second sentence of this condition should be revised to read as follows to make it
consistent with the conditions that have been applied to Continental Homes' tentative
maps in the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan: These improvements, unless otherwise
modified by the final decision making body, shall be substantially completed to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit
within the entire project.
2386 Faraday Avenue ° Suite 120 ° Carlsbad - CA 92008 • (619)438-1465 ° Fax: (619)438-2443
Condition No. "8$
This condition should be revised as follows to make it consistent with the conditions
that have been applied to Continental Homes' tentative maps in the Rancho Carrillo
Master Plan: "The developer shall reimburse the City of Carlsbad for the
proportionate share of frontage cost of constructing half street improvements on
City Project No. 3166, Palomar Airport Road. Said reimbursements shall be less
the non-discretionary funds designated for the frontage construction as
determined by the City Engineer and Finance Director."
Conditions Nos. 93 & 94
These conditions should be eliminated since none of the structures in this project will
be within 60 feet of native vegetation.
APRILS, 1996
TO: ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: City Attorney
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR APRIL 17, 1996 (DCC 4/8/96)
My comments on the four items scheduled for the April 17 Planning Commission meeting
follow:
Do not forget to have staff give proper notice and prepare an agenda item and staff
report regarding the response to the correspondence on Public Road 1885Z.
1. ALGA STREET NAME CHANGE SNC 95-01
Are the proposed freeway sign locations and proposed sign text shown on Exhibit
"A" part of the "project"? If so, the categorical exemption might not apply to the
entire project, if the Planning Commission reverses the staff recommendation and
recommends that Council approve the name change. In that event, what about
the Fire Department's request for money to effectuate the change?
2. KOOTER'S BARBEQUE CUP 95-10
A. The staff report makes it sound like there was no physical change
whatsoever in the proposal by Kooter's, just a relaxation of the City's
standard by the City Engineer. The staff report also says the subject
building is currently vacant and it appears the Conditional Use Permit is for
both the sit-down restaurant and the drive-through facility. However, Gary
advises me that the restaurant is open for business and the drive-through
is the only portion to which the Conditional Use Permit would be
applicable. Please clarify.
B. The staff report states that the project has a Negative Declaration as its
environmental document. However, I assume it also must be relying on the
1994 General Plan Update MEIR with regard to cumulative air and traffic
impacts. If so, the MEIR mitigation measures should be applied to this
project and reflected in the conditions of approval.
C. Parking. On page three, the staff report says that the total shopping center
requires 736 spaces for all occupants of the center, but provides no
discussion about what portion of the total spaces are required by this new
use. It then states that approximately 46 of the 736 spaces are located in
1
the area immediately surrounding the restaurant, but does not state how
many, if any, are going to be allocated for use to the new proposed use
(sit-down restaurant and/or drive-through restaurant). Please discuss what
the parking requirement standard is for this project and whether it has been
met.
D. Parking and traffic. The staff report justifies on page three the findings that
the proposed use will not be detrimental to existing uses or uses
specifically permitted in the zone by stating:
"If the proposed drive-through facility proves to
function as a low-volume facility, there will be
no blockage of access to, and thus no
reduction in the number of, existing parking
spaces. There will also be no negative impact
on internal circulation."
There appears to be no factual basis in the staff report for the assumption
that this facility will function as a low-volume facility, other than the
assertion of the applicant. If challenged, I do not believe the finding of the
Planning Commission would be based on substantial evidence in the
record.
E. The findings recite and the condition recites that the property is required
to meet the mitigation measures applicable to LFMP Zone 2, but neither the
staff report, nor the resolution specifies what those applicable mitigation
measures are and how they are going to be carried out and met by this
project. Please provide details.
F. If the Conditional Use Permit is for the restaurant, as well as the drive-up
window, why isn't there a condition with regard to grease traps and/or
other waste treatment/drainage/NPDES requirements. If the restaurant itself
is a permitted use as a right, are grease traps and/or other drainage/sewer
protective devices code requirement or somehow otherwise applied to this
project?
G. Are there any exactions extracted from the applicant as a result of this
discretionary approval? If so, the Nolan/Dolan finding should be included
in the resolution.
3. CARR1LLO RANCH VILLAGE "E" (CT 95-06 ETC.)
A. Hillside Development Permit. The project does not include a new Hillside
Development Permit, but repeatedly states that the grading for this level of
the project will be "consistent with" the Hillside Development Permit HDP
91-17 (approved simultaneously with the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan on
July 27, 1993?) Unless the resolution granting the Hillside Development
Permit in 1993 contained some other provision, the permit would have
expired in 18 months pursuant to CMC § 21.58.020, and cannot be
exercised now. Please explain?
B. Funding No. 11 and Condition No. 7d speak of a requirement for a
dedication of an acceptable school site "if it is determined that a school site
is warranted, and a financing plan approved by San Marcos Unified School
District guaranteeing the construction of the necessary elementary school
facilities in Zone 18." How will the developer and/or the public know who
determines when or whether a school site is warranted? Don't we know
now what the impact of this project will be, so we know whether or not it
/ is warranted? I assume this finding and condition carry out a mitigation
/ measure in a previous legislative approval, thus authorizing us to require
more than the payment of statutory school fees. A school district approved
financing plan would be helpful, but cannot "guarantee" the construction of
the necessary elementary school facilities. We should be requiring either
an agreement between the developer and the City or proof of an
agreement between the School District and the developer that an
agreement has been entered into which will guarantee the construction of
the elementary school facilities specifically detailed to and found to be
necessary as a result of this project.
C. The project seems to rely on both the MEIR and the Rancho Carrillo EIR
for prior compliance. Therefore, the resolution correctly reflects that in
Finding No. 15 on page five, and properly states our conclusion that all the
mitigation measures of both EIRs have been incorporated into this
subsequent project, but I cannot find any obvious mitigation measures that
would flow out of the air and traffic mitigation measures flowing from MEIR
93-01 (AG Transportation Demand Management Mitigation Measures
imposed on this project.) Finding No. 17 is technically correct, but not part
of our standard findings. Are you proposing it as an additional new
standard finding that we use when the MEIR for the General Plan Update
is utilized for prior compliance? C<^y^ £>
D. In Planning Condition No. 7 on pages six and seven, the proposed
mitigation measures appear to be appropriately drawn from the LFMP Zone
18 list of mitigation measures. They need to be more finely tuned by
specifying how they apply to this particular project and what this particular
developer needs to do to satisfy his portion of their requirement generically
within Zone 18. For example, in 7c, is this developer required to enter into
an agreement guaranteeing all of the circulation improvements required for
Palomar Airport Road Melrose Drive and El Fuerte, or only a portion of
them? Or is the requirement merely that a financing plan (with someone)
be formally adopted and/or approved by the City, and then this condition
will be satisfied?
In Condition No. 14, relating to the Master Homeowners' Association, the
first sentence does not make any grammatical sense. I think it means that
the master CC&Rs shall include a provision requiring its provisions to be
^"applicable to each of the individual Village Association CC&Rs, and that
" provision in the master CC&Rs must also prohibit the adoption of any
conflicting CC&R by a Village Association. In the second sentence, we
"appear tcrbe requiring submission and approval of Master CC&Rs which
st include a provision that the Master Homeowners' Association maintain
slope areas within individual villages which are "exposed to major streets."
The next sentence requires the submission prior to approval of any final
map for the entire master planned area of a Master Maintenance Plan
showing all areas to be maintained by the Master Homeowners
Association. Can this condition be complied with; that is, do we know now
what slope areas within all the individual villages will be "exposed to major
streets, so that they can be shown on the Master Maintenance Plan? In
Subcondition No. 14c, relating to the Village Homeowners Association, we
require common ownership and maintenance of Open Space Lots A & B.
I thought as a result of the Eagle Canyon CC&Rs we had decided not to
^^ ^ require the owners of the individual homes to own the Open Space Lots as
H @ ^ af. ^ tenants in common with undivided interests, but instead to allow ownership
by the homeowners association with new tighter provisions, better ensuring
continued ongoing maintenance?
Condition No. 18 requires implementation of the mitigation measures
identified in Final EIR 91-04 that are found "by this resolution" to be
feasible. What Conditions 18 and 19 should be doing is specifying those
-applicable mitigation measures found by EIR 91-04 and MEIR 93-01 which
are feasible and applicable to this project, but were not incorporated into
the project design, and, therefore, must be imposed as conditions,
ondition No. 20 would be appropriate for application against a project for
which we were concurrently approving the EIR. However, this is a
subsequent project including much more significantly detailed provisions
in the Tentative Tract Map Planned Unit Development Permit and Site
Development Plan than could possibly have been provided at the gross
planning level for which the EIR was prepared. Planning Condition No. 1
should take care of holding the developer to improvement in accordance
with the approvals provided by this action.
Please consolidate the code reminders in Section 38 and 39 with those in
Nos. 88 and 89; and the final map notes in Conditions 40 and 41 with 87;
and General Condition No. 37 with General Conditions 42 through 45 and
47 through 55; especially placing General Condition No. 37 at the end of
all the conditions and preceding the code reminders.
Is Condition No. 31 being imposed to provide for the contingency that the
Homeowners Association(s) failed to maintain the Open Space easements?
If so, I believe Don Neu develops other, better conditions in the Eagle
Canyon CC&Rs to provide security for the City. Please discuss with him.
4. LOS NINOS PRESCHOOL (CUP 90-01X1)
Please clarify in the Introduction whether the applicant filed an application prior
to the expiration of the Conditional Use Permit in August 1995 (even though it may
not have been "completed" until January 24, 1996). If the application was not
timely filed, then the Conditional Use Permit expired, and this needs to be a new
application.
The project appears to rely on the 1994 General Plan Update MEIR, but only
recites reliance upon a prior compliance with a 1990 Negative Declaration. The
MEIR Cumulative Traffic and Air Mitigation Measures should be applied to this
proje'Gtjjporrextension of the Conditional Use Permit.
Please provide me with the staff report for the Bolton Correspondence item as soon as
possible.
D. RICHARD RUDOLF
Assistant City Attorney
afs
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
February 26, 1996
Hofman Planning Associates
Attn: Mike Howes
Suite 120
2386 Faraday Ave
Carlsbad CA 92008
SUBJECT: CT 95-06/PUD 95-04/SDP 95-12 - CARRILLO RANCH VILLAGE "E"
Your application has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing by the Planning
Commission on April 3, 1996. However, for this to occur, you must submit the
additional items listed below. If the required items are not received by March 11,1996,
your project will be rescheduled for a later hearing. In the event that the scheduled
hearing date is the last available date for the City to comply with the Permit Streamlining
Act, and the required items listed below have not been submitted, the project will be
scheduled for denial.
1. Please submit the following plans (after all requested corrections are made):
A) Fifteen (15) copies of your (site plans, landscape plans, building elevation
plans, floor plans) on 24" x 36" sheets of paper folded into 8 1/2" x 11" size.
B) One 8 1/2" x 11" copy of your reduced site plan, building elevation and
floor plans. These copies must be of a quality which is photographically
reproducible. Only essential data should be included on plans.
2. As required by Section 65091 of the California Government code, please submit the
following information needed for noticing and sign the enclosed form:
A) Owners List - a typewritten list of names and addresses of all property owners
within a 600 foot radius of the subject, including the applicant or owner. The
list shall include the San Diego County Assessor's parcel number from the latest
equalized assessment rolls.
B) Mailing Labels - two (2) separate sets of mailing labels of the property owners
within a 600 foot radius of the subject property. The list must be typed in all
CAPITAL LETTERS, left justified, void of any punctuation. For any address
other than a single family residence, an apartment or suite number must be
included but Apt., Suite, and Bldg. # must NOT appear in the street address
line. DO NOT TYPE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER ON LABELS. DO NOT
provide addressed envelopes -PROVIDE LABELS ONLY. Acceptable fonts are:
2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894
CT 95-06/PUD 95-04/SDP 95-12- CARRILLO RANCH VILLAGE "E"
February 26, 1996
Page 2
Swiss 721, Enterprise TM, Courier New (TT) no larger than 11 pt. Sample labels
are as follows:
UNACCEPTABLE
Mrs. Jane Smith
123 Magnolia Ave,. Apt #3
Carlsbad, CA 92008
UNACCEPTABLE
Mrs. Jane Smith
123 Magnolia Ave.
Apt. #3
Carlsbad, CA 92008
ACCEPTABLE
MRS JANE SMITH
APT #3
123 MAGNOLIA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
C) Radius Map - A map to scale, not less than 1" = 200', showing all lots entirely
and partially within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property.
Each of these lots should be consecutively numbered and correspond with the
property owner's list. The scale of the map may be reduced to a scale
acceptable to the Planning Director if the required scale is impractical.
D) Fee - A fee (check payable to the City of Carlsbad or cash only) shall be paid
for covering the cost of mailing notices. Such fee shall equal the current
postage rate times the total number of labels.
Sincerely yours,
ANNE HYSONG
Associate Planner
Attachments
AH:kr
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS LIST AND LABELS SUBMITTED
TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ON THIS DATE REPRESENT THE LATEST AVAILABLE
INFORMATION FROM THE EQUALIZED ASSESSOR'S ROLES.
APPLICATION NAME AND NUMBER
APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE
BY
DATE __
RECEIVED BY
DATE
Hofman Planning
Associates
Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis
February 21, 1996
Anne Hysong
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, Ca. 92009
RE: UDC's Inclusionary Housing Proposal for Villages E,J, & K in the Rancho Carrillo
Master Plan
Dear Anne:
This letter is to explain UDC's revised proposal to provide the required Inclusionary Housing
in Villages E, J, & K. As you are aware, the original proposal was to provide 6 affordable
three bedroom duplex units in Village E while the remainder would be provided as second
units in Villages J & K. Five months after this proposal was presented to the City, UDC was
told that this was not acceptable to staff and at least 20 of the units in Village E would have
to be affordable units.
To comply with this requirement, UDC has revised the site plan to locate eight Plan 4
buildings in Village E. These units along with the three Plan 5 buildings will result in a total
of twenty affordable units in Village E. The exhibits accompanying this letter show the
location of the Plan 4 and Plan 5 Inclusionary units. The remainder of UDC's Inclusionary
requirement will be provided as second units in Villages J & K. Village J will have nine
homes with Second Units and Village K will have eighteen homes with Second Units. As
shown by the plans we have submitted to Brian Hunter, the proposed Second Units will either
be one bedroom or studio units.
You expressed concerns about having most of the Inclusionary Units located in the
northeastern portion of Village E. If you take a close look at the site plan and the floor plans
for Plan 4 you will notice that they are slightly wider than the other floor plans. This limits
the lots that they could be placed on. The attached letter from Crosby, Mead and Benton
shows the lots that could accommodate the Plan 4 units, while still providing the required
setbacks and usable rear yards. As you can see from the exhibit there are very few lots that
could accommodate the Plan 4 buildings.
Based on your input we have relocated the three Plan 5 buildings to disperse them through
out the project. The attached 8 1/2" x 11" exhibit clearly shows the dispersion of the
affordable units in Village E. In only one instance will two affordable units be located next
2386 Faraday Avenue ° Suite 120 => Carlsbad ° CA 92008 ° (619)438-1465 » Fax: (619)438-2443
to each other. This revision also will result in the Inclusionary units being constructed in all
phases of the project, with the majority in the first phases.
We understand your concern about having single story units along "F" Street to break up the
number of two story units. However, these will be the most desirable units in this
development. UDC will be able to get a premium for these view lots. This premium will
help to off set the tremendous financial subsidy required for UDC to build the 20 Inclusionary
units in this project. As proposed this project complies with all of the requirements of the
Planned Development Ordinance. We believe that there is no justification to locate
Inclusionary units on the most desirable lots of the project. The lots they are located on are
no less desirable than any of the other lots, except for the few lots along "F" Street that have
a view.
We understand staff's desire to have Inclusionary units dispersed through out a project and
believe that UDC's proposal does provide the required dispersal while providing a variety of
affordable housing units. As proposed, the Inclusionary units will be distributed through out
all three of UDC's villages. In addition, UDC will be providing studio, one bedroom, two
bedroom and three bedroom Inclusionary units. Based on the number of market rate units
proposed by this project UDC is required to provide 46.68 Inclusionary units. To meet this
requirement they are proposing to provide 47 Inclusionary units, nearly half of which will be
two and three bedroom units. Based on the City's requirements UDC would only have to
provide 4.6 three bedroom Inclusionary units. UDC will exceed this requirement by
providing six three bedroom Inclusionary units.
UDC's Inclusionary Housing proposal meets or exceeds all City requirements for number of
units as well as the dispersal of units through out their Villages when the project is looked at
on an overall basis. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need any
additional information. Bruno, Dennis and I would be glad to meet with you to provide
further justification and explanation for the location of the Inclusionary units.
Sincerely,
Mike Howes
cc Brian Hunter
attachments
CROSBY
MEAD
BENTON
& ASSOCIATES
Engineers • Planners • Surveyors
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mike Howes
Hoffman Planning & Associates
Bruno Callu
Crosby Mead BentoJi'& Associates
February 22,1996
Carrillo Ranch Vilkge "E", CT 95-06/PUD95-04/SDP95-12 - City Issues
Letter Dated February 20,1996
Reference is made to the subject letter, enclosed find prints of the plans revised to
satisfy City comments. The Project Planner requested justification of the plotting or
placement of the single-story unit, Building Plan No. 4. The City comment and
response are discussed:
Planning: .
The placement of 6 single story (Plan 4) units along the eastern property line is
contrary to the concept of dispersing the affordable units as well as using the
single story units to break up continuous two story units. Please justify the
placement of these units at this location or disperse the single story units
throughout the subdivision.
Response:
Prior to plotting the single story units, Bldg. Plan No. 4, the Site Plan satisfied
and complied with City Policies and requirements with respect to placement of
two-story buildings on a street.
The Plan No. 4, however, was added to the Site Plan to satisfy the Affordable
Housing requirements for Villages "E", "J" and "K" combined and was not
specifically used to break-up the two story units throughout the project
5650 El Camino Real, Suite 200 Carlsbad, California 92008 619/438-1210 Fax 619/438-2765
Mr. Mike Howes
Carrillo Ranch Village "E"
February 21,1996
Page 2
CROSBY
MEAD
BENTON
& ASSOCIATES
Because the floor area coverage or building footprint of Plan No. 4 is deeper
than the two-story units and basically a rectangular shaped footprint, the unit
can only be plotted in lots that are also of rectangular configuration. The lots,
though, have to be 5' deeper than the two-story buildings. Therefore, the Plan
No. 4 can also be plotted in the following lots:
Lot No. Phase No. Comment
1-6 I Will require retaining wall at rear yards.
25-26 n Will require retaining wall at rear yards;
already an affordable unit
69-72 IV Will require retaining wall at rear yards.
As mentioned above, the site satisfies the affordable requirements for Villages
"E", "J" and "K". It has been the intent that Villages "}" and "K" be developed
just ahead of Village "E", such that as affordable units are needed to continue
with those projects they can be provided by Village "E".
Therefore, the Affordable Housing units have to be available in the first phases
of construction and not in the last phases as would be the case with placing units
in Phase I and IV. Phase I is the model area and will be the last units released
for sale. Phase IV and the units along street "F" will be the last production
units.
In conclusion, the units are located in the initial phases of the project where they
can be available to satisfy the affordable housing needs of the three villages.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call,
cc: Dennis Ferdig, U.D.C. Homes, Inc.
382-001E.MEM / LGC / FEB. 96
CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
LAND USE REVIEW
TO: Associate Planner - Anne Hysong DATE: February 21, 1996
FROM: Associate Engineer - Michael J. Shireyyttjf PROJECT ID: CT 95-06,
^ SDP 95-12, PUD 95-04
VIA: Principal Civil Engineer - Land Use Review/^^3^
X-N
VIA: Assistant City Engineer
RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E"
PROJECT REPORT AND CONDITIONS TRANSMITTAL
The Engineering Department has completed its review of the above referenced project and is
recommending:
X That the project be approved subject to the conditions as listed on the attached sheet.
That the project be denied for the following reasons:
_X The following is a final Land Use Review project report for inclusion in the staff report
for this project.
LAND USE REVIEW SECTION
PROJECT REPORT
PROJECT ID: CT 95-06, SDP 95-1 2 PREPARED BY: Michael J. ShireyV«4^
PUD 95-04 ^
PROJECT NAME: Rancho Carrillo Village "E" APPROVED BY:
LOCATION: South of Palomar Airport Road (PAR) between Business Park Drive
and future Melrose Drive.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Proposed 115 lot major subdivision with 104 multi-family dwelling units, 2
recreation area lots and 9 private street lots.
ENGINEERING ISSUES AND DISCUSSION:
Traffic and Circulation:
Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 832
Traffic study performed by: Weston Pringle & Associates
Comment: Two major items with regards to circulation are associated with this and future
Rancho Carrillo projects. First, major roadway infrastructure must be constructed to gain site
access. This will include construction of Melrose Drive to a minimum number of lanes, rather
than the ultimate lane configuration, for this arterial roadway. An assessment district is
currently in the formation process between the Rancho Carrillo property owners to construct
this improvement. Each tentative map for Rancho Carrillo will be conditioned to construct its
frontage improvements, which will add the remaining lanes so that this major roadway is
constructed to full-width, in accordance with City Standards. If the assessment district is not
formed, then each Rancho Carrillo tentative map will be conditioned to construct frontage
improvements, as well as, the roadway system which is needed to access the given site as
well as construct Melrose Drive as required in the master plan.
Second, without the entire street system being completed, prior to constructing any units
associated with this tentative map, emergency/secondary access issues arise for the project.
Therefore, the project will be conditioned to provide temporary, emergency/secondary site
access and associated project roadways to facilitate a temporary access, before any unit
construction can occur.
PROjfcLAND USE REVIEW - PROJECT REPORT ^ PAGE: 2
CT 95-06, SDP 95-12, PUD 95-04; RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E"
A. HYSOIMG MEMO; FEBRUARY 21, 1996
Sewer:
Sewer District: Carlsbad
Sewer EDU's Required: 104 units @ 1edu/unit = 104EDU's
Comment: Rancho Carrillo currently does not have any accessible sewer facilities, therefore
major off-site sewer line construction is required, prior to any dwelling unit construction. This
construction will occur across adjacent property ownership which will involve negotiation
between the property owners and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD). Discussions
have been progressing with CMWD regarding this item and to date, the location of the gravity
sewer is within the existing easement to the north of future Poinsettia Lane.
The tentative map will be conditioned so that construction of units cannot occur until such
time as sewer is made available to the project.
Water:
Water District: Carlsbad
EDU's Required: 104
GPD Required: 220 gpd x 104edu's = 22,880 GPD
Comment: No major water issues are associated with this proposed project.
Grading:
Quantities: Cut(cy) FilKcvi Import(cv) Export(cv)
652,300 34,300 0 618,000(to Village's J & K)
Permit Required: YES
Offsite Approval required/obtained: YES/NO
Hillside Grading Requirements met: YES
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Performed by: GEOCON, Inc.
Comment: Various soil conditions exist on the site, from alluvial deposits to undocumented
fills associated with agricultural operations, in their existing condition, these soils are
unacceptable for development purposes. In accordance with the Rancho Carrillo mass grading
plan and subsequent village development grading plans and final soils reports, all unacceptable
soil conditions shall be mitigated to facilitate future project construction. Standard engineering
grading conditions shall be placed on the project to require all requisite grading.
LAND USE REVIEW - PROWCT REPORT ^ PAGE: 3
CT 95-06, SDP 95-12, PUD 95-04; RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E"
A. HYSONG MEMO; FEBRUARY 21, 1996
Drainage and Erosion Control:
Drainage Basin: D
Preliminary Hydrology Study Performed by: Rick Engineering Co.
Erosion Potential: Moderate to High
Comment: A major drainage issue associated with Rancho Carrillo is the mitigation of on-site
runoff so as not to adversely affect on site and off site downstream properties. The project
drainage study addressed this issue by evaluating four different mitigation methods. Three
of the methods will reduce peak runoff to pre-development conditions while one of the
methods will not achieve this. The City Engineer has determined that additional analysis shall
be conducted at the plan check stage of the project with the final mitigation method being
selected by the City Engineer, prior to any development within Rancho Carrillo.
Land Title:
Conflicts with existing easement: YES
Easement dedication required: YES
Site boundary coincides with land title: YES
Comment: Conflicting easements will be adjusted and reflected on the Final Map. As a
Condition of Approval for the project, a boundary adjustment will be required, prior to
recordation of a final map, for the westerly property line to align the property line with the
centerline of proposed Street "I".
Improvements:
Offsite improvements: YES
Standard Variance Required: YES
Comment: Project improvements will consist of major sewer, water, drainage, and roadway
facilities. Construction of these improvements will be in accordance with the Rancho Carrillo
Master Plan and with the Conditions of Approval for the project. Project development cannot
occur until such time as all major infrastructure is provided.
Three standard's waivers have been approved by the City Engineer. The first standard's
waiver is for the location of the Palomar Airport Road/Street "I" intersection. Intersection
spacing on a prime arterial is 2600'. The City Engineer has approved a standard's waiver to
decrease this distance, from the Palomar Airport Road/Street" I" intersection to future Melrose
Drive, to approximately 2400'. This standard's waiver was approved based on conformance
to the circulation element of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan, the fact that this intersection is
located on the outside of a curve and will have a traffic signal, and to facilitate grading for
Street "I".
LAND USE REVIEW - PROJECT REPORT PAGE: 4
CT 95-06, SDP 95-12, PUD 95-04; RANCHO CARRJLLO VILLAGE "E"
A. HYSONG MEMO; FEBRUARY 21, 1996
The second and third waivers ;;re for accepting a greater than 90° roadway centerline angle
design for the on-site private street "knuckles" (90° corners) and decreasing the on-site cul-
de-sac radii from the standard 38' to 32'. This was done, at the applicant's request, to
provide for an overall preferable site design with regards to lot sizes, site layout and building
envelopes.
Standard's waiver findings for the above are on file in the Engineering Department.
CT 95-06/SDP 95-12/PUD 95-04
RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Rancho Carrillo Master Engineering Conditions:
General:
33. This project is located within the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. All development design shall
comply with the requirements of that plan.
35. The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of the
respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project.
36. The developer shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.& E., Pacific Bell Telephone,
and Cable TV authorities.
41. All concrete terrace drains shall be maintained by the homeowner's association (if on
commonly owned property) or the individual property owner (if on an individually owned lot).
An appropriately worded statement clearly identifying the responsibility shall be placed in the
CC&R's.
43. Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of City
Council approval unless a final map is recorded. An extension may be requested by the
applicant. Said extension shall be approved or denied at the discretion of the City Council.
In approving an extension, the City Council may impose new conditions and may revise
existing conditions pursuant to Section 20.1 2.110(a)(2) Carlsbad Municipal Code.
44. The developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the City, the Planning Commission
or City Engineer which has been brought against the City within the time period provided for
by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map,Act.
60. Rain gutters must be provided to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or
street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
45. The developer shall provide for sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance
with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement in the project's CC&R's:
"No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30
inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach
within the area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with
City Standard Public Street Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The
underlying property owner shall maintain this condition."
The above statement shall be placed on a non-mapping data sheet of the
final map.
• Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City's anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formerly
established by the City.
-12/PuSsCT95-06/SDP95-12/PUD<95-04 ^ PAGE: 2
RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E" - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. HYSONG MEMO; FEBRUARY 21, 1996
Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions, upon the
approval of the proposed major subdivision, must be met prior to approval of a final map.
Fees and Agreements:
15. The owner shall execute a hold harmless agreement for geologic failure.
44A. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the property
owner shall pay a one-time special development tax in accordance with City Council
Resolution No. 91-39.
45A. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
48. The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless
regarding drainage across the adjacent property.
69. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner shall give
written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the site plan into
the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 on a form provided
by the City.
Grading:
55. Upon completion of grading, the developer shall ensure that an "as-graded" geologic plan is
submitted to the City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the
grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based
on a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. This plan shall be
signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist. The plan shall be prepared
on a 24" x 36" mylar or similar drafting film and shall become a permanent record.
56. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision unless
a grading or slope easement or an agreement to grade is executed by the developer and the
owners of the affected properties. If the developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope
easement or agreement to grade, no grading permit will be issued. In that case the developer
must either amend the tentative map or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the
project site, in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved tentative map as
determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
57. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within
this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the
proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City
Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
4 In accordance with the Rancho Carrillo Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), grading of
natural habitat should not occur during the nesting season of any endangered avian species.
.All grading within 500' of Coastal California Gnatcatcher occupied habitat and within 200' of
riparian habitat, occupied by Least Bell's Vireo and Willow Flycatcher, should be restricted to
the period between September 1 and February 15 of any given year.
CT 95-06/SDP95-12/PUD^5-04 ^ PAGE: 3
RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E" - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. HYSONG MEMO; FEBRUARY 21, 1996
Dedication and Improvements:
61. Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be provided or
installed prior to, or concurrent with any grading as may be required by the City Engineer.
63. The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and easements
required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a
certificate on the final map for this project or by separate document. All land so offered shall
be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the
City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated.
71. The applicant shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best management practices
to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans
for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said plans shall include, but
not be limited to notifying perspective owners and tenants of the following:
A. All homeowners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous
waste products.
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze,
solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be
discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water
conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides,
insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State,
County, and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
75. Drainage outfall end treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road for
maintenance purposes is not provided, shall be designed and incorporated into the
grading/improvement plans for the project. These end treatments shall be designed so as to
prevent vegetation growth from obstructing the pipe outfall. Designs could consist of a
modified outlet headwall consisting of an extended concrete spillway section with longitudinal
curbing and/or radially designed rip-rap, or other means deemed appropriate, as a method of
preventing vegetation growth directly in front of the pipe outlet, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. :
• Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the City Engineer may require an
engineering evaluation of the stability of the existing Bressi Dam. The evaluation shall be
conducted by an appropriate registered engineer. Any recommended improvements to protect
the existing dam, if required, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
CT95-06/SDP95-12/PU[»5-04 W PAGE: 4
RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E" - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. HYSONG MEMO; FEBRUARY 21, 1996
The following improvements as required in the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan (MP) and Local
Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 18 shall be guaranteed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. These improvements shall be substantially completed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit within the entire project.
A. Melrose Drive - Alga Road to Palomar Airport Road
• Complete grading to ultimate right-of-way width to prime arterial standards.
• Construction of a median and two lanes in each direction and intersection
improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
B. Poinsettia Lane - Melrose Drive to Zone 18 Western Boundary
• Complete grading to ultimate right-of-way width to major arterial standards.
• Construction of full major arterial standards from the intersection with Melrose
Avenue to the entrance to Village J and the school site.
C. El Fuerte Street - Through Zone 18
• Complete grading to ultimate right-of-way width.
• Construction of one lane in each direction from the southerly boundary of the
Master Plan to the entrance to Village T.
D. Sewer Facilities, including:
• 12" main in Melrose Drive
• 12" main in, or adjacent to Poinsettia Lane
• Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section A
• Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section C
• Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section D
• Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section F
• Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section G
• North La Costa Lift Station
E. Water Facilities, including:
• A portion of the proposed potable 24-inch main in the future alignment of
Melrose Avenue.
• The proposed pressure reducing station at the southeast corner of Zone 18.
• The proposed potable 30-inch transmission line in the proposed alignment of El
Fuerte within Zone 18.
• A portion of the proposed reclaimed 8-inch main in the proposed alignment of
Melrose Avenue.
CT 95-06/SDP95-12/PUCWB-04 ^ PAGE: 5
RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E" - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. HYSONG MEMO; FEBRUARY 21, 1996
• The proposed reclaimed 38-inch main in the proposed alignment of El Ftierte
within Zone 18.
• The proposed potable 12" main from Melrose to El Fuerte through service Area
E.
F. Drainage Facilities, including:
• Proposed double 5' x 5' box culvert under Melrose Drive,
• Detention basins, channel and flood control improvements necessary to mitigate
for erosion and protect on site Master Plan and off site downstream properties
from significant impacts.
VILLAGE "E" - SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
General:
Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions, upon the
approval of the proposed major subdivision, must be met prior to approval of a final map.
40. The developer shall provide an acceptable means for maintaining the private easements within
the subdivision and all the private: streets, sidewalks, street lights, storm drain facilities and
sewer facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable
manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. Adequate provision for
such maintenance shall be included with the CC&R's subject to the approval of the City
Engineer.
• This project is specifically approved as one (1) unit for recordation purposes. All public
facilities needed to serve this unit, in accordance with City Standards and to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer, shall be guaranteed for construction.
• An adjustment plat shall be processed aligning the westerly property line with the proposed
centerline of Street "I" along the project frontage from Palomar Airport Road to the southerly
right of way line of proposed Street "B".
Grading:
56. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,;the
developer shall submit proof to the City Engineer that a "Notice of Intention" was submitted
to the State Water Resources Control Board and receive approval from the City Engineer of
a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
CT 95-06/SDP95-12/PU[^5-04 W PAGE: 6
RAIMCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E" - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. HYSONG MEMO; FEBRUARY 21, 1996
Dedication and Improvements:
64. Direct access rights for all lots abutting Palomar Airport Road and Street "I" (except Lot "D",
Street "A") and Street "B" shall be waived on the final map.
68. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be prepared
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards the developer shall
install or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law,
improvements shown on the tentative map and necessary to service the proposed project
including, but not limited to:
Village "E" Frontage Improvements:
A. Palomar Airport Road frontage improvements, including:
• No. 3 eastbound vehicular travel lane
• Eastbound bicycle lane
• Curb, gutter, and sidewalk (south side)
• Street light standards (south side)
• Landscape raised median
• Community theme wall (south side)
• Landscape area between sidewalk and theme wall
The City will enter into an agreement with the applicant to obtain reimbursement for one-half
of the raised median hardscape/landscape improvements from the fronting property owners
on the north side of Palomar Airport Road.
B. Street "I" frontage improvements from Palomar Airport Road to the Village "E" entrance,
including:
• Two vehicular travel lanes (48' curb-to-curb width)
• Curb and gutter (both sides)
• Street light standards (both sides)
• Sidewalk (east side only)
• All utilities generally placed beneath the required travel lanes.
C. Street "I" frontage improvements from the Village "E" entrance to Street "B", including:
• Two vehicular travel lanes (at one-half street plus 12')(36' curb-to-curb width)
• Curb and gutter (east side only)
• Asphalt/Concrete Berm (west side only)
• Street light standards (east side only)
• Sidewalk (east side only)
• All utilities generally placed beneath the required travel lanes.
CT95-06/SDP95-12/PUW5-04 ** PAGE: 7
RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E" - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. HYSONG MEMO; FEBRUARY 21, 1996
C. Street "B" frontage improvements from Street "I" to the easterly property line, including:
• Two vehicular travel lanes (at one-half street plus 12')(36' curb-to-curb width)
• Curb and gutter (north side only)
• Asphalt/Concrete Berm (south side only)
• Street light standards (north side only)
• Sidewalk (north side only)
• All utilities generally placed beneath the required travel lanes.
E. All public storm drainage facilities necessary to convey drainage to an approved drainage
course.
F. All sewer and water facilities required to service the project.
Village "E" Off-Site Improvements:
A. Temporary Emergency Access Improvements, Off-Site through Village "F", including:
• Two vehicular travel lane asphalt/concrete pavement (28' minimum width).
• Temporary emergency access easement must be obtained to facilitate this
emergency access construction and use.
• This emergency access shall be gated to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and
City Engineer at Palomar Airport Road.
If this temporary easement cannot be obtained, then off-site improvements will have to be
constructed to facilitate emergency and/or public access in accordance with all applicable City
Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
B. A fully actuated traffic signal at the intersection of "I" Street with Palomar Airport Road.
The City will enter into an agreement with the applicant to obtain proportionate share
reimbursement for the above traffic signal from benefitting property owners to the north and
south of Palomar Airport Road.
A list of the above improvements shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final map
in accordance with the provisions of Section 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within eighteen (18) months of approval of
the secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
73. The design of all private streets and drainage systems shall be approved by the City Engineer
prior to approval of the final map for this project. The structural section of all private streets
shall conform to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value tests. All private streets and
drainage systems shall be inspected by the City, and the standard improvement plan check
and inspection fees shall be paid prior to approval of the final map for this project.
CT95-06/SDP95-12/PUW5-04 ^ PAGE: 8
RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E" - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. HYSONG MEMO; FEBRUARY 21, 1996
• The developer shall reimburse the City of Carlsbad for frontage improvements for Palomar
Airport Road, which shall include the following:
• Full reimbursement for half-street improvements, including:
Grading
Median Curb
Pavement
• Pro-rated reimbursement, including:
Utilities
Drainage
Design
Inspection
Contract Administration
Final Map Notes:
76. Notes to the following effects shall be placed on the final map as non-mapping data:
A. All improvements are private and are to be privately maintained with the
exception of the following:
1. Palomar Airport Road
2. Street "I"
3. Street "B"
B. This subdivision contains a remainder parcel. No building permit shall be issued
for the remainder parcel until it is further subdivided pursuant to the provisions
of Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
C. Geotechnical Caution:
1. The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in
interest has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad
from any action that may arise through any geological failure, ground
water seepage or land subsidence and subsequent damage that may
occur on, or adjacent to, this subdivision due to its construction,
operation or maintenance.
CT95-06/SDP95-12/PUOT5-04 ^ PAGE: 9
RAISICHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E" - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. HYSONG MEMO; FEBRUARY 21, 1996
Code Reminder:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the
following:
78. The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with the
Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer.
68. Some improvements shown on the tentative map and/or required by these conditions are
located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient title or interest
to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or interest. The applicant
shall conform to Section 20.16.095 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
February 20, 1996
Hofman Planning Associates
Attn: Mike Howes
2386 Faraday, Suite 120
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: CT 95-06/PUD 95-04/SDP 95-12 - CARRILLO RANCH VILLAGE E
Dear Mike:
The Planning and Engineering Departments have completed a review of your January 24, 1996
project plan submittal. Staff has identified the following minor issues still requiring resolution
prior to public hearing.
Planning:
1. The placement of 6 single story (Plan 4) units along the eastern property line is contrary
to the concept of dispersing the affordable units as well as using the single story units to
break up continuous two story units. Please justify the placement of these units at this
location or disperse the single story units throughout the subdivision.
2. Please correct "General Notes", Item 15. The developable acreage according to the
Master Plan is 15.2 acres. Item 11 should also be corrected since density is 6.8
du's/acre rather than 9.6 as specified on the tentative map.
3. Staff will recommend that a condition requiring that prior to occupancy of the first unit
in Village E, the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan Recreation Vehicle Storage facility
approved on Lot 104 must be completed and that 2,080 square feet of storage space is
reserved (purchased/leased) for the residents of Village E.
4. The color board submitted with the project illustrates a variety of roof tile colors for the
proposed units. The elevation plans indicate that "S" tiles will be used on all units.
Please add to the tile note that barrel and flat concrete tiles will also be used. A
condition will be added to require the submittal of a color and material scheme for each
unit concurrent with the building permit application which conforms with the color board
submitted for this project. This submittal shall also include the type of tile proposed to
ensure variation in roof tile color and type.
2O75 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1 576 • (619)438-1161
CT 95-06/SDP 95-12/PUD 95-04 - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E"
February 20, 1996
PAGE 2
5. Recreation Area - Lot A: Staff will recommend that the basketball half court be turned
to the north and that a community theme fence be placed along Street B for safety
purposes.
6. Please address Larry Black's landscape plancheck comments and make the appropriate
changes on the plans prior to resubmittal. The redlined check prints must be returned
with the landscape plans for final plan check.
Engineering:
Sewer and Drainage
1. On sheet's 3 and 4, please label each storm drain outfall as a "Public Storm Drain
Easement".
2. At the 20' Storm Dram and Sewer Easement at Lot No.'s 50 and 51, please delete the
word "public" and indicate this easement as being a "Homeowner's Association"
easement.
Land Title and Mapping
3. Again, for clarification purposes and as previously requested, please delete General
Design Note No. 1. The note, as currently written, does not seem to work (i.e, "Existing
improvements on Palomar Airport Road to be built per City of Carlsbad drawing...":).
If the improvements already exist, how can they still be built? Also, as previously
indicated, as a condition of approval this project will be required to widen and improve
the project's frontage on PAR to PAR's ultimate width. Once this note is deleted, please
renumber the remaining General Design Notes.
4. Are the phases which are shown on the map cover sheet intended to be final mapping
phases or construction phases? If they are construction phases, please delete them; they
are not required an can be confusing with regards to mapping of the project. If they are
final map phases, please contact this office to discuss this issue.
Attached for the applicant's use for making plan revisions is a redlined check print of the
project. This check print must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued
staff review.
CT 95-06/SDP 95-12/PUD 95-04 - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E"
February 20, 1996
PAGE 3
Staff is attempting to complete the necessary planning documents to enable scheduling of this
project for the April 3, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Therefore, the above corrections
must be completed and returned for staff review by February 29, 1996.
Sincerely,
ANNE HYSONG
Associate Planner
AH:kc
Attachment
c: Chris DeCerbo
Mike Shirey
File
DATE:
TO:
*
*
*
*
AND COMMENT
REVISED PLAN
FROM:
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT (MEMO ONLY)
POLICE DEPARTMENT - ATTN: J. SASWAY
FIRE DEPARTMENT - MIKE SMITH
BUILDING DEPARTMENT - PAT KELLEY
COMMUNITY SERVICES - MARK STEYAERT
COMMUNITY SERVICES - VIRGINIA McCOY
WATER DISTRICT
LANDSCAPE PLANCHECK CONSULTANT - LARRY BLACK
SCHOOL DISTRICT
NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT - 311 S. Tremont Street,
Oceanside, CA 92054-3119 - THOMAS LIGHTERMAN
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC - P. O. Box 1831, San Diego,
Ca 92112-4150 - BICH TRAN (MEMO ONLY)
Always Send Exhibits
Planning Department
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON APPLICATION NO.
NOTE: PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER ON ALL CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS
APPLICATION.
PROJECT TITLE:
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
i
PROJECT PLANNER:
Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the Planning Department
byc^2/^r^f^ _ . If not received by that date, it will be assumed that you have
no comment and the proposal has your endorsement as submitted.
THANK YOU
COMMENTS:
PLANS ATTACHED FRM0020 3/94
MEMORANDUM
February 14, 1996
TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER - ANNE HYSONG
From: Associate Engineer - Land Use Review
CT 95-06, SDP 95-12, PUD 95-04; RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E"
THIRD ISSUES REVIEW
Engineering Department staff have completed a third review of the above referenced project
for Engineering Issues of Concern. Minor engineering issues which still must be resolved prior
to staff making a determination on this project are as follows:
Sewer and Drainage
1. On sheet's 3 and 4, please label each storm drain outfall as a "Public Storm
Drain Easement."
2. At the 20' Storm Drain and Sewer Easement at Lot No.'s 50 and 51, please
delete the word "public" and indicate this easement as being a "Homeowner's
Association" easement.
Land Title and Mapping
1. Again, for clarification purposes and as previously requested, please delete
General Design Note No. 1. The note, as currently written, does not seem to
work (ie,"Existing improvements on Palomar Airport Road to be built per City
of Carlsbad drawing..."}. If the improvements already exist, how can they still
be built? Also, as previously indicated, as a condition of approval this project
will be required to widen and improve the project's frontage on PAR to PAR's
ultimate width. Once this note is deleted, please renumber the remaining
General Design Notes.
2. Are the phases which are shown on the map cover sheet intended to be final
mapping phases or construction phases? If they are construction phases,
please delete them, they are not required and can be confusing with regards to
mapping of the project. If they are final map phases, please contact this office
to discuss this issue.
Attached for the applicant's use for making plan revisions is a redlined check print of the
project. This check print must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff
review.
If you or the appjicant have any questions, please either see or call me at extension 4388.
MICHAEL
Associate Engineer - Land Use Review
Attachment
c: Principal Civil Engineer - Land Use Review
February 14, 1996
Ms. Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Reference: Acoustical Analysis for Rancho Carrillo Village E (RECON Number 2765N)
Dear Ms. Hysong:
Q,B.j3tr<OJ30ti'-'
I SB 138(SB OQ(Bi?8 I
4241 Jutland Drive, Suite 201
San Diego, CA 92117-3653
619/270-5066
fax 270-5414
our
acoustical effects of the revised grading specified in the tentative map for the project. Final pad
elevations in general are three feet higher than were assumed in the 1992 acoustical analysis
performed for the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and General Plan Amendment. Additionally, as
specified in the original acoustical study, mitigation for Village E called for the construction of a
three- to five-foot-high wall along Palomar Airport Road, as well as a three-foot-high wall along
Street ''I" adjacent to Palomar Airport Road (Street "I" was not identified by name in the 1992
study, but is the internal road adjacent to the west side of Village E). It is my understanding that
the applicant is proposing to construct six-foot-high walls in these locations rather than the required
three- to five-foot-high walls.
Traffic volumes, speeds, mixes, and distributions used in this analysis were assumed to be the same
as those employed in the 1992 study. The revised pad elevations were obtained from the tentative
map provided by the applicant dated September 29, 1995. A six-foot-high wall relative to the
roadways was modeled along Palomar Airport Road and Street "I" in the noise barrier locations
specified in the 1992 study.
Both first- and second-floor receivers were remodeled in the backyards of homes adjacent to the
roadways using the STAMINA 2.0 computer model. First-floor receivers were placed 5 feet above
pad elevation; second-floor receivers were placed 15 feet above the pads. Tables 1 and 2 provide
the analysis results. From Table 1 it can be seen that no first-floor backyard receivers will
experience noise levels above 60 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the City of
Carlsbad's exterior noise standard for residential land uses. Table 2 shows that second-floor
receivers may be slightly above the exterior standard.
Based on the results of this updated acoustical analysis for Village E, construction of six-foot walls
rather than the required three- to five-foot walls specified in the 1992 study will ensure that noise
levels will remain as predicted in the original environmental study if the top of the proposed barrier
is six feet above the roadway. If I can provide any more detail, please let me know.
Charles Bull
President
CSB:DMG:llg
cc: Dennis Ferdig, UDC Homes
Mike Howes, HPA
TABLE 1
FUTURE FIRST-FLOOR NOISE LEVELS WITH SIX-FOOT WALL
Receiver
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Lot Number Pad
2
6
6
7
21
23
24
26
28
29
30
31
Elevation (feet)
440.8
442.5
442.5
442.8
440.4
441.0
441.0
441.9
442.7
443.1
443.1
442.8
CNEL
57
58
58
58
. 58
58
57
58
58
58
58
58
TABLE 2
FUTURE SECOND-FLOOR NOISE LEVELS WITH SIX-FOOT WALL
Receiver
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Lot Number Pad
2
6
6
7
21
23
24
26
28
29
30
31
Elevation (feet)
440.8
442.5
442.5
442.8
440.4
441.0
441.0
441.9
442.7
443.1
443.1
442.8
CNEL
61
62
62
62
61
61
60
61
60
60
60
59
MEMORANDUM
January 4, 1996
TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER - ANNE HYSONG
From: Associate Engineer - Land Use Review
CT 95-06, SDP 95-12, PUD 95-04; RAIMCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E"
SECOND ISSUES REVIEW
Engineering Department staff have completed a second review of the above referenced project
for Engineering Issues of Concern. Engineering issues which still must be resolved prior to
staff making a determination on this project are as follows:
Traffic and Circulation
1. Thank you for indicating the temporary 28' secondary access road to fulfill the
requirement for secondary access so that this map can "stand alone." As
previously requested, however, please show a gate at the terminus of this 28'
secondary access road, at Palomar Airport Road (PAR).
Sewer and Drainage
1. As previously indicated, since this is a proposed tentative map, which will
ultimately become a final map, it must be able to stand on its own merit with
regards to all City requirements. Item No. 1 above fulfills this requirement with
regards to circulation. This, however, must also be accomplished with regards
to sewer and drainage. To achieve this, the ultimate termination points for the
sewer and storm drain facilities must be shown as part of this tentative map.
This can be shown as an additional sheet at 100 to 400 scale; however, please
indicate storm drain discharge points at a 40 scale showing energy dissipators
and any required maintenance access roads.
Soils
1. As previously requested, please show a cross-section of the proposed
landscaped retaining wall along Street "B" on the tentative map.
CT 95-06, SDP 95-12, PUD 95-04; RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E" PAGE: 2
SECOND ISSUES REVIEW
A. HYSONG MEMO; JANUARY 4, 1995
Land Title and Mapping
1. Please delete General Design Note No. 1. As a Condition of Approval, this
project will be required to widen and improve the project's frontage on PAR to
PAR's ultimate width. Once this note is deleted, please renumber the remaining
General Design Notes.
2. In conjunction with Item No. 1 above, please change the PAR typical section
note on sheet 1 from stating: "Widening per Village's "J & K", to read:
"Widening per Village "E"; or, delete the note and add the following: "Proposed
Widening and Improvement."
3. Please label all "up-slopes", adjacent to proposed public roadways, as having
"Public Open Space Easements" (ie, adjacent to Street "B".) The proposed
"Landscape and Maintenance Easements to the Master Homeowner's
Association (HOA)" shall remain.
4. As previously requested, please show the entire property boundary, including
Village's "J & K", on the cover sheet of the tentative map, or as an additional
sheet. Label Villages's "J & K" as Remainder Parcels. This item can be shown
at 100 to 400 scale.
Attached for the applicant's use for making plan revisions is a redlined check print of the
project. This check print must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff
review.
If you or the applicant have any questions, please either see or call me at extension 4388.
MICHAELJLTSHJJ
Associate Engineer - Land Use Review
Attachment
c: Principal Civil Engineer - Land Use Review
REC0N Regional Environmental Consultants
January 3,1996
Ms. Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carslbad, CA 92009
Reference: Noise Issues for Rancho Carrillo Village E (RECON Number 2765N)
Dear Ms. Hysong:
I have discussed the noise issue with the applicant, and it occurred that perhaps a detailed supplemental noise study could
be avoided. In reviewing the original acoustical analysis, mitigation for Village E called for the construction of a three to
four foot high wall along Palomar Airport Road. It is my understanding that the applicant is proposing to construct a six
foot high wall in this location rather than the required three to four foot wall. If the pad height increase is matched by an
equivalent increase in the barrier height, the noise condition on the pad will not worsen. This is because as the pad and the
barrier heights increase relative to the roadway, the break in the line of sight will also increase.
In light of this, the applicant asked that I write to suggest that perhaps a more detailed study would not be needed.. I will
call at the end of the week to discuss this in more detail. I appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Charles Bull
President
CSB:arh
cc: Dennis Ferdig, UDC Homes
Mike Howes, HPA
4241 Jutland Drive, Suite 201 • San Diego, CA 92117-3653 • (619) 270-5066* FAX (619) 270-5414
3050 Chicago Avenue • Riverside, CA 92507 • (714) 784-9460
~_-^^>~-' /^&j^»4
-\—^ Village F |^><^'-:/;\\^J. . ,. .„ * ........ ,.4j%r\;—;,-;';x> ,
^J^/-w-*-'-nr '^M/ ' > • r'' ~liK^ ^''"' -'''•&••^^tL—-^z4 / /' •/ /.^<^:V'--'^^^
750 375 FEET
— Noise Barrier
• Receptor Location Within Each Village
Note for Village K: A 6-foot wall would achieve 65 CNEL.FIGURE 45
Noise Barriers - Villages E, F
mRECCDN
R-2417N 6/92
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PRESENT:
Uicluiig Design Group, Inc.
File
Robert C. Ladwig
January 9, 1996
MEETING MINUTES - RANCHO CARRELLO AT CITY OF CARLSBAD
(LADWIG DESIGN GROUP INC. J/N L-1000)
David Hauser, City of Carlsbad, Engineering Department
Bob Wojcik, City of Carlsbad, Engineering Department
Brian Hunter, City of Carlsbad, Planning Department
Don Rideout, City of Carlsbad, Growth Management
Ann Hysong, City of Carlsbad, Planning Department
Ben Ellorin, City of Carlsbad, Consultant Plan Checker
Bob Wilkinson, Rick Engineering
Craig Kahlen, Rick Engineering
Mike Howes, Hofinan Planning Associates
Chris Chambers, Continental Homes
Dennis Ferdig, UDC Homes
Robert C. Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group, Inc.
The purpose of the meeting was to review, with the City Staff, the status of Rancho Carrillo and to
request assistance from the City in the acquisition of offsite easements from Bressi. It was pointed
out by Staff that Lloyd Hubbs was in court that day and unable to attend. Also, Mike Holzmiller was
unable to attend.
The first item discussed was the landscaping requirements per Larry Black. The issue is that he wants
temporary slopes to be irrigated and hand-planted and that we feel this is a tough requirement. It is
not clear as to what is required and this was an item we agreed would have a follow-up meeting to
clarify the Landscape Manual requirements and the City's position on this issue.
Chris Chambers pointed out that we have been working with Bressi for about three years, that B of
A is now out of being trustee of property, and that the Bressi sisters are now the trustees who have
hired Mr. Charles McLaughlin to be their business manager. It was further pointed that we are
carrying on a dialog with McLaughlin and that we are unable to even get access to the property for
soils testing so the design of El Fuerte can proceed. It was further stated that we may need
condemnation support from the City if we are not able to reach an acceptable purchase price with
Bressi. David Hauser indicated that he would pass this information onto the City Engineer, Lloyd
Hubbs. Chris reemphasized that if we get no cooperation from Bressi that we need the City's help.
703 Palomar flirport Road + Suite 300 4 Carlsbad, California 92009
(619) 438-3182 FRX (619) 438-0173
Meeting Minutes - Rancho Carrillo
January 9, 1996
Page 2
Chris further pointed out that respecting Zone 10; B of A seemed cooperative and that then business
plan should be adopted by the end of this month and they have indicated their willingness to
cooperate.
It was pointed out that a reimbursement agreement has been prepared by Rancho Carrillo's legal
counsel and that we would be getting a copy of the agreement to the City for then review. Chris
pointed out that we have made certain assumptions and that we would like the City to review those
and discuss them at a subsequent meeting with us. Chris indicated that we have asked Bill Plummer
at the Water District to downsize the facility to accommodate only our development.
Chris stated that as part of the negotiations with McLaughlin that they have shown an interest in
receiving the excess units from Rancho Carrillo. We questioned what process needs to be gone
through to get adequate assurance for Bressi for about 150 units. Gary indicated that the transfer of
units is against current City policy, that we would have to follow Policy 43 and that Bressi would
have to process a discretionary action to be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council
for the purposes of the density transfer. After some discussion, Gary said he would discuss this issue
and the master plan language with Michael to see how Policy 43 applies to our request.
Chris pointed out to the City Staff members that Carrillo is concluding their negotiations with Fish
& Wildlife Service and then Section 7 permit. Chris indicated that the final resolution of this was
agreed to several days before the U.S. Government shutdown. Chris said that the terms of the
agreement require revision to two cul-de-sacs and two villages along the eastern edge of the project
which causes a loss of about eight lots and to write a check for $500,000. Chris further stated that
Continental Homes is now preparing revisions to the tentative maps to reflect Fish & Wildlife's
requirements. Chris is also preparing a Master Plan Amendment to go along with the changes.
Gary Wayne asked some questions about the Section 7 process. Gary said that we will have to go
through the 4d process to see if the City will agree to the 87-acre reduction in the City's share of
coastal sage scrub based on the 4d rule. Gary further stated that the take of coastal sage scrub will
come out of the City's share and that we will need to go to the Council to get their approval. He said
that regardless of our Section 7 permit, we still must obtain permission from the City to take CSS.
He felt that this was a potential problem and suggested this be a topic of a separate meeting. Chris
Chambers asked, who makes the determination. Don Rideout stepped in to say that we need to
discuss this further at a separate meeting. The actual removal of the acreage from the City's share
comes out of their 4d allotment when the grading occurs. Don reemphasized that we need to devote
some time to this 4d issue. Chris stressed that we need to meet as soon as possible and suggested
that Gary get Mike Holzmiller and Don Rideout involved in this 4d rule process as soon as possible.
David Hauser asked whether we are still contemplating using an Assessment District. David also
asked if the improvement plans have been completed. Craig indicated that there is a list of
outstanding issues from the City that has been mostly addressed. The major outstanding issue is, as
was discussed earlier, the landscape plans. Bob Wilkinson said that he would like to meet with the
City soon on this issue.
Meeting Minutes - Rancho Carrillo
January 9, 1996
Page 4
or out. Jun suggested that we could possibly do plans for the major facilities and then just cross out
the remainder work. Chris said no, that he would not like to do this. Hauser at this point pointed
out that when the list was ready that we need to meet again and that we need to get the information
to Don Rideout.
David Hauser asked when do we anticipate the grade and it was pointed that it would be the second
quarter sometime after March. We would start in either May or June.
We discussed briefly the series of meetings that need to be set up and that we would be sending the
reimbursement agreement to the appropriate staff. And with that discussion, the meeting adjourned.
Robert C. Ladwig
RCL:klb.l03
cc: AH Attendees
Other Rancho Carrillo Owners and Consultant
To: Anne Hysong
From: Evan Becker
Subject: UDC Homes- Carrillo Ranch
Date: 01/05/96 Time: 8:59a
Hi Anne,
Regarding the UDC Homes proposal to do second units to satisfy their
inclusionary requirement, our department is prepared to support this
provided there is also an affordable component built into the Village E
project proposal. This would provide some balance between second units and
larger family units which are more in line with our stated housing needs.
For a project of this size to provide nothing but small second units is not
really meeting the intent of the inclusionary program in my opinion.
As to the mix of units, I would propose that they do a minimum of 20%
affordable units in Village E, e.g. if E is 100 units, they would do 20
affordable. The balance could be done as second units to meet their total
requirement. Obviously we will still have to put all this in an agreement
that spells out the timing, etc. Mike Howes, et Al are meeting with me
Monday at 10:30 (1/8) to discuss and you're welcome to join us.
£_(>Jl »«'*}
December 15, 1995
Ms. Anne Hysong
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: CT 95-6/PUD 95-4, SDP 95-12
Dear Ms. Hysong:
North County Transit District (NCTD) has reviewed the above referenced project and has
the following comment.
Attached is a condition placed on Villages L, M, N, Q, R, & T of Rancho Carrillo. A
similar condition should be placed on Village E identifying bus stop locations on Palomar
Airport Road.
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on this project.
Sincerely,
Chris Schmidt
Assistant Planner
RCAR VE.DOC
NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
311 South Tremont Street, Oceonslde, CA 92054
61 9-967-2828
Villages L,M,N,Q,R & T - Rancho Carrillo 93-04, PC Reso. No. 3706, CC Reso No. 95-64
Condition 15
'To service this development the project shall provide bus stop facilities on
Melrose Drive at locations subject to the satisfaction of the North County
Transit District (NCTD), if such facility is required by NCTD. Said facilities shall
at a minimum include a bench, free from advertising, and a pole for the bus
stop sign. The bench and pole shall be designed in a manner so as to not
detract from the basic architectural theme of the project and said design shall
be subject to the approval of the Planning Director and North County Transit
District.
Tern Woods Date
FROM 6. 7.2082 6:29 \ P.2
Hofman Planning
Associates
December 12, 1995
Ken Quon
Engineering Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
SUBJECT: UDC TENTATIVE MAP: MEETING NOTES FROM DECEMBER 7, 1995
Dear Mike:
The following are the notes I took during our meeting held Thursday, December 7, 1995
with you, Dennis Ferdig, Bruno Callu, Brian Hunter, Mike Shirey, Anne Hysong and myself
regarding issues on UDC's Tentative Map. If there is anything incorrect in these notes,
please call me or markup these notes and FAX them back to me.
Please refer to the MEMO to Brian Hunter from you regarding the issues of concern that
were addressed at the meeting and subsequently itemized in this letter. The first seven items
address missing or incomplete items in the plans and application.
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
Item 1, indicates that an ADT for the second dwelling units is needed,
ACTION NEEDED: An ADT of 6 will be used.
STREET PROFILES
Item 2 requests a profile of all streets with grades greater than 7%.
ACTION NEEDED: Crosby, Mead, and Benton will provide these profiles.
TRAIL EASEMENT
Item 3. requests a typical section for the public trail and easement which is to be 20' wide
with 10* on each side of the centerlme.
ACTION NEEDED: Crosby, Mead, and Benton will provide a typical section of the
trail easement.
WALL ELEVATIONS
Item 4. requests bottom wall elevations for all fences, walls, and retaining walls at each end
of each wall, in the middle of each wall, and worst condition elevations..
ACTION NEEDED: Crosby, Mead, and Benton will provide these elevations.
, M 6. 7.2082 6S32FROM
HI. Land Tide and Mapping
PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT
Item 1. requests Schedule 'B' of the Preliminary Title Report for Village E and an indication
of the disposition of any future easements be submitted.
ACTION NEEDED: Crosby, Mead, and Benton will provide 2 separate title reports;
a Preliminary Title report for the entire site and a Preliminary Title Report for the
separate Tentative Map,
NOTE ON THE T.M. REGARDING FINALING AS ONE MAP
This note is no longer applicable.
ACTION NEEDED: Crosby, Mead and Benton will delete.
GENERAL DESIGN NOTES
Item 3. requests that the General Design Notes be numbered,
ACTION NEEDED: Crosby, Mead, and Benton will add this numbering.
As I mentioned earlier, please let me know if there are any errors or misunderstandings in
these notes. The purpose of providing you these notes is to assure that after each meeting,
we have the same understanding of what we have agreed to and what has to be done.
Sincerely,
ffi#£
Mike Howes
cc: Mike Shirey
Dennis Ferdig
Bruno Callu
Brian Hunter
Anne Hysong
***END***
Hofman Planning
Associates
O Q 0
K r~^-r"~vv/-'--^
ttiVt?lijU w (tiiPlanning Project Management Fiscal Analysis
December 6, 1995
Anne Hysong
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROPOSAL FOR UDC HOMES' VILLAGES E, J, &
K IN THE RANCHO CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
Dear Anne:
AFFORDABLE PROPOSAL
The purpose of this letter is to explain UDC's proposal for providing affordable housing
units in conformance with the requirements of Carlsbad's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
and provide justification for the requested minor modifications to standards. Based on the
City's formula for determining the required number of affordable units UDC will have to
provide 49.2 affordable units to comply with the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance. UDC proposes to provide these units by providing up to 44 second units in
Villages J & K. These units will be constructed above the garages of the homes as shown in
the architectural exhibits submitted with the tentative map. These units will be constructed in
accordance with the requirements of Carlsbad's Second Unit Ordinance. The architecture of
the homes containing second units will be compatible with the other homes in Villages J &
K.
Six three bedroom units affordable to low income households will be provided in Village E
to comply with the Inclusionary Housing requirement for three bedroom units. UDC is only
required to provide 4.9 three bedroom affordable units per the City's 10% requirement.
However, since Village E will be developed with duplex units six three bedroom Inclusionary
will be provided in Village E. These three bedroom Inclusionary units will be provided by
the #5 floor plan in Village E. The tentative map for Village E shows the location of the six
#5 floor plans.
2386 Faraday Avenue ° Suite 120 ° Carlsbad ° CA 92008 ° (619)438-1465 ° Fax: (619)438-2443
The architectural plans submitted for Village E also show a #4 floor plan for a 881 square
foot two bedroom unit. None of these units have been shown on the tentative map/site plan.
These units will only be used if UDC finds that the single family homes with second units
are not being purchased in Villages J & K. If this occurs, UDC will use these smaller units
to fulfill its affordable housing requirement in Village E. The #4 floor plan is the same size
as the other floor plans so it could be plotted on the lots in Village E.
UDC is optimistic that homes with second units will be popular, but we are not aware of any
new projects with second units. If for some reason these units are not popular they need the
option to provide the Inclusionary units in Village E. To test the market and assure that the
City will receive the required number of Inclusionary units UDC proposes to start the
development of the single family homes in Villages J & K before Village E. If the homes
with second units are not marketable they would then be able to provide the required
Inclusionary units in Village E. The Affordable Housing Agreement between the City and
UDC will provide the details of how this would occur.
UDC's proposal for providing Inclusionary units will result in the required Inclusionary units
being distributed through out Villages E,J & K. This will result in some of the Inclusionary
units being constructed in the first phase of development. In addition, the Inclusionary units
will be compatible with the market rate units since by their design it will be difficult to
distinguish them from the market rate units.
INCENTIVES & MODIFICATIONS TO STANDARDS
UDC is not requesting any financial incentives to assist in providing the required
Inclusionary units. A few minor modifications to Engineering standards and Planning
Department policies are being requested for this project.
Street A
A slight modification to allow for a modified reversed curve is being proposed for a portion
of this street. This request has been discussed with the Engineering Department and they
have indicated that they can support this request.
Cul-de-sac bulbs
A slight reduction in the radius of the cul-de-sac bulbs has been discussed with the
Engineering Department and they have informed us that it could be supported.
Walls exceeding 6' in height
A heavily landscaped loffel wall exceeding six feet in height will be required along the south
edge of this project along Street "B". This wall is necessary to facilitate the grading of this
project which has been somewhat constrained by the previously approved tentative map for
Village F. The height of Palomar Airport Road has already been established along with the
elevation of Street "B". In addition, the location and elevation of the emergency access
between Village E & F was set by the previously approved map for Village F. This has put
constraints on how this site could be graded to accommodate development. The proposed
wall will only have to exceed six feet in height for about 260' of the projects's 1000 foot
frontage along Street "B" to allow for the development of this project.
More than 10 two story structures in a row
Eleven two story duplex units ware proposed along street "F" in the southern portion of the
project. According to your letter of November 4, 1995 this is in conflict with the Planning
Department's Administrative Policy for two story units fronting on a street. We
acknowledge that per a strict interpretation of this policy this would be a conflict. However
we believe it can be justified for a number of reasons. All of the structures have a very
strong one story element along their edges. There will always be a minimum of 10 feet
between all one story elements and 20 feet between all two story elements of the structures
along Street "F". In addition, this section of the Planned Development Ordinance was
written to address single family detached homes, not multifamily projects.
The elimination of a building would be one way to resolve this issue. However, we believe
that the overall benefit of eliminating one building does not justify the economic cost of its
loss. The units along Street F will be the most desirable units in the project. The loss of
two dwelling units, would have to be spread to the remaining units in Village F. These units
are already subsiding the cost of the six three bedroom Inclusionary units. UDC estimates
that each of the three bedroom units will require a $38,000 subsidy, for a total subsidy of
$228,000. This cost will have to be spread to the 98 market rate units in this project.
The loss of two of the more desirable market rate units would decrease the amount of market
rate units to support the cost of the Inclusionary units. UDC estimates that eliminating two
additional units along Street "F" would add approximately $196,000 to this subsidy. As
mentioned above, this cost would have to be spread to the remaining units in the project
making it even more difficult to provide the required Inclusionary units without the need for
any financial subsidies from the City. Even though there would be two less units the cost of
developing the project would still be the same, since the same amount of infrastructure would
have to be provided.
CONCLUSION
UDC believes that their proposal to satisfy the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance can be justified for the following reasons:
1. The Inclusionary units will be integrated into all three of the Villages without
creating any negative impacts, real or perceived.
2. The Inclusionary units will be developed concurrently with the market rate
units.
3. UDC is not requesting any financial subsidies from the City.
4. UDC will be providing both ownership affordable units as well as rental units.
5. The minor modifications to standards being requested by UDC will have no
adverse impacts or even be noticeable to people in the project or viewing the
project from the adjacent neighborhoods.
6. Village F will help to fulfill one of the goals of Carlsbad's Housing Element,
which is to provide a variety of housing types. Village F will provide the first
new duplex neighborhood in Carlsbad since the development of the Trails
project in Calavera Hills in 1987. In addition to providing six affordable three
bedroom units Village E will provide a desirable multifamily ownership type
of project that should be affordable to moderate income households.
We look forward to presenting this proposal to the Housing Committee and having the
opportunity to answer any questions that the committee may have regarding the information
in this letter. We believe that this proposal is a workable solution for both the City and
UDC. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Mike Howes
cc Brian Hunter
Evan Becker
(Ijj^aUM^
V v . __. ~U /; _/]
/I
5.23.2082 4:37 p• 2
FROT1
Hofman Planning
Associates
November 22,1995
Ann Hysong
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
SUBJECT: CT 95-06; MEETING NOTES FROM NOVEMBER 21, 1995
Dear Ann:
The following are the note I took during our meeting held on Tuesday, November 21, 1995 with
you, Dennis Ferdig, Bruno Callu and myself to discuss the issues letter dated November 4, 1995.
If there is anything incorrect in these notes, please call me or markup these notes and FAX them
back to me.
BUILDING SEPARATION
Item 1. on the list of Issues Of Concern indicates that there is an issue regarding the building
separation throughout the project. There are more than 10 units in a row along street "F" that do
not meet the 20' building separation. In addition, the City is recommending a minimum of 15'
building separation for all buildings within the project.
ACTION NEEDED: HPA will prepare a letter that addresses modifications to
Engineering standards and Planning standards to justify the project design. Also, the letter
will provide a discussion regarding the use of one story units if it is not feasible to provide
the majority of the affordable units as second units in Villages J and K.
FFORDABLE HOUSING
- through 4. on the list of Issues Of Concern are in regards to affordable housing. The
is requesting a project pro-forma be prepared to clearly define the intent of the provisions for
affordable housing.
ACTION NEEDED: HPA will work with Evan Becker to obtain his concurrence
regarding a pro-forma for this project. HPA will prepare a detailed letter explaining and
justifying UDC's affordable proposal for presentation to the Housing Committee.
RV STORAGE
Item 5. requests an explanation regarding how the project will meet recreational vehicle storage
requirement.
ACTION NEEDED: The City can be assured that adequate RV storage facilities will be
provided with the project by applying a similar RV storage condition on the project as was
provided on the Continental Homes tentative maps.
FROll 5.23.2882 4:37 P. 3
/
GENERAL NOTES
Item 6. identifies several General Notes that should be provided.
ACTION NEEDED: Bruno will place the requested information on the Tentative Map /
Site Plan.
RECREATIONAL AMENITIES
Item 7. indicates the City's desire for additional recreational amenities within the Lot A
recreational area.
ACTION NEEDED: Dennis said he would consider adding a picnic bench and a cover to
the tot lot, The primary goal of the larger recreational area is to provide a large grassy
area for active type uses. Dennis will provide a large scale exhibit that provides the details
of the recreational areas. The larger recreational area will provide a 3/4 basketball court
aligned in a north-south direction. We will also consider snowing this as a sport court.
Bruno will add a note to the tentative map indicating the required amount of recreation
area and the amount of recreation area provided.
RETAINING WALLS ON SIDE YARDS
Item 8. states that the total height of a combination wall/fence shall not exceed 6'.
ACTION NEEDED: Where applicable, Bruno will revise the tentative map to show
retaining walls with a planter between the wall and the fence. Once this is completed,
there will be no wall/fence combinations exceeding 6'.
REAR BUILDING ELEVATIONS
Item 9. requests that additional architectural attention be given to the rear elevations.
ACTION NEEDED: Dennis indicated that he will have the architect add some details to
the rear windows and some accent color to the trim,
ENCROACHMENT INTO SETBACKS
Item 10. indicates that the structures violate setback regulations by providing intrusions into the
front yard setback. In addition, there is question regarding some of the 5' side yard setbacks.
ACTION NEEDED; HPA and Dennis will coordinate to show that the intrusions are
architectural features and not a part of the useable floor area. Bruno will take a look at
the site plan to ensure that the distances provided on the site plan are correct.
LANDSCAPE PLANS
Item 11. indicates that the City's Landscape Consultant will review the landscape plans.
ACTION NEEDED; The landscape consultant will provide comments. HPA will
coordinate the response to the comments.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AGREEMENT
Item 12. states that there is a need to correct the PFF Agreement.
ACTION NEEDED; Dennis made the necessary corrections at the front counter after^themecting-
5.23.2982 4:38 P. 4
FROM, ••
BOILS STUDY
Item 13. states that additional testing should be conducted if the is materials exported from the
site.
ACTION NEEDED: None. There is not export outside the master plan area once the
mass grading has occurred.
CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR
Item 14. states that the project will be conditioned to comply with all conditions and mitigation
measures identified in the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. You indicated that you want a study that
shows the exact impacts of the project.
ACTION NEEDED: None.
NOISE MITIGATION
Item 15. requests an addendum to the noise study prepared for the EIR. This addendum is to
address the mitigation measures necessary to maintain exterior noise levels to a maximum of 60
CNEL.
ACTION NEEDED; RECON will prepare an addendum to the noise study.
Item 16. states that the project will be conditioned to provide acoustical studies to demonstrate
that interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.
ACTION NEEDED: No action is needed at this time.
IMPACTS FROM MCCLELLAN PALOMAR AIRPORT
Item 17. states that the project will be conditioned to require the recordation of a notice of
restriction.
ACTION NEEDED: No action is needed until the preparation of the final map.
GENERAL NOTES STATEMENT REGARDING RETAINING WALLS
Item 18. requested an explanation and an explanation was provided during the meeting that was
satisfactory to you.
ACTION NEEDED: None.
As we discussed, we will prepare a letter regarding affordable housing so that you and Brian can
go to the Housing Commission with a full understanding of our position.
As I mentioned earlier, please let me know if there are any errors or misunderstandings in these
notes. The purpose of providing you with these notes is to assure that after each meeting, we
have the same understanding of what we have agreed to and what has to be done.
Sincerely,
Mike Howes
cc: Dennis Ferdig
Q:\Ul»COR\MIK£\MNISSUES.LI?r
***END***
November 21, 1995
To: Anne Hysong
From: Principal Building Inspector
CT 95-61 PUD 95-47 SDP 95-12
Please add Building department conditions to the project as follows:
1. The buildings shall comply with UBC Sections 503.2 & 709.4 (1994 ed. UBC)
2. Drainage from the buildings and individual lots shall not cross real property lines.
3. The buildings shall comply with the latest edition of the Model Codes adopted by the City of
Carlsbad at the time plans are submitted for building permits.
Thank You,
PAT KELLEY
Principal Building Inspector
Corlsbftd
Municipal Water District
5950 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Engineering: (619) 438-3367
Administration: (619) 438-2722
FAX: 431-1601
Date:X/Q
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
TO:
FROM: J&ZZy Kfl~fiTL£Y CMWD NO.
SUBJECT:
PUD ^5-4 - SDP Is-i? S/S
In response to your inquiry of A/OV&^&G%, %0 , I *?9 5* _ ,the District has
reviewed subject project and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District conditions for potable water,
reclaimed water and sewer systems are as follows:
1. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be
met.
2. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego
County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for
meter installation.
"Serving Carlsbad for over 40 years"
Page 2
City of Carlsbad
Date
3. Sequentially, the Developers Engineer shall do the following:
A. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements.
Also obtain G.P.M. demand for domestic and irrigational needs from appropriate
parties.
B. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning
Department for processing and approval.
C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement plans,
a meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review, comment and
approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (ie - GPM - EDU).
4. This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not be
issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the
development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available at
the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to be
available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map.
5. The, d&uzhes £VW/ the, Pegu/red ~k> dc/he^e. -fa all
On
\/i/foe sws-f rovide q/J ojT^/^e usu^es" Feus es°
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.
F. Jerry Whitidy
Associate Engineer
FJW:jm
City of Carlsbift '95271
Fire Department • Bureau of Prevention
Plan Review: Requirements Category: Fire Conditions
Date of Report: Thursday, November 30,1995 Reviewed by:
Contact Name Anne Hysong
Address Las Palmas
City, State CBDCA 92009
Bldg. Dept. No. _ Planning No. CT95-6 _ \
Job Name Carrillo Ranch Vlg E _
Job Address Paiomar Airport Ste. or Bldg. No.
Kl Approved - The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is
based on plans; information and/or specifications provided in your submittal;
therefore any changes to these items after this date, including field modifica-
tions, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with
applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure
to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to
construct or install improvements.
D Disapproved - Please see the attached report of deficiencies. Please make corrections to
plans or specifications necessary to indicate compliance with applicable
codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this
office for review.
For Fire Department Use Only
Review 1st 2nd 3rd
Other Agency ID
CFD Job# 95271 File#
2560 Orion Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (619) 931-2121
V
'City of Carlsbaft 95271
Fire Department • Bureau of Prevention
General Comments:
Date of Report: Thursday, November 30,1995
Contact Name Anne Hysong
Address Las Palmas
City, State CBD CA 92009
Bldg. Dept. No. Planning No. CT95-6
Job Name _Carrilto Ranch Vlg E
Job Address Paiomar Airport ; Ste. or Bldg. No.
Please send information on any master fire suppresion guidelines in place or tentative. I would like to see a back-yard fire
suppression guideline similar to Aviara Point for all lots interfacing with native habitat and with minimum 20' set-backs. See
attachment. This way we avoid future problems.
2560 Orion Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (619) 931-2121
ILLUSTRATION OF REAR YARD COND TION
Home with Coasta Resource Area within Fencnq
nppn pccTpirTipM - ._ ,• MIMIMIIM
(CRA) BOUNDARY
pp AJP Y Apn nrMrrKtAN I ANJ rtnOL
Mn IPPir-iATION Al 1 niJFD r
, j >pcy-)prpTy | ikjr v Kr NOT CM I LIINL '1 k
^j^
NATIVE FIRE SUPPRESSION LANDSCAPE
M.AC.TPP A£>C*OOI AT1.OM MAIMTPMAMOP * ,1 IAOI trs AOiX/OIAI IC/N 1 lAIINI CNANL-t ^^
. 20' SETBACK Jf
I / ^ ^*-^"/ '^**^~
^
?. ic^>^tj s^_ ti^^^^ '/ TOP OF Al OPr 1u ^^*^^^^ ' lUr vr DLOT L
^^ NOTE;
NO OVERHANGS OR COMBUSTIBLE
CONSTRUCTION ALLOWED (JJITMIN
20' SETBACK
< ' ' - > FIPF SUPPPESSIOM LAMDSfAPF
x > LLOMF OIIWFP MAIMTFMAMOP' nU\ It. OwlXCfN 1 IAIIN 1 DNAINOC.
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE
MINIMUM
20' SETBACK
nppn pP<vrpif~TinM ^ ^ I7L/ttl> Ntv?l !\.\L> 1 lO'N :
(CRA) BOUNDARY R^X
••. PPMP- vxpn-FFMi^F r\/H^,rstAK 1 Ar<u rtlNUt • k/>~\v
^WppOPFPTY 1 IMF >P\CC/\rNUr_trNl 1 LIINL lv/\/\/
R^tv/NTVM_Ac,TFP AAC/yiATlOW >>\ A A
MAINTENANCE AREA rT^O
LS2C'
NATIVE FIRE SUPPRESSION LANDSCAPE
MAC.TCD AC.C,/^/~l ATI/^KI M A IMTCKI AM^"C <tnAoltrs AoSC'CIAIIC'N MAINItNANOt ^
v_l x|
^XV -7
^C/J
<3/Oi . <— TOP OF SLOPE
*W r-Kr :
/CX1. V . HOME
<xT- ,
— ^ _.i__
, I v FIPF SUPPPFS5IOM LANDSCAPE
' t UDMF OlINFP MAINJTFSJASJrF" MUI It L/UJINClN 1 IAVIIN 1 LliMINL-C
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE
Requirements Category:Conditions 95271
Deficiency Item: Satisfied 02 Hydrants
Additional on-site public water mains and fire hydrants are required.
Proposed change for Industrial and multi family:
Provide additional public fire hydrants at intervals of 300 feet along public streets and private
driveways. Hydrants should be located at street intersections when possible, but should be
positioned no closer than 100 feet from terminus of a street or driveway.
Proposed change for single family residences:
Provide additional public fire hydrants at intervals of 500 feet along public streets and/or private
driveways. Hydrants should be located at street intersections when possible, but should be
positioned no closer than 100 feet from terminus of a street or driveway.
Deficiency Item: Satisfied 03 Site Plan/Hydrants
Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts location of
required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydrants. The plan should include
off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
Deficiency Item: SajrfCTied 05 Access during construction
An all weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles shall be provided
and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the Fire Chief, the access road has
become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other reasons, he may, in the interest of public
safety, require that construction operations cease until the condition is corrected.
Deficiency Item: Sajj^fied06 Combustible construction materials on site
All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational before combustible
building materials are located on the construction site.
Deficiency Item: Satisfied 07 Security gate systems
Prior to final inspection, all security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be equipped with
a "Knox", key-operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall contact the Fire Prevention Bureau
for specifications and approvals prior to installation.
09 Brush clearanceDeficiency Item: Satisfied
Native vegetation which presents a fire hazard to structures shall be modified or removed in
accordance with the specifications contained in the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual.
Applicant shall submit a Fire Suppression plan to the Fire Department for approval.
Proposed new condition
Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall obtain fire department approval of a
wildland fuel management plan. The plan shall clearly indicate methods proposed to mitigate and
manage fire risk associated with native vegetation growing within 60 feet of structures. The plan
shall reflect the standards presented in the fire suppression element of the City of Carlsbad
Landscape Guidelines Manual.
more below
Prior to occupancy of buildings, all wildland fuel mitigation activities must be complete, and the
condition of all vegetation within 60 feet of structures found to be in conformance with an approved
wildland fuel management plan.
Page 2 11/30/95
Requirements Category: Fire Conditions 95271
Deficiency Item: SaUtffled 12 Emergency response maps
The applicant shall provide a street map which conforms to the following requirements: A 400 scale
photo-reduction mylar, depicting proposed improvements and at least two existing intersections or
streets. The map shall also clearly depict street centerlines, hydrant locations and street names.
Page 3 11/30/95
CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMsW MEMO
DATE: NOV. 20. 1995 REVISED PLAN
TO: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
*F'i RE" DEPARTMENT - fiW<E
*8UILD!NG DEPARTMENT - PAT KELLEY
'COMMUNITY SERVICES - MARK STEYAERT
^COMMUNITY SERVICES - VIRGINIA McCOY
* _ CARLSBAD WATER DISTRICT
^LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK CONSULTANT - LARRY""BLACl<"
* ----- - s c H o Q L -DtST-R 1 C T
*NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT - THOMAS LIGHTERMAN
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC - BICH TRAN (Memo Only)
*ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON APPLICATION NO. CT 95-6/PUD J5-4
Note: Please use this number on all correspondence. SDP 95-
PROJECT TITLE: CARRILLO RANCH VILLAGE E
APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES
PROPOSAL: 52 DUPLEXES ON 115 LOTS
Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to:
• _ ANNE HYSONG _ the Project Planner in the Planning Dept.,
2075 Las Palmas Drive, by _ DEC. 4. 1995, • If not; received by that
date, it will be assumed that you have no comment and the proposal has your
endorsement as submitted. 1f you have, any questions, please contact
•' ANNE HYSONG at 433-1? 61, ext. __ M77
THANK YOU
COMMENTS:
Tt*tM>
t —' /I /* /J >
fTl I}uft/&y. fjrt^sCf &fa,t (^^J^^^j^L fatfr*-
^• " ~ ' ' '' - ' ~ "^WM.^
PLANS ATTACHED ~"s*..jL . c^^— FRM0020 5/94
DATE:
CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO
NOV. 20. 1995 REVISED PLAN
TO: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
*POLICE DEPARTMENT - ATTN: J. SASWAY
*FIRE DEPARTMENT - MIKE SMITH
^bilt!gi*NG'DEPARTMENT --PAT KELLEY.
^COMMUNITY SERVICES - MARK STEYAERT
^COMMUNITY SERVICES - VIRGINIA McCOY
* CARLSBAD WATER DISTRICT
LANDSCAPE PLANCHECK CONSULTANT - LARRY BLACK
* SCHOOL DISTRICT
*NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT - THOMAS LIGHTERMAN
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC - BICH TRAN (Memo Only)
*ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON APPLICATION NO. CT 95-6/PUD <
^lote: Please use this number on all correspondence. SDP 95-12
5-4
PROJECT TITLE:
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
CARRILLO RANCH VILLAGE E
HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES
52 DUPLEXES ON 115 LOTS
Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to:
_ ANNE HYSONG _ the Project Planner in the Planning Dept.,
2075 Las Palmas Drive, by _ DEC. 4. 1995 If not received by that
date, it will be assumed that you have no comment and the proposal has your
endorsement as submitted. 1f you have any questions, please contact
ANNE HYSONG at 438-1161, ext.4477
THANK YOU
COMMENTS:
PLANS ATTACHED FRM0020 5/94
CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO
DATE:NOV. 20. 1995 REVISED PLAN
TO: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
*POLICE DEPARTMENT - ATTN : J. SASWAY
*FIRE DEPARTMENT - MIKE SMITH
*BUILDING DEPARTMENT - PAT KELLEY
COMMUNITY SERVICES - MARK STEYAERT
SERVICES - VIRGINIA McCOY ./
CARLSBAD WATER DISTRICT
LANDSCAPE PLANCHECK CONSULTANT - LARRY BLACK
*_ SCHOOL DISTRICT
*NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT - THOMAS LIGHTERMAN
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC - B1CH TRAN (Memo Only)
*ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON APPLICATION NO. CT 95-6/PUD
Sote: Please use this number on all correspondence. SDP 95-1:
PROJECT TITLE:
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
CARRILLO RANCH VILLAGE E
HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES
52 DUPLEXES ON 115 LOTS
Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to:
ANNE HYSONG the Project Planner in the Planning Dept.,
2075 Las Palmas Drive, by DEC. 4. 1995 If not received by that
date, it will be assumed that you have no comment and the proposal has your
endorsement as submitted. If you have any questions, please contact
ANNE HYSONG at 438-1161, ext.4477
THANK YOU
COMMENTS:
PLANS ATTACHED FRM0020 5/94
November 27, 1995
COMMENTS ON TENTATIVE MAP FOR RANCHO CARRILLO, VILLAGE E
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Sheet 1 of 3, General Design Notes No. 1 states no additional improvements will be
constructed on Palomar Airport Road as improvements were built per Clsb. Dwg. No. 314-03.
No street lights or landscaping improvement for the hardscape medians were included with
those improvements. I was under the impression street lights and landscaping for the
medians were to be built as a condition of development for adjacent properties when
developed.
2. Suggest re evaluating street light layout in conformance with City of carlsbad Standards.
For example lights should be located on outside of curve where possible.
WE WILL DO COMPLETE CHECK ON STORM DRAIN SYSTEM IN REGARD TO
MAINTENANCE CONCERNS WHEN IMPROVEMENT PLANS ARE SUBMITTED
CITY OF CARLSBAD
INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
DATE:
TO: NAME
FROM: COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT/OAK AVENUE
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
November 16, 1995
TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER - ANNE HYSONG
From: Associate Engineer - Land Use Review
Via: Assistant City Engineer
CT 95-06, SDP 95-12, PUD 95-04; RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E"
COMPLETENESS REVIEW AND INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT
Engineering Department staff have previously found this application complete (1 1/3/95; A.
Hysong memo) and have now completed a review of the above referenced project for
Engineering Issues of Concern. Engineering issues which must be resolved prior to staff
making a determination on this project are as follows:
Traffic and Circulation
1 . Since this is a proposed tentative map which will ultimately become a final map,
it must be able to stand on its own merit with regards to all City requirements.
To achieve this, the entire temporary secondary access must be shown through
the adjacent property (Continental Homes Village "F") to the east. Therefore
please show a 28' asphalt/concrete access through Village "F" terminating at
a gate at Palomar Airport Road (PAR). Also indicate this temporary access as
a private access easement through Village "F".
2. Please add the dimensions for the median area (including easement and curb to
^ curb widths) for Street "A", at the typical street section for Street's "A,B,C,D,F
& H."
Sewer and Drainage
1. As proposed, a sump condition will exist at lot's 50 and 51. Therefore, to
\ ^ \-c- rnitigate any potential residential flood hazard conditions (eg, at lot's 49 and
k" '' 50), please show a fail-safe overflow drainage swale between lots 50 and 51
f-Y^*r' from the sump condition to the rear yard and down the slope to Street "B".
Design this fail-safe system to access the storm drain behind the sidewalk along
street "B".
^_
2. Section "A-A" on sheet 2 of 3 indicates a "Type-J-concrete ditch". City
Standards will require utilizing a San Diego Regional Standard (SDRS) D-75
drainage swale. (What standards does the Type-J come from?) Please revise
this proposed Type-J to a SDRS D-75.
CT 95-06, SDP 95-12, Pl^95-04; RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAd^'E" PAGE: 2
COMPLETENESS REVIEW AND INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT
A. HYSONG MEMO; NOVEMBER 16, 1995
3. The drainage swale along the ton of slope for the PAR down slope seems to
discharge into the roadway at the terminus of the proposed Street "H" cul-de-
sac. This is unacceptable, slope irrigation will continually drain into the street
with this configuration. Please catch this slope runoff in a storm drain inlet and
pipe the runoff to the storm drain system.
4. Under the eleventh bullet point, under General Design Notes regarding sewer,
water and storm drain layout, please add "to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer" to the end of the sentence.
Soils
1. Since development is now being proposed on this site, please submit either a
site specific soils report or the appropriate sections of the Rancho Carrillo soils
report which address this site.
2. As part of the soils report, please address the proposed loffel wall design (eg,
what is the dashed area at the toe of slope directly behind the subdivision
boundary line?)
3. Under the seventh bullet point, under General Design Notes regarding finished
grades, please add "to the satisfaction of the City Engineer" to the end of the
sentence.
Land Title and Mapping
1. Please provide Schedule "B" of the Preliminary Title Report (PR) for this village
only and then subsequently plot any easements and encumbrances on the
tentative map and indicate the future disposition of alt easements and
encumbrances. If no easements and encumbrances are associated with this
village, then please so indicate under the General Design Notes on the tentative
map cover sheet.
2. The second to last General Design Note (if numbered, number 13) is not
applicable. This map will final as one map. Is this a left over note from when
this project was part of Village's "E & K?" Please delete this note or explain it.
3. Please number the General Design Notes.
Attached for the applicant's use for making plan revisions is a redlined check print of the
project. This check print must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff
review.
If you ortirteQjfcMcatK have any questions, please either see or call me at extension 4388.
1ICH/
Associate Engineer - Land Use Review
Attachment
MEMORANDUM
November 3, 1995
TO: ASSISTANT PLANNER - ANNE HYSONG
FROM: Associate Engineer - Michael J. Shirey
CT 95-06; SDP 95-12; PUD 95-04: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E"
COMPLETENESS REVIEW AND INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT
Engineering Department staff have completed a review of the above referenced project for
application completeness and have determined that the application and plans submitted for the
project are complete and suitable for continued review. Due to current staff work loads,
Engineering Issues of Concern have not been identified at this time. Any engineering issues
which are identified, however, will be forwarded to you within two weeks.
If you or the applicant have any questions, please either see or call me at extension 4388.
MICH)
Associate Engineer - Land Use Review
Attachment
c: Assistant City Engineer
Principal Civil Engineer - Land Use Review
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
November 4, 1995
Hofman Planning Associates
Attn: Mike Howes
2386 Faraday, Suite 120
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
SUBJECT: CT 95-06/PUD 95-04/SDP 95-12 - CARRILLO RANCH VILLAGE E
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning
Department has reviewed your tentative map, planned unit development, and site
development plan, application No.s CT 95-06, PUD 95-04, SDP 95-12, as to their
completeness for processing.
The application is complete, as submitted. Although the initial processing of your
application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the
date of this communication. The City may, in the course of processing the application,
request that you clarify, amplify, correct or otherwise supplement the basic information
required for the application. In addition, you should also be aware that various design
issues may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled
for a hearing. The Planning Department will begin processing your application as of the
date of this communication.
Please contact your staff planner, Anne Hysong, at (619) 438-1161 extension 4477, if you
have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincerely,
MICHAELT. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:AH:kc
c: Gary Wayne
Chris DeCerbo
Bobbie Hoder
Bob Wojcik
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 920O9-1576 • (619)438-1161
CT 95-06/PUD 95-04/SDP^Pl2 - CARRILLO RANCH
NOVEMBER 4, 1995
Page 2
ISSUES OF CONCERN
PLANNING;
3.
The project provides less than the required 20' building separation required by the
Planned Development Ordinance through administrative policy for 10 two-story
structures in a row fronting on Street "F". Please provide the necessary 20'
separation between these structures which will be visible from development to the
south. A 15' separation between all structures is strongly recommended since a 2-
unit product type is proposed instead of multi-unit buildings which could be clustered
and spaced with greater separation.
The affordable housing requirement for Village E is 17.29 units. Six are proposed
onsite; therefore, 11.29 units must be provided within Villages K and/or J. Please
specify on the site plan the lots proposed for the six affordable three bedroom units
in Village E. Please specify on the plans that these remaining affordable units are
proposed in Villages J and/or K.
Elevations for a single story structure (Plan 4) were submitted with this project,
however, no lots are identified with this product type. Please explain. If this plan
is proposed as an option for providing the affordable housing requirement for
Villages E, J, and K within Village E, this option proposal must be clearly
stated on the plans. Please provide justification for this option.
Please indicate whether any standards modifications are proposed. If standards
modifications are proposed, they must be justified with a project proforma indicating
how the requested modifications will reduce the affordability gap. The proposal will
then be reviewed by the Housing Committee.
Please specify how this project's recreational vehicle storage requirement will be
provided.
Please add the following to General Notes:
Developable acreage
Guest spaces required
Guest spaces provided
Location of guest parking spaces
Common passive recreation area required
Common passive recreation area provided
7. Please specify some additional common passive recreational amenity within the Lot
CT 95-06/PUD 95-04/SrW5-12 - CARRILLO RANCH YILL^BI E
NOVEMBER 4, 1995
Page 3
A recreation area. It appears that there is ample room for a full basketball court or
covered picnic area (gazebos?).
8. In accordance with the Planning Department's fence policy, the total height of
combination fence/retaining walls shall not exceed 6'. Please revise Section A on
Sheet 1 to reflect this requirement. A 36" safety railing is required on top of all
retaining walls that exceed a height of 3'.
9. Front elevations proposed for these units provide good articulation and detail; please
provide some building articulation and improved fenestration along the rear building
elevations through the use of popouts, etc. Additionally, the variation in roof colors
likely to be visible from Palomar Airport Road will enhance this development.
10. Although eaves are permitted to encroach up to 2' into required setbacks, building
protrusions into the required 20' front yard setback are not permitted. Please revise
plans accordingly. Additionally, sideyard setbacks dimensioned as 5' are not 5' in all
cases.
Landscape plans will be reviewed by the City's Landscape Consultant for consistency
with the Landscape Design Manual and the Carrillo Master Plan.
Please make the corrections on the attached Public Facilities Agreement and return
with the next submittal package.
According to the Preliminary Site Assessment and Limited Sampling Report (pp 39-
40) submitted on December 9, 1993 for Villages E, K, and J, additional laboratory
tests should be performed to confirm that the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration
(STLC) of DDT, DDE, and Toxaphene does not exceed the values promulgated by
Title 22 if soils will be exported from the site. Also, the presence of these pesticides
may require disclosure or a possible health risk assessment. The tentative map will
be conditioned with these requirements.
14. This project will be conditioned to comply with all relevant conditions and mitigation
measures identified in the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan EIR certified on July 27,
1993.
15. The proposed pad elevations are higher at some locations than those indicated in the
noise report. Since a noise wall is required to mitigate noise levels, please submit an
addendum to the noise report indicating whether the 6* noise wall will mitigate noise
levels to a maximum of 60 CNEL.
16. Second floors adjacent to Palomar Airport Road will experience interior noise levels
in excess of 45 dBA CNEL; therefore, the project will be conditioned to require
acoustical studies to demonstrate compliance.
CT 95-06/PUD 95-04/SDI^-12 - CARRILLO RANCH
NOVEMBER 4, 1995
Page 4
17. The property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from
McClellan Palomar Airport, and the project will be conditioned to require the
recordation of a notice of restriction prior to final map approval.
18. Please explain what is meant by the following statement under General Notes:
"Retaining walls less than 3' in height for side yard drainage and maintenance
enhancement and to accommodate single story structures may be added during
construction on a maximum of 50% of these lots." Why are retaining walls necessary
to accommodate single story structures on these lots?
ENGINEERING:
1. Due to current staff work loads, Engineering Issues of Concern have not been
identified at this time. Any engineering issues which are identified, however, will be
forwarded within two weeks.