Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 97-24; May Subdivision; Tentative Map (CT) (3)City of Carlsbad Planning Department FAXTRANSMITTAL DATE: May 10, 2000 TIME SENT: TO: Herb Palmtag COMPANY: Palmtag Davis PHONE #: (619)702-2042 FAX#: (619)702-5154 Number of Pages Being Transmitted (Including Cover Sheet): 2 FROM: Anne Hysong DEPT.: PLANNING PHONE: (760)602-4622 FAX: (760) 602-8559 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: I have approved the proposed garage relocation. Please find attached the approved site plan for your files. Return Fax 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 03/04/00 06:43 FAX 618 756 4£3 LARET COMPANY £102 L CaHsbad Estates IMC 110 Juniper St. San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 702-2042 Fax (619) 702-5154 May 4,2000 Ms. Anne Hysong Associate Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: Lot 6, May Subdivision SDP-98-05/CDP-97-58 "A" Dear Ms. Hysong: As a follow up to our phone conversation I am forwarding to you an exhibit prepared by Laret Engineering that reflects the requested revised plotting of the detached garage on Lot 6 of the May Subdivision. As you can see, we are requesting your consent to move the structure 2' from the face of the existing retaining wall. This is a minor modification request that has no impact on any future neighbors and falls within the allowed set back lines. We respectfully request administrative approval of this small adjustment. Currently we are trenching for foundations on the site and while we have not pulled a permit for this lot we would like to do so, assuming the garage adjustment is acceptable, as soon as possible. Should you need any additional information please let me know. In the meantime I look forward to your response. HerbPalmtag Encl HP:bgt , 05/04/00 06:43 FAX 619 756 4231 LARET COMPANY ©01 PhvocY.Pham ^Dc tjrMC.WajrceW. Winder, Plj. Dennis R,McCartj, PIS. CIV1I, ENGINEERING • LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • G.P.S. SURVEYING TO: FAX# FAX TRANSM1TTAL DATE: .5*- PROJ. # MESSAGE:JS /S {Tom "frits r&s* THIS FAX HAS A TOTAL OF.PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL US IMMEDIATELY AT THE TELEPHONE NUMBER BELOW THANK YOU. SIGNED: 5708 Calzada Del Bosqus P.O. Sox 9651 Rsnchc Santa Fe CA 92067 (858) 756-5374 FAX (858) 758^231 CJfasbad Estates 110 Juniper St. San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 702-2042 Fax (619) 702-5154 October 18,2000 Ms. Anne Hysong Associate Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: May Subdivision/Rear Yard Fencing 1 Via Facsimile (760) 60$-8558$?F 2000 Dear Ms. Hysong: I am writing you to ask for additional clarification relating to project fencing. Our landscape plans for the project identity the rear year fencing along Lots 10 through 14 as being constructed of wood. We have received requests from our buyers to replace the wood with wrought iron to enhance the views. In order that we proceed in accordance with City of Carlsbad requirements could you please provide me with direction as it relates to our ability to substitute iron for wood material for rear yard fencing. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, Herb Palmtag HP:bgt City of Carlsbad Planning Department January 18, 2000 Jim Laret Laret Engineering Company, Inc. P.O. Box 9661 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Re: May Subdivision C.T. 97-24 Building Permit Site Plan One of the items you need to submit for building permit plan check is a building permit site plan. For the Engineering Department to approve the building permit site plan, they need to be able to check it against the approved grading plan and coastal development permit site plan (CDP 97-58(A)). The grading plan and site plan do not agree. Therefore, a substantial conformance exhibit needs to be prepared that accurately reflects all of the grading revisions that have been made as well as the information provided on the approved site plan. The steps to accomplishing this are as follows: Step 1. Prepare and process construction revision to approved grading plan. 1. Correct the slope from Lot 10 to Park Drive, including the property corner elevation. 2. Correct the slope between Lot 5 and the Prentice property. Show the level area at the top of slope, and proposed contours should meet existing contours. Location and elevations of retaining wall need to fit proposed contours. 3. Review pad elevations shown to make sure that the drainage to be shown on your building site plan will meet standards. 4. Consider how the rough grading section D-D is going to work when you show fine grading on the building site plan. 5. Slope symbols need to end at the toe of the slope on Lot 14. Prepare 2 sets of redlines addressing all the items listed above and any other items necessary to reflect actual construction and the approved coastal development permit site plan. Once the construction revision has been approved, the mylars will be released for changes. After the changes have been verified, the construction revision will be approved by the City. You may have a bonded blueprinter make copies for your use, and a mylar as the base for the coastal development permit site plan. 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1 161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 Step 2. Prepare and process an approved substantial conformance exhibit of the Coastal Development Permit site plan. Prepare a substantial conformance exhibit of the site plan using the approved grading construction revision and the approved coastal development permit site plan which includes building footprints, building setbacks, and any other required information. This will ensure that the site plan is consistent with the grading plan since to date, the City has not received Consistent plans for this development. Submit 2 bluelines of the coastal development permit substantial conformance exhibit for review. Once approved, you will submit a mylar with the substantial conformance signature block for signature, and it will become the approved site plan substantial conformance exhibit to be used for future building plan check. Step 3. Prepare Building Site Plan. An accurate building site plan was first requested in August, 1999. The coastal development permit substantial conformance exhibit described above may be used as the building site plan, however, for building permit issuance, the plan also needs to show information necessary to properly evaluate the proposed buildings. This includes building setbacks from faces of walls, location and slope of graded swales including spot elevations, driveway approaches, spot elevations necessary to evaluate proper drainage from the pad to the swale, location and depth of and proposed deepened footings, etc. Any proposed area drains should be reflected on the site plan, with sufficient elevations to verify grades. Due to the amount of information that must be shown clearly on building site plans, they are often prepared at 30- or 20-scale. You may want to consider this to prevent delays in reviewing the plans. If you have any questions on this procedure, please contact Glen Van Peski at (760) 941-9500, Joanne Juchnierwicz in the Engineering Department or myself. Staff is available for a meeting if desired. Sincerely, ANNE HYSON Associate Planner Joanne Juchniewicz Glen Van Peski Bob Wojcik Herb Palmtag, Palmtag-Davis uitv of Carlsbad Planning Department November 20, 2000 Jack Henthorn Henthorn and Associates 5375 Avenida Encinas, Suite D Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: REVISION TO LOT 10, MAY SUBDIVISION Dear Jack: Staff has reviewed your request for a substantial conformance determination to modify the grading and site plan for Lot 10 of the May Subdivision. After thoroughly analyzing the modifications, staff cannot support the change as an administrative one under substantial conformance. Therefore, it will be necessary for your client to process a formal amendment to the Coastal Development Permit (CDP 97-58) if he wishes to further pursue the modifications. The major reason why staff cannot make an administrative substantial conformance determination include the following: 1) there was major public controversy associated with the project when it was originally approved which could be exacerbated by the proposed changes in that additional soil will have to be exported from the site, a retaining wall will need to be constructed on the interior side property line and a larger home will be constructed on the site; 2) a lot line adjustment would be necessary because the revised grading results in a property line in the middle of a slope while Engineering Department standards require all property lines to be at the top of the slope. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. If your client wishes to pursue a formal amendment to the CDP, please feel free to contact Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director c Community Development Director Assistant Planning Director Principal Planner, Chris DeCerbo Associate Planner, Anne HysongtX"^ Consultant Project Engineer, Glen Van Peski 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (76O) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 City of Carlsbad Public Works — Engineering August 13, 1999 Steve and Sherryl Ford 3869 Woodvale Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 MAY SUBDIVISION: CT 97-24 I received your letter dated August 11, 1999 regarding the May Subdivision in which you made several statements. I have been asked to respond to those statements. An application for the project was submitted December 23, 1997. It was approved by the City Planning Commission on July 15, 1998 approximately seven months later. The project was appealed to the City Council and approved by that body on September 8, 1998. That is an average time period for a project of this size. To say that the "project was just pushed through without any consideration of the neighbors" might not be considered accurate, especially given the number of opportunities for residents to comment listed below. I have confirmed that notices were mailed directly to your home prior to both the July 1, 1998 and September 8, 1998 public hearings. On May 22, 1998, the Planning Department published a notice in the local papers notifying all interested parties that an environmental review and the accompanying documents describing the project were available for review at the City's Planning Department. On June 18, 1998, a second notice was published in the local papers notifying interested parties that the project was scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing. On July 1, 1998, that hearing was held and was an open public meeting. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, a mailing was sent out to all residents within 600 feet of the subdivision specifically, notifying them of the hearing on the project. That notice also stated that copies of the plans were available for review at not only the City Planning Department, but were also available at the City Clerk's Office, the Carlsbad Main Library, the La Costa Branch Library, and the Coastal Commission District Office. The project planner's name and phone number were also included in that notice for anyone interested in making arrangements to review those plans. Subsequent to that Planning Commission hearing, an appeal was filed by one of the residents and a second public hearing was scheduled. This hearing was with the City Council. Again, a notice was published in the local papers on August 28, 1998 notifying all interested parties that the public hearing would be held and again giving information on where the documents could be reviewed and who the project planner was. 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 431-5769 August 9, 1999 MAY SUBDIVISION, CT 97-24 Page 2 The City Council meeting was held on September 8, 1998. This was also a public meeting and ten days prior to the meeting a second mailing to residents within a 600-foot radius was sent out notifying everyone of the hearing and again giving information on who could be contacted for further information. City staff's responsibility in reviewing the project is to make sure that development complies with the City's codes, standards, ordinances and policies. These rules apply citywide so that all property owners can enjoy equal property rights. In this case, all of the City rules were complied with and constructing two story homes is a common property right for everyone in the City. Therefore, staff can not deny the request for two stories The project will be returning to the City Council for permits for the homes. This will be a public hearing and notices will be sent out informing people of the time and place. If you would like further information on the project, you may contact Anne Hysong for planning questions at (760) 438-1161, extension 4477, or Ken Quon for engineering questions at (760) 438-1161, extension 4380. Sincerely, ROBERT J. WOJCIK, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer RJW:jb c: City Manager Public Works Director Associate Planner, Anne Hysong Associate Engineer, Ken Quon Joe Garuba City of Carisbad Public Works — Engineering August9,1999 Paul & Eileen Linden 3940 Monroe Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 MAY SUBDIVISION: CT 97-24 I received your letter dated July 27, 1999 regarding the May Subdivision in which you had asked several questions. I have been asked to respond to those questions. Your first question regarded whether the City Council was aware that the grading for the subdivision was destroying the integrity of the neighborhood. City Council is well aware that there are neighborhood concerns regarding the subdivision. They have visited the site personally and have had several additional meetings with staff. Beyond those concerns, I have not heard from any of the Council members that they feel that the subdivision is destroying the integrity of the neighborhood. The second question asked when the residents were given a chance to comment on the grading plans for the subdivision. Multiple notices and opportunities were made available to the residents as follows. On May 22, 1998, the Planning Department published a notice in the local papers notifying all interested parties that an environmental review and the accompanying documents describing the project were available for review at the City's Planning Department. On June 18, 1998, a second notice was published in the local papers notifying interested parties that the project was scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing. On July 1, 1998, that hearing was held and was an open public meeting. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, a mailing was sent out to all residents within 600 feet of the subdivision specifically notifying them of the hearing on the project. That notice also stated that copies of the plans were available for review at not only the City Planning Department, but were also available at the City Clerk's Office, the Carlsbad Main Library, the La Costa Branch Library, and the Coastal Commission District Office. The project planner's name and phone number were also included in that notice for anyone interested in making arrangements to review those plans. Subsequent to that Planning Commission hearing, an appeal was filed by one of the residents and a second public hearing was scheduled. This one was with the City Council. Again, a notice was published in the local papers on August 28, 1998 notifying all interested parties that the public hearing would be held and again giving information on where the documents could be reviewed and who the project planner was. 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 431-5769 August9,1999 MAY SUBDIVISION, CT 97-24 Page 2 The City Council meeting was held on September 4, 1998. This was also a public meeting and ten days prior to the meeting a second mailing to residents within a 600-foot radius was sent out notifying everyone of the hearing and again giving information on who could be contacted for further information. There was a question about the possibility of the lots along Monroe Street sloping to the rear instead of sloping towards the street. That would not comply with the City adopted design standards for the subdivision. The standards require that all lots drain to the street or to a publicly dedicated drainage structure. That subdivision does not have any publicly dedicated drainage structures in the rear of the lots, therefore, the developer was directed to comply with the City standards and drain the lots to Monroe Street. This was the main reason that the pads along Monroe Street were built up in elevation. There was a question as to whether the developer had misled the City Council. To my knowledge, the City Council was aware of the plans for the project. Those plans included the grading quantities, as well as the pad elevations. Therefore, the City Council had the information in-hand to make their own determination and in so doing they were aware they were approving cut and fill amounts in the project which would raise some elevations. There was a question as to whether an Environmental Impact Report was required. The answer to that is no. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director and approved by Planning Commission and City Council. The main mitigation had to do with testing for pesticides and other chemicals in the soils on the site. I hope I have addressed your questions in one manner or another. If you would like further information on the project, you may contact Anne Hysong at (760) 438-1161, extension 4477, or Ken Quon at (760) 438-1161, extension 4380. Sincerely, ROBERT J. WOJCIK, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer RJW:jb c: City Manager Public Works Director Associate Planner, Anne Hysong Associate Engineer, Ken Quon Joe Garuba City of Carlsbad Planning Department FAX TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 11, 2000 TIME SENT: Number of Pages Being Transmitted (Including Cover Sheet): 2 TO: Herb Palmtag COMPANY: Carlsbad Estates, LLC PHONE #: FAX#:619-702-5154 FROM: Anne Hysong DEPT.: PLANNING PHONE: (760) 602- 4622 FAX: (760) 602-8559 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Herb, I have attached a copy of the approved substantial conformance exhibit in which we approved a 42" masonry wall within the 20' front setback along the property line of Lot 14. That is what you should construct. I have also assured the property owner (Prentice's) that the low wall would be constructed at that location on several occasions. Concerning the sight distance issue, the City's fence ordinance permits fences up to 42" in height in the front yard setback of single family homes in the R-1 zone. Fences/walls at this height in the front setback are located in single family zones throughout the City. Return Fax 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 ) 6" DM. P.V.C. CcMsbad Estates 110 Juniper St. San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 702-2042 Fax (619) 702-5154 October 5,2000 Ms. Anne Hysong Associate Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: May Subdivision/Perimeter Wall Dear Ms. Hysong: Now that we are closing in on our first occupancies at the May Subdivision I wanted to ask for a clarification on a perimeter wall item. We have constructed the required masonry perimeter wall for the subdivision. At this time we want to start planning for all yard fences. We have a situation on Lot 14 of the subdivision, along the eastern property line, that needs clarification. The 6' masonry wall along that boundary was complete and terminates 20 feet back of the property line along the driveway side of the lot. We would propose that, in order to be a good neighbor and provide safe sight lines for cars backing out of the Lot 14 driveway, we provide for a wrought iron fence to extend from the end of the 6' masonry wall and tie into the neighbor's pilaster at the front of the lot. I assume from a safety, sight line standpoint, this would be acceptable, but I would appreciate receiving your consent to this item. Should you need any additional information or have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, HP:bgt Henthorn & Associate^ 5375 Avenida Encinas, Suite D Carlsbad, California 92008 (760)438-4090 Fax (760) 438-0981 • September 15,2000 " Mr. Michael Holzmiller, Director of Planning. City of Carlsbad ' • . 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Request for modification of lot 10, CT 97-24, SDP 98-05, May Subdivision Dear Mr. Holzmiller: • . Thank you for discussing this issue with me last week. As we discussed, I am following up with a letter outlining what appears to be a reasonable resolution to an on-going design issue that has faced the builder and the surrounding community for some time. The Park Terrace development, located at the corner of Park Drive and Monroe Street was approved with two single story units and 12 two-story units. During the approval process there was considerable discussion regarding the height of the slope along Park Drive and the impact 'that it was creating on existing development. During the City review of the project, it was discovered that the single story unit originally designed for the subdivision and to be located at the corner of Park and Monroe (Plan 3R) could not be built on lot 10. The developer made several attempts to resolve this issue. with the use of various wall configurations that would permit the retention of the approved pad grade and finally proposed an alternative, although less interesting, fourth floor plan that was ultimately approved. Following approval of the -project, various alternatives were evaluated to improve the appearance of lot 10. , In the course of re-evaluating the lot, it was noted that a small reduction in pad elevation would allow the originally designed unit to fit on lot 10. The two-foot reduction in pad elevation would also result in a slope height reduction of 4 feet and .the elimination of over 30% of the slope area adjacent to Park Drive. It was also discovered that by. lowering the site, the line of site for vehicular and pedestrian traffic would be significantly improved at the intersection of Park and Monroe. A blueprint showing the approved and revised site plans for lot 10 is included for your reference.. The replacement unit (already plotted on lot 13) is approximately 13 percent, or 420 square feet, larger than the originally approved product. However, it contains added exterior details and architectural, elements that were not available with the originally approved product. The front and interior side yard setbacks are maintained at their originally approved levels. The proposed variable rear yard set back is in excess of that required by the zoning ordinance, at 3 1 to 36 feet. in depth. Although this is a reduction of 15 percent, it is offset by the reduction in rear yard slope height and the unit's rear facade articulation. ' ' . The Park Drive side yard is reduced by four feet, from 23.26 to 19.26, although the setback from top of slope is maintained at the required and originally approved distance of 5 feet. This 17 percent decrease is offset by the reduction in slope height, increased architectural variation on this very visible portion of the lot and improved site distance at the intersection of Park Drive and Monroe Street. In the final analysis, comparatively, there is only a 1.77% differential in the relationship between unit size and pad size when the approved lot 10 configuration is evaluated against the proposed configuration. In other words, the relationship between pad and unit size is approximately the same in the originally approved and proposed conditions. • Therefore, it is requested that you approve the plotting of a plan 3R to replace the approved plan 4 on Lot 10. This will reduce the slope heights associated with this lot and bring them more into line with the desires expressed by the surrounding neighborhood. We are prepared to file any documents necessary to effectuate this change immediately upon your request. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this request, please contact me at your convenience. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, E, Henthorn 'JEH:wpc Encl. Revised site plan, lot 10, Park Terrace, Park Drive, Carlsbad, Ca. Copies: Herb Palmtag Glen Van Pesky COjlsbad Estates 110 Juniper St. San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 702-2042 Fax (619) 702-5154 April 2,1999 Ms. Anne Hysong Associate Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: Affordable Housing Agreement Dear Ms. Hysong: Mr. Palmtag asked me to send you a copy of the Affordable Housing Agreement which will be delivered to Craig Ruiz on Monday. Should additional documentation be required at this time, please contact me. Sincerely, Bobbie Terry Assistant to Herb Palmtag encl :bgt RECORDING REQUESTED BY: City of Carlsbad WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office Attn: City Clerk 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 (Space above for Recorder's use) AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into this 2nd day of April. 1998$ oy and between the CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), and Carlsbad Estates Life made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. Developers are the owner of certain real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, described in "Attachment A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and which is the subject of a Tentative Map (CT97-24) which provides conditional approval of the construction of 14 single family dwelling units ("Project"). Condition No.98-009of Planning Commission Resolution No. _, states that this Affordable Housing Agreement shall be entered into between the City and the Developers as a means of satisfying the Developers' affordable housing obligation ("Affordable Housing Obligation"), as such is defined under Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Planning Commission Resolution No? 8-009 provides that the Affordable Housing Obligation will be satisfied by applying the requirements set forth in this Agreement for two (2) affordable housing lots ("Affordable Housing Lots"). The Affordable Housing Lots which are subject to this Agreement are: Lots 7, and 8 of Carlsbad Tract No 97-24, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof NoPT 97~2^ filed with the County Recorder of San Diego County on pending . NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing Recitals and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The Recitals Are True And Correct. 2. SATISFACTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS THROUGH CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND DWELLING UNITS. Performance under this Agreement satisfies the Developers' obligation for affordable housing under Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code as applied to the land covered by Carlsbad Tract No. 97-23 by reason of the approvals of the Tentative Map of CT97-24, including Condition No. _2 , listed in Planning Commission Resolution No!8"009, and any other applicable approval. 3. SECOND DWELLING UNITS. (a) Construction of Second Dwelling Units. Developers shall at the time a residential structure is constructed on the Affordable Housing Lot, include in such residential structure a Second Dwelling Unit as defined under and subject to the requirements contained in Municipal Code Section 21.10.015. (b) Restriction on Rental of Second Dwelling Unit. The maximum monthly rent for any Second Dwelling Unit, subject to this Agreement, which becomes rented or leased shall not exceed an amount of 1/12* of thirty percent (30%) of the gross monthly income of a low- income household, adjusted for household size, at eighty percent (80%) of the San Diego County median income, as such median income is published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development from time to time. A sample schedule showing the calculation of the maximum rental amount as for 1996 is attached to this Agreement as Attachment "B". (c) Declaration. Developers shall require the purchaser from Developers of an Affordable Housing Lot upon which a Second Dwelling Unit has been constructed to sign an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, in a form prescribed by the City Planning Director, which states that if the Second Dwelling Unit on the Affordable Housing Lot is rented that it shall be rented at a monthly rental rate not to exceed the rate set forth in Paragraph 2(b). Developers shall forward the original declaration to the City Planning Director for maintenance in the City's files, and retain a copy for its own files in the event proof becomes necessary. (d) Deed Restriction. Prior to the sale of an affected lot, the Developers shall provide proof to the City Planning Director that the language contained in Exhibit "C" has been included in each deed prior to the sale of an affected property and will run with the land so as to restrict subsequent transfers. 4. CONSTRUCTION PHASING OF PROJECT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOTS. 98-05 Developers will build the Project in accordance with SDPHXZ- . Further, the Second Dwelling Units must be constructed in a reasonable proportion to the Project construction. 5. REMEDIES Failure by the Developers to perform in accordance with this Agreement will constitute failure to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and Condition No. 3 of Planning Commission Resolution No98-009 Such failure will allow the City to exercise any and all remedies available to it including but not limited to withholding the issuance of building permits for the lots shown on Carlsbad Tract No. 97-24. 6. HOLD HARMLESS Developers will indemnity and hold harmless (without limit as to amount) City and its elected officials, officers, employees and agents in their official capacity (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), and any of them, from and against all loss, all risk of loss and all damage (including expense) sustained or incurred because of or by reason of any and all claims, demands suits, actions, obtained, allegedly caused by, arising out of or retaining in any manner to Developers' actions or defaults pursuant to this Agreement, and shall protect and defend Indemnitees, and any of them with respect thereto. Developers shall obtain, at its expense, comprehensive general liability insurance for development of the ($1,000,000) purchased by Developers from an insurance company duly licensed to engage in the business of issuing such insurance in the State of California, with a current Best's Key Rating of not less than A-V, such insurance to be evidenced by an endorsement which so provides and delivered to the City Clerk prior to the issuance of any building permit for the Project. 7. NOTICES All notices required pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and may be given by personal delivery or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the party to receive such notice at the address set forth below: TO THE CITY: City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department Attn: Housing & Redevelopment Director 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B Carlsbad, California 92008-2389 TO THE DEVELOPERS: Carlsbad Estates LLC 1 I 0 .Tun i ppr S San Diego . CA 92101 Any party may change the address to which notices are to be sent by notifying the other parties of the new address, in the manner set forth above. 8. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and no modification hereof shall be binding unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties hereto. 9.DURATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall terminate and become null and void upon repeal, termination, or modification of any applicable ordinance which act would render the Affordable Housing Obligation unnecessary or unenforceable. The restriction set forth in Paragraph 2(b) above shall terminate as to the Affordable Housing Lot at such time as the Second Dwelling Unit on the Affordable Housing Lot has reached the end of its useful life, which is assumed to be not less than 55 years from the date of completion of original construction. 10. SUCCESSORS This Agreement shall benefit and bind Developers and any successive owners of Affordable Housing Lots. 11. SEVERABILITY In the event any provision contained in this Agreement is to be held invalid, void or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall nevertheless, be and remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be signed as of the day and year first above written. DEVELOPERS Carlsbad Estates LLC (Insert Name) x /3 By: (Name) Herbert M. pUlNmtag By: Manager (Title) APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY City of Carlsbad, a Municipal corporation By: MARTIN ORENYAK Community Development Director RONALD R. BALL CITY ATTORNEY ATTACHMENT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A1 1243 OUR ORDER NO.: 85298-23 PAGE NO. 3 it A "EXHIBIT "A THAT PORTION OF LOT "I" OF RANCHO AGUA HEDIONDA, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 823, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, NOVEMBER 16, 1896, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT "I" WITH THE CENTER LINE OF MONROE STREET AS SHOWN ON THE MAP NO. 1681 OF THUM LANDS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DECEMBER 12, 1915 BEING THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO R.W. POINDEXTER DATED JUNE 30, 1941 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1221, PAGE, 14 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, SAID POINT OF COMMENCEMENT BEING ALSO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF BELLA VISTA ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF NO. 2152 ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 7, 1929; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF BELLA VISTA, BEING ALSO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF ROAD SURVEY NO. 975, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY AS FOLLOWS: SOUTH 28°39'00" EAST, 397.70 FEET (RECORD - 397.56 FEET) TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID BOUNDARY; THENCE SOUTH 26°11'00" WEST, ALONG SAID BOUNDARY, 40.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF MONROE STREET AS SHOWN ON MAP NO. 2647 OF CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, APRIL 18, 1950 AND BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID BELLA VISTA AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF ROAD SURVEY NO. 975, SOUTH 26°11'00" WEST, 479.13 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LAND OF POINDEXTER; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND SOUTH 63°49'00" EAST, 425.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LAND, BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 36 OF SAID CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS; THENCE ALONG SAID PROLONGATION AND ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE, OF SAID LOT 36,. NORTH 26°11'00" EAST, 479.13 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT, BEING A POINT ON THE AFOREMENTIONED SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF MONROE STREET AS SHOWN ON MAP NO. 2647; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE AND THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF, NORTH 63°49'00" WEST, 425.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD BY DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 21, 1979 AS FILE NO. 79-396015 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY. ATTACHMENT B MAXIMUM MONTHLY RENTAL AMOUNT ATTACHMENT C DEED RESTRICTION A Second Dwelling Unit has been constructed as part of this property, and shall be maintained and utilized in accordance with the requirements of Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.10.015 for the useful life of the main structure (estimated to be 55 years). The maximum monthly rent for the Second Dwelling Unit, if rented or leased, shall not exceed an amount equal to thirty percent (30%) of the gross monthly income of a low-income household, adjusted for household size, at eighty percent (80%) of the San Diego County median income as such median income is published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development from time to time. Prior to subsequent transfers of the property, seller shall require the purchaser to submit a signed affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury on a form satisfactory to the City Planning Director, to the Planning Department, which acknowledges that the purchaser has read and understand the restrictions as they relate to the Second Dwelling Unit. 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 HOUSING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 98-009 THAT THE HOUSING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TWO ATTACHED SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EXCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE FOR THE CREATION OF FOURTEEN RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARK DRIVE AND MONROE STREET. APPLICANT: MAY CASE NO: CT 97-247 SDP 98-05 WHEREAS, the developer is currently processing Carlsbad Tract Map CT 97-24 and Site Development Plan SDP 98-05 to create fourteen single family residential lots; and WHEREAS, the developer has proposed to construct two attached second dwelling units affordable to lower income households as a means to satisfy their affordable housing obligations as permitted by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.85 of the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the developer's proposal has been submitted to the City of Carlsbad's Housing Commission for review and consideration; and WHEREAS, said Housing Commission did, on the 11th day of June, 1998, and on the 9th day of July, 1998, hold a public meeting to consider said proposal to construct two attached second dwelling units; WHEREAS, at said public meeting, upon hearing and considering all testimony, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the proposal to provide said affordable second dwelling units; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. The above recitations are true and correct. 2. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Carlsbad's Housing Element, Consolidated Plan, the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the Carlsbad General Plan. 3. The project will provide a total of two second dwelling units with rents which do not exceed 80% of the county median which meets a "medium priority" affordable housing need as outlined within the City of Carlsbad's approved 1995-2000 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 Consolidated Plan. 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 4. That based on the information provided within the Housing Commission Staff Report and testimony presented during the public meeting of the Housing Commission on June 11, 1998, the Housing Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 98-009, recommending APPROVAL to the Planning Commission of two attached second dwelling units in the May Subdivision in order to satisfy the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance 5. That the Housing Commission recommends that the City Manager or his designee be authorized to execute the Affordable Housing Agreement in substantially the form presented in Exhibit 4 to the Housing Commission Staff Report, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. Conditions: 1 . Recommendation of approval is granted for Site Development Plan 98-05, 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 Council. B*"» PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Housing Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 9th day of July, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairperson Durm-Wellman, Commissioners: Calverley, Latas, Noble, Rose and Walker. None. Commissioners: Escobedo and Scarpelli. None. ^KATHLEEN DUNN-WELLMAN, CHAIRPERSON CARLSBAD HOUSING COMMISSION DEBBIE FOUNTAIN HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HC RESO. NO. 98-009 PAGE 2 8.7 Bank Accounts. The Company shall maintain a checking account in-the name of the Company at a bank or other financial institution (and with signatories) approved by the Managers. Additional accounts of the Company may be authorized by the Managers. All funds of the Company shall be maintained in such account(s). 8.8 Organization Expenses. The Company shall pay or reimburse the Members for all organizational expenses of the Company, including legal fees and costs incurred in connection with formation of the Company, the Offering or preparation of this Agreement and the Confidential Private Placement Memorandum. 9. MANAGEMENT. 9.1 Managers. The Company shall have two Managers. The business and affairs of the Company shall be managed by or under the authority of the Managers. The Managers shall have full power and authority to act on behalf of the Company, including without limitation the power and authority to execute grant deeds, promissory notes, deeds of trust and other instruments and documents on behalf of the Company. The Managers may from time to time, in writing, delegate authority to one or more Managers, or to one or more officers, to act on behalf of the Company in specified matters, including without limitation the power and authority to execute documents on behalf of the Company (including without limitation grant deeds, promissory notes, deeds of trust and other instruments). 9.2 Appointment and Removal of Managers. The Managers shall be appointed, and may be removed, from time to time by the Managing Members. Investors shall not be entitled to appoint or remove the Managers, nor to vote on such appointment or removal. The initial Managers shall be Jeffrey B. Davis and Herbert M. Palmtag. 9.3 Decisions and Meetings. Decisions of the Managers shall be made by unanimous vote at a meeting at which a guorum is present or by unanimous written consent. Any Manager may call a meeting of the Managers by at least three (3) days advance notice to the other Manager. Unless otherwise approved by the Managers, meetings of the Managers shall be held at the principal executive office of the Company. Managers may participate in a meeting through the use of conference telephones or similar communications equipment, as long as all Managers participating in the meeting can hear one another, and such participation shall constitute presence in person at that meeting. 9.4 Developer Fee. The Company shall pay a developer fee of $258,650 to PDC or such other person(s) as may be designated by the Managing Members. To the extent practical, such fee shall be payable in 20 equal monthly payments from the construction loan for the Project. 9.5 Expenses. The Managers and Officers shall be reimbursed by the Company for all direct expenses incurred on behalf of the Company, subject to appropriate documentation and such policies as may be adopted by the Managers. 9.6 No Exclusive Duty. The Managers nor their Officers shall be required to devote all or substantially all of their time or efforts to the management of the Company. There is no limitation on the outside interests or activities of any Manager or Officer. The Managers and the Officers may have other business interests and may engage in other activities, whether or not such activities or interests are competitive with the Company, without any obligation to offer any interest in such interests or activities to the Company or any Member. Neither the Company nor Operating Agreement o 19. ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVISIONS. Any dispute, claim or other controversy arising under this Agreement or in connection with the Company, the Offering or the Property, including without limitation any dispute regarding the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement and any claims asserted against a Member, Manager, Officer or an affiliate, agent or representative of a Member. Manager, Officer or affiliate (at the request of such person), shall be resolved pursuant to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Provisions attached as an Addendum to this Agreement. All persons covered by this provision, if not a Member, shall be third party beneficiaries of this provision. Jeffrey B. Davis Address: 110 Juniper Street San Diego, CA 92101 Herbert M. Palmtag Address: 110 Juniper Street San Diego, CA 92101 Jeffrey B. Davis, Co-Trustee of the Davis Family Trust U/T/A Dated October 7,1980 Address:110 Juniper Street Diego, CA 92101 Bernard E. Rpp,-Co-Trustee U/T/A Dated November 29, 1979 ly Fipp, Co^frustee U/t^AJDated mber 29, W79 Address:7728 Hidden Valley Court La Jolla, California 92037 Operating Agreement 16 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURP ACKNOWLEDGMENT 1 ~1 State of California 1 ( 1 ( ' 1 * 1 , 11 1 Ii(S i l(S I n 1 [ 1 s i c 1 £ d c $ : $ 5 $ c£ : iountvof San Die8° \.'< }n April 2, 1999 before me R°berta G. Ezell, Notary Public Date Name and Title of Officer (e.g., "Jane Doe, Notary Public") jersonallv appeared Herbert M. Palmtag j] personally known to me - OR - D prove /&£>fev ROB87TAG.EZEU. OL^jga Commission f 1109590 egS^EKD Notary Pubte — Cdforrta vf2 &£/ Diego Cotrrty ^^H &^ My Comm Expires Sep 2. 2000 ' Name(s) of Signer(s) d to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary filWic x yMITf^Mlf * 1 Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document fitle or Tvoe of Document: Affordable Housing Agreement Document Date: ^ / 2 / 9 9 5iqner(s) Other Than Named Above: Number of Pages:^ Martin Orenyak and Ronald R. Ball :apacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) [ i toner's Name: Herbert M. Palmtag Sianer's Name: II Individual ] Corporate Officer Titlefs): ^ Partner — D Limited D General J Attorney-in-Fact 1 Trustee <?: D Guardian or Conservator UiittH C I ' 1 - 1 D Other: Top oft Signer Is Representing: :arlsbad Estates LLC D Individual D Corporate Officer Titlefs): D Partner — D Limited D General D Attorney-in-Fact (~1 Trustee 'iirTrrnTrn Irp^iill D Guardian or Conservator Uilfiiffl'K-Uiil humb here Q Other: T°P of thumb here Signer Is Representing: b © 1995 National Notary Association • 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 • Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder: Call Ton-Free 1-800-876-6827 CcMsbad Estates ZB,C 110 Juniper St. San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 702-2042 Fax (619) 702-5154 April 2,1999 Ms. Anne Hysong Associate Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: CT 97-24 Dear Ms. Hysong: lam sending you herewith a copy of the Carlsbad Unified School District Ordinance No. 01-9899 which memorializes the annexation, by the District, of our property (Park and Monroe) into "CFD No. 3". I am hopeful this satisfies your school facilities issue. Should additional documentation be required at this time, please contact me. Sincerely Herb Palmtag encl HP:bgt ™™. II Date •mr $ "^^ ' f Uniffed SchOOi District '. Nurnfca of pages flnniuritng cover)! JL— 801 Pine Avenue • Carlsbad, CA B200B "*<**« (760) 729-9291 • FAX (760)729-9685 -a *<*<* dass dsfnct :^ John Vi Blair Asst S (760) 434-Q626 <^m%^ VIA • FAX- *VIA -FAX *^^ REMARKS: Q Urgent Q FOP you* review D Per xiour request Q Please comment /w/l*^ j ?~fr JL^J&lj ^ S ACTION CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Carlsbad, California March 10,1599 TO: Cheryl Ernst, District Superintendent ^ FROM: John H. Blair, Assistant SuperintendenVBusiness Services SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 01-9899, Authorizing Levy of a Special Tax Within Territory Annexed to Community Facilities District No. 3 (Second Reading) BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Mello-Roos Special election for Annexation No. 3 to Community Facilities District No. 3 ("CFD No. 3") of the Carlsbad Unified School District was held on February 16,1999. Resolution No. 33-9899 canvassed the results of the special tax election relative to the annexation into CFD No. 3. It also indicated that the landowners, Paik and Monroe, the Merit Group, Pinnacle Communities, Kelly Land Company, Shea Homes Limited, the Hadley Property, De Jong Property, Poinsettia Tabata, DKST LLC, Englers, Mcndivil Family and Standard Pacific Homes, all voted for annexation, CURRENT CONSIDERATIONS The final step of the legal process is for the Board of Trustees of the Cailsbad Unified School District, acting as the Legislative Body of Community Facilities District No. 3, to pass an ordinance \vhich authorizes the le\y of s. special tax pursuant to the "Rate and Method of Apportionment" already in use in CFD No. 3 to finance school facilities to the benefit of the property concerned. The Board is further authorized by the ordinance to determine the specific special tax rate and amount to be levied for the next fiscal year by means of an annual resolution. This is the second reading of Ordinance No. 01-9899. It will be adopted following this reading by the Board acting as the Legislation Body of Community Facilities District No. 3. A certified copy of the proposed Ordinance has been posted at the District Office, 801 Pine Avenue, Carlsbad, California. .-* FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Mitigation of future schools requirements throvigh annexation into CFD No, 3. Ordinance N7o. 01-98990 -2- ^ March 10,1999 Second Reading RECOMMENDATION In accordance with Government Code Sections 53316 and 36934, it is recommended that the Board waive the reading of the remainder of the text of proposed Ordinance No. 01-9899 after the title is read. It is respectfully requested that the Board of Trustees accept the second reading of Ordinance No. 01-9899, Ordinance of Community Facilities District No. 3 of the Carlsbad Unified School District Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax WilMa Territory Annexed to Community Facilities District No. 3. STTPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of rtaff recommendation. !• Ml SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 01-9899 ORDINANCE OF THE CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN ANNEXATION NO. 3 TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 3 WHEREAS, on October 28,1998, the Board of Trustees ("Board") of the Carlsbad Unified School District ("District"), adopted a resolution stating its intention to form Community Facilities District No. 3 of the Carlsbad Unified School District ("CFD No. 4") pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (the !1Act"); and WHEREAS, on January i7, 1999, this Board completed a continued noticed hearing, as required by law, relative to the determination to form CFD No. 3 and regarding the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax to be levied within CFD No. 3 to finance identified facilities and related costs of CFD No. 3; and WHEREAS, the Board, subsequent to said hearing, adopted Resolution No. 31-9899 which authorized the levy of a special tax within territory annexed to CFD No. 3 and called an election within the territory to be annexed to CFD No, 3 for February 16, 1999, on the proposition of incurring bonded indebtedness, levying a special tax and setting an appropriations limit; and WHEREAS, on February 16,1999, an election was held within the territory to be annexed to CFD No. 3 in which the eligible voters approved by more than two-thirds vote the proposition of levying a special tax and setting an appropriations limitation; and NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AS FOLLOWS: Section j. By the passage of this Ordinance, the Board authorizes the levy of a special tax pursuant to the formula set forth in Exhibit "A", in an amount necessary to pay all amounts payable with respect to financing the facilities identified b Resolution No. 31 -9899 other obligations within the boundaries of the territory annexed to CFD No. 3. ^ection 2. That the Board is hereby further authorized each year, by resolution, to determine the specific special tax rate and amount to be levied for the next fiscal year, except that the special tax rate to be levied shall not exceed that as set forth in Exhibit "A", Section 3. Properties or entities of the state, federal or Other local governments shall be exempt from the above aurnorized special tax except that when property not otherwise exempt from the above authorized special tax levied pursuant to the Act is acquired by a public entity through a negotiated transaction, or by gift or devise, the above-authorized special tax shall, notwithstanding this Ordinance, continue to be levied en the property acquired and shall be enforceable against the 3042.50.1-02/19/99 public entity that acquired the property. The Board shall not levy a special tax on any property conveyed to a public school district for usa as a public school site. Section 4. No other properties or entities are exempt from the above authorized special tax unless the properties or entities are expressly exempted in Resolution No. 31-9899 or in the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax. Section 3. All of the collections of the above authorized special tax shall be used as provided for in the Act and Resolution No, 31-9899. Section^. The above authorized special tax may be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem tax.es are collected and may be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure, sale, and lien priority in cases of delinquency as provided for ad valorem taxes, or another procedure may be adopted by the Board. Section 7. The tax collector may deduct reasonable administration costs incurred in collecting the above authorized special tax. Section _$. As a cumulative remedy., if any amount levied pursuant thereto as a special tax for payment of bond interest or principal together with any penalties and other charges accruing under this Ordinance of the District are not paid when due, the Board may, not later than four years after the due date of the last installment of principal, older that the same be collected by an action brought in the superior court to foreclose any lien therefor. Section 9. The President of the District shall sign this Ordinance and the Clerk of the Board shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The North Countv Times, a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the District. Sectiirp110. That this Ordinance relating to the levy of tile special tax shall take effect 30 days after adoption hereof ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this iOth day of March, 1999. 3042.SO.a-te/lW99 NOTICE NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE BY THE CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Government Code Sections 533 16 and 36933. that the Board of Trustees of the Carlsbad Unified School District, has adopted Ordinance No. 01-9899 providing for the levy and collection of authorized special taxes within territory annexed into CFD No, 3. A summary of Ordinance No. 01-9899 is set forth below: Date: March 2, 1999 /<t /f ' 1 0 7 / " /' ^l^ri '(.yL f^* Clerk of the Board of Trustees of the Carlsbad Unified School District 3AW40/REA/pk*/S5374 30*2.30.2-02/J9/99 EXHIBIT "A" The Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes for Community Facilities District No. 3 is on file with the Clerk of the Board of Trustees and is available for review at the School District's Business Offices during normal business hours 3042.5C.2- 02/1 MS . ,A-l STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ^ ) ss. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) I, Clarence Schlehuber, Clerk of the Board of Trustees of the Carlsbad Unified School District, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was duly adopted by the Board of Trustees of said District at a meeting of said Board held on the 1 Oth day of March, 1 999. H. Schlehuber' Clerk of the Board of'Trustees of the Carlsbad \Jnified School District 3042.50.2 r 02/19/99 fc OTMISSI STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENl\ Jfr F- ^H PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COTMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725 (619) 521-8036 IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM MAJOR AMENDMENT 2-98 I. HEARING TIME AND LOCATION DATE: Thursday, November 5,1998 TMEf 8:00 a.m. LOCATION: Radisson Hotel SOlOOAgouraRoad Agoura Hills, CA II. HEARING PROCEDURES At the time of the public hearing, staff will make a brief oral presentation to the Commission. Immediately following the presentation of the staff, a representative from the City of Carlsbad may address the Commission regarding the local coastal program amendment. Upon conclusion of the City's presentation, interested members of the public and agencies will have an opportunity to address the Commission and comment on the amendment. The Commission will then close the public hearing; and, since there are preliminary recommendations and findings prepared for the Commission, the Commission may take final action on the amendment request at this time. III. BACKGROUND The City's certified LCP contains six geographic segments as follows: Agua Hedionda, Mello I, Mello II, West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties and East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties and the Village Redevelopment Area. Pursuant to Sections 30170(f) and 30171 of the Public Resources Code, the Coastal Commission prepared and approved two portions of the LCP, the Mello I and II segments in 1980 and 1981, respectively. The Village Redevelopment Area LCP was certified in 1988; the City has been issuing coastal development permits there since that time. On October 21, 1997 the City assumed permit jurisdiction and has been issuing coastal development permits for all of its segments except Agua Hedionda. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP segment remains as a deferred certification area until an implementation plan is certified. The subject amendment request only affects the Mello II segment of the LCP. October 21,1998 Page 2 IV. AMENDMENT REQUEST The subject amendment request revises the implementation plan of the certified Mello II (LCP) segment. The request is referred to as the May rezone and would rezone a 4.67 acre split-zoned parcel located at the corner of Park Drive and Monroe Street hi Carlsbad from One-Family Residential (R-l-7,500 and R-l-15, 000) to R-l-10,000. V. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORT A staff report on the LCP amendment request, containing recommendations, has been prepared for the Commission. If you would like the full text of the staff report, call or write the San Diego District of the Coastal Commission and request a copy of the "City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-98" staff report. A copy will be mailed to you promptly. Questions regarding the report or hearing should be directed to BILL PONDER, Coastal Planner, at (619) 521-8036. (Car 2-98 Icp notice) Estates 110 Juniper St. San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 702-2042 Fax (619) 702-5154 October 15,1998 Ms. Anne Hysong Associate Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: Ordinance No. NS-456 / ZC 97-08 / Resolutions No. 98-300 and 98-301 LCPA 97-12 / CT 97-24 / SDP 98-05 / CP 97-58 Dear Ms. Hysong: To follow up my recent phone message I have contacted both the original applicants (Mr. & Mrs. May), as well as their legal council and neither party has received any of the above referenced documentation as adopted by the City Council on September 8, 1998. As the current landowner I would like to obtain copies of all formally approved ordinances and resolutions. With this in mind could you please forward to me, at the above address the requested documents. Should you have any questions please call. Sincerely, Herb Palmtag cc: J. Laret/Laret Engineering HP:bgt C&lsbad Estates 110 Juniper St. San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 702-2042 Fax (619) 702-5154 January 20, 2000 Via Facsimile (760) 438-0894 M A „Ms. Anne Hysong Associate Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: Carlsbad Park Estates Perimeter Wall Dear Anne: Thank you for your letter relating to the above referenced topics. As you know, it has always been our intent to comply with the City of Carlsbad rules and regulations. Often times though the issues to be interpreted are not literally black and white and unfortunately spot inspections and other directives are generated without full knowledge of actual field conditions and related circumstances. With this in mind and considering the fact that we are about to complete the wall work I respectfully request that a field meeting be held, to be attended by all parties involved in the City's decision making process. Since we are not really sure who should participate from the City I would appreciate it if you could either coordinate the date, time and City participants or provide me with the appropriate contacts. As time is of the essence I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. Sincereh cc: Gary Wayne Glen Van Peski Pat Kelley Dick Cook Bob Wojcik Joe McMahon Chris DeCerbo Frank Jimeno J. Humphrey/Harper John Dantuma HPrbgt City of Carlsbad Public Works — Engineering November 1, 1999 Sandra and Gordon R. Prentice 3955 Monroe Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 CT 97-24 MAY SUBDIVISION Dear Ms. Prentice: We have received a copy of your letter dated September 16, 1999 (Letter) and an 8-page memo dated October 11, 1999 (Memo). To provide consolidated response, we have also addressed issues of grading and drainage brought up by Ms. Sharman in her undated memo. Several staff members have assisted in preparing this response. We have attempted to answer the questions stated in the Letter, the Memo, and the subsequent questions by phone regarding drainage. Responses are grouped by general category. Other than the questions we have addressed below, the City has not attempted to address concerns that appeared to be statements of opinion rather than direct requests for a response. If the City has failed to adequately address an area of concern, kindly inform us. Public Notice On page 5 of the Letter, it states that "many of us were never directly informed". The Letter states on page 6 that the hearing originally set for July 1, 1998 was continued to July 15 "without written notice being sent". On page 8 of the Letter it states "...many were not given direct notice of the meeting." In accordance with Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, public notices were published in the North County Times and sent to property owners within a 600-foot radius 10 days in advance of three public hearings conducted for the project. The first public notice was sent for the July 1, 1998 Planning Commission public hearing. The project was continued to the July 15, 1998 hearing. No additional notification is required in the instances where hearings are continued, since interested parties who received notices would be at the hearing to hear that the project was continued. The second public notice was for the September 8, 1998 City Council public hearing for an appeal of items approved by the Planning Commission and for the Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment which required Council approval. The third public notice was for the October 20, 1999 Planning Commission public hearing for an amendment to the approved coastal development permit and site development plan for the design of houses proposed for the lots. City records indicate mailings went out to all affected parties within the 600-foot radius. Since mail is not sent with a request for return receipt, there is no way of verifying that it was received. The City can only check that the notifications left our hands properly addressed. Notice of public hearings is provided so that interested parties may come to the City offices, review the plans relating to the project, and ask questions of staff prior to the hearing. Staff can also make copies of maps so that concerned individuals may have them reviewed by someone experienced in interpreting plans if they think that is necessary. 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 - FAX (76O) 431-5769 November"!, 1999 CT 97-24 MAY SUBDIVISION Page 2 The City Attorney advises that the project hearings were properly noticed, lawfully conducted, and have been concluded (generally upon approval of the re-zone, LCPA, and denial of the appeal of the other approvals) on September 8, 1998, and the applicable statutes of limitations (and/or the City's ability to change the approvals) have long since expired. The grading permit was issued on May 17, 1999 and is no longer subject to administrative appeal to the City Council. Grading Design On page 1 of the Letter, it is inferred that 22 truck loads of dirt was imported to the site to raise the pad elevations. Page 3 refers to the 22 loads of soil, and states that "the [tentative] map has been violated, without notice to the adjacent property owners". The Sharman memo also infers that the import of soil was to create higher pads. Your Memo indicates that additional soil would not have been needed if the pads had not been raised. Page 2 of the Memo lists items that you feel show the project does not comply with the City residential infill grading permit requirements. The subdivision design was designed to City standards. City standards require that individual lots drain to the street, storm drain or watercourse approved by the City Engineer. The rear of the lots on Monroe Street therefore had to be high enough to drain to the street. In a general sense, the design follows the previously existing topography; that is, the pads on Monroe Street are higher than the pads on the proposed cul-de-sac because the previous greenhouses along Monroe Street were higher than those on Park Drive. The May Subdivision does not constitute "infill grading" as defined by the grading ordinance. Infill grading is defined as "any grading on a residentially zoned lot which requires a grading permit pursuant to this title and is located on a lot within a tract of land which has been previously subdivided into legal buildable parcels and for which no further discretionary entitlement is required." The tentative map shows the grading proposed to create the pads for the subdivision. It lists quantities of 14,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. After approval of the tentative map, the developer had an engineer prepare the grading plan based on the approved tentative map. At the completion of the final grading design, there were some changes to pad elevations based on more detailed survey information. Pad elevations for the middle of the pads were lowered on 9 lots by up to 3.5 feet, and raised on 4 lots by up to 1.0 foot. During the grading process, additional uncompacted alluvial soils were discovered. As the alluvial soils were excavated and recompacted, there was considerable shrinkage, so additional soil had to be brought in to bring the pads up to the designed grades. This is not an uncommon occurrence. The project has been graded in substantial conformance to the Tentative Map exhibit approved by the Planning Commission. Not counting the removal and recompaction of unsuitable soils, the grading plan shows only 7,000 cubic yards of cut and fill, considerably less than was actually approved on the Tentative Map. November 1, 1999 CT 97-24 MAY SUBDIVISION Page 3 The slope at the southwest corner of lot 10 has been raised as a concern. Lot 10 is designed at the minimum elevation necessary to drain to Monroe Street. The tentative map shows an elevation at the southwest corner of the pad of 220.5. The existing residence to the south is shown with a pad elevation of 210. This would point to an approximate slope height of 10 feet. When the final grading plan was completed, it showed an elevation at the corner of 221.5. The elevation shown on the grading plan at the toe of the slope is incorrect. Instead of 213.0, the elevation is closer to 210.5. An earthen berm at least 1 foot high is built on top of the slope, so the total apparent height should be 12.5 feet. Since street improvements have not yet been constructed, the slope may appear higher because of undercut at the bottom of the slope for Park Drive. There was a 6-foot slope at the location previously, but it was largely hidden by the pine trees. Valuation On page 2 of the Letter, you asked us to aid you in obtaining a copy of the valuation for the proposed homes in the May Subdivision. Please note that the valuation calculated by the Building Department is different from the appraised value, which is determined by the County Assessor. The Building Department counter staff will be pleased to make the City's information available to you. School Crowding On page 10 of your Letter, you asked the City to address the question of how the school district will handle over 96 new students. Both the City and the school district are bound by state law regarding school fees. The District must accept payment of statutory school fees for the students to be generated by this project. Neither the City nor the School District can legally require more in fees than State law allows. Two-Story Homes On page 3 of the Letter and in various other locations there is concern expressed about two-story homes. At the July 15, 1998 Planning Commission public hearing, the discretionary actions before the Planning Commission included the tentative subdivision map, coastal development permit and a site development plan for second dwelling units. The issue of single-story homes on the proposed lots was brought up during public testimony. In response, staff explained to the Planning Commission that there was currently no proposal for homes on the proposed single-family lots. It was assumed that the developer would either sell the lots to individuals to build their own homes, or sell to a builder who would build the homes. Staff then indicated that the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to address two-story versus one-story homes on each lot when future coastal development permits for the individual homes were presented to the Planning Commission. Staff noted however that the City's Local Coastal Program has no policies or standards requiring more stringent development standards such as restricting homes to single-story or for private view preservation. Therefore, staff would have no basis for not recommending approval of Coastal Development Permit with two-story homes. November 1, 1999 CT 97-24 MAY SUBDIVISION Page 4 When Commissioner Welshons inquired whether the time to condition the project to allow single-story only or a mix of single and two-story homes would be during the hearing for the subdivision map, staff replied affirmatively. Conditioning the tentative map would have required that the Planning Commission make findings that single-story units were required to ensure compatibility. There was discussion about what findings they would be required to make to impose such a condition given the absence of a view preservation ordinance and the maximum permitted building height of 30 feet and two-story in the R-1 zone. The R-1 zoning ordinance is applicable to all of the surrounding single-story homes. Therefore, any of the existing homes could construct second stories up to 30 feet in total height upon issuance of a coastal development permit. The Planning Commissioners each discussed the reasoning for their decision to not restrict the project to single-story homes and approved the subdivision without any such restriction. At the October 20, 1999 Planning Commission public hearing, the Commission considered and approved amendments to the Coastal Development Permit for 14 single family homes (two single-story and 12 two-story homes) and amendments to the Site Development Plan for two second dwelling units located above single-story garages. Pages 6 and 7 of the Letter imply that CC&Rs for the Carlsbad Highlands restrict units to single-story. The City does not enforce private CC&Rs (assuming they are applicable to this project). Given the development of a two-story house directly across Monroe on a Carlsbad Highlands lot, there is no HOA enforcement of the CC&Rs by the City. Removal of Existing Pine Trees The developer of the May subdivision is required to improve the streets adjacent to the project. The City has established standards for street improvements to protect the health, safety and welfare of it's citizens. In this case, unfortunately, widening the streets required removal of the existing mature pine trees. The landscape plan includes planting new pine trees to replace those removed. Protection of Adjoining Properties Your Memo refers to the condition of the slope adjacent to your property. It is our understanding that this slope condition has been fixed, and that erosion control measures have been installed on the slope. The contractor has been advised that the toe of the slope is too close to the subdivision boundary, and is aware that the slope needs to be trimmed back to provide setback in accordance with City standards. We also understand that the developer has fixed previous damage to your fence. Drainage Both your Memo and Letter refer to the construction of a block wall which will block drainage off your property. City standards require that the May Subdivision accept all drainage that currently drains onto the site. The developer has been informed that prior to construction of the block wall, details need to be submitted to the City for review and approval showing how the drainage will be handled. At your request, these details will be made available to you for review and comment when they are received by City staff. Until the developer submits details, the City cannot address the efficacy of the proposed drainage solution. November 1, 1999 CT 97-24 MAY SUBDIVISION Page 5 Hazardous Condition of Project Your Memo mentions concern that with the new slope, a child could jump over your fence and drown in your pool. The existing chain link fence is not in compliance with the current pool fence ordinance. It appears that it did not comply even before the grading of the May subdivision, since it appears the fence was not 60 inches above grade. The grading appears to have exacerbated the non-compliance to a nominal degree, until the contractor removes the soil that has sloughed against the bottom of the fence. The developer is slated to install a six foot masonry wall down the shared property line. This wall will resolve the pool fence regulations issue. The Memo alleges that the graded project is an attractive nuisance and should be fenced and guarded at all times. There is no City ordinance that requires graded projects to be fenced. However, a copy of this response will be forwarded to the developer to serve as notice of this concern. We hope that this response adequately addresses your questions. As you have other questions, please feel free to contact staff. Very truly yours, 1UBBS, P.E. Public VVdrks Director IENYAK Community Development Director LBH:MO:jb c: Ray Patchett, City Manager Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Ann Hysong, Associate Planner Rich Rudolph, Assistant City Attorney Joe Garuba, Management Analyst Joe McMahon, Inspector Dick Cook, Principal Construction Inspector Glen Van Peski, Consultant Land Use Engineer Ms. Imogene Sharman Herb Palmtag, Carlsbad Estates, LLC From the Office of THE CITY MANAGER To Date d Note and Return d Please Handle for Me d Give Recommendation d Investigate and Report d Please See Me d For Your Approval LJ For Your Information pond Directly/Send e Copy d Prepare Reply for City Manager's Signature O Prepare Reply thru City Manager for Submission to Council D Complete By RE: MAY DEVELOPMENT CARLSBAD CITY CODE VIOLATIONS 10/1 1/99 Excavation and Gradine ALL RECEIVED REFERRED TO CITY MANAGERexcavation ana tracing Referred to FOi?ESPONSE ' City Manager for Response *,... 11.06.010 Purpose. "It is the intent of the City Council to PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY and promote the GENERAL WELFARE, ENHANCE AND IMPROVE the physical environment of the community, and PRESERVE, subject to economic feasibility, THE NATURAL SCENIC CHARACTER OF THE CITY. The provisions of this chapter shall be administered to achieve, to the extent possible, the following goals: (1) Ensuring that future development of lands occurs in the manner MOST compatible with surrounding areas and so as to have the LEAST EFFECT UPON OTHER PERSONS OR LANDS, or upon the general public; We believe the most important word in this paragraph is "MOST." One has only to view the May Development to realize there is a better way, more consistent with the aims of the City Council. Converting the cul-de-sac into a street entering and exiting on Park Drive with homes facing and draining onto that street, as submitted to engineering, is just one way. There are several others which would retain the number of homes yet avoid raising the ground 12 feet above the corner and 6 feet above the abutting property. We realize the present grading allows the homes to look down on their neighbors (snob appeal) and affords a greater ocean view but it is totally out of sync with the entire area. (3) Encouraging the planning, design and development of building sites in such fashion as to provide the MAXIMUM IN SAFETY and human enjoyment, while ADAPTING development to, and taking advantage of, the BEST use of the NATURAL terrain; The natural terrain which followed the slope of the street has been totally changed by bringing in more than 22 loads of additional soil contrary to what the plans originally stated. The 6-foot rise next to the adjacent property already has as crack which is getting wider and longer. This is NOT SAFE for the abutting property nor the homes to be built on the present HIGH RISE pads. (4) Encouraging and directing SPECIAL ATTENTION toward the RETENTION, insofar as practical, of the natural planting and maximum number of EXISTING natural PLANTING and a MAXIMUM number of EXISTING TREES. (Ord. 8086 1 (part), 1980 < More than 15 lovely 25 YR. OLD pine trees were removed from BOTH Monroe Street and Park Drive. 11.06.031 Residential infill grading permit requirements. An infill grading permit shall be approved ONLY if ALL of the following findings can be made- -v ; ? -:' ;' - (c'f That the design of the grading is generally CONSISTENT and COMPATIBLE with the topography of EXISTING surrounding development. (Ord. NS-168 2,1991) The grading is directly opposed to the aforementioned topography. The property ran downhill as does the street. Now great mounds of fill have been brought in RESHAPING THE ORIGINAL CONTOUR of the property and destroying the integrity of the entire area. 11.06.03 2 Infill grading design standards. (a) Fill height on infill lots SHALL BE MINIMIZED. The relative acceptability of fill heights shall be determined by the following: (1) Zeroto three feet is acceptable; (2) Greater than 3.0 and up to 10.0 feet is DISCOURAGED--. Potential justifications may include— the need to sewer or drain to the public street—to make the property compatible with adjacent graded properties, to accommodate existing or future driveway access to property where NO OTHER alternatives are possible . Sewer drainage could be on Park Drive. This grading destroys compatibility with the adjacent property. The planned cul-de-sac can be made into three streets and all lots graded in such a way as to facilitate drainage into the gutters on Park drive with driveways and entrances on the surrounding street on the other side of the homes facing Monroe Street. A rough diagram was submitted to engineering, signed and returned to us without comment. The project has been graded in direct opposition to adjacent properties and is totally incompatible with the entire surroundings. There are many other alternatives, one of which has been seen by the City's engineering department as mentioned above. The exceptions do not apply to this project. (3) Greater than 10 feet is unacceptable. The exceptions to this do not apply to this project. (c) Import and Export. IMPORT and/or export of fill or excavation material TO or from infill lots shall be MINIMIZED grading design shall be accomplished to balance the grading on site to REDUCE the IMPORT or export of soil— There were more than 22 truck loads of soil dumped onto the site despite indication of "0" soils import on the plans submitted to, and approved by, the City. This, initially unauthorized soil, allowed the creation of the 13 and 6-foot build up of the project. THIS DID NOT MINIMIZE THE FILL NOR REDUCE THE IMPORT OF SOILS. 11.06.033 Infill grading Notice Notice was never given to the public of the infill grading or its consequences. If this refers to notice to the city then, and in that event, the city should have made every effort to be sure that the surrounding property owners were made aware of the drastic changes to the community. 11.06.040 HAZARDS Whenever the city engineer determines that any existing excavation or embankment or FELL on private property has become a HAZARD TO LIFE AND LIMB or ENDANGERS PROPERTY the owner shall repair or eliminate such excavation or embankment. The present condition of this property is definitely a serious danger to life, limb and property. The builder has torn a hole in the chain link fence surrounding the next door pool and children, there are quite a few playing and riding bikes on the slops created by this developer, can easily climb through the hole or jump from the 6* mount above the fence and injure themselves. The heretofore protected pool area is now accessible. The entire project is an attractive nuisance and should have someone on a site at all times. The builder MUST repair the fence IMMEDIATELY. 11.06.050 Grading permit requirements. (8) A statement of the QUANTITIES of materials to be excavated and/or FILL and the amount of such material to be imported to, or exported from the site; The initial plans with the City clearly stated "0" soil to be brought into the project. These plans have been flagrantly violated by the developer importing more than 22 loads of soil under the pretext that tne existing soils would not be suitable without additional soil. The use of the additional soil would not have been necessary if the pads had remained as they were INSTEAD OF BEING unnecessarily raised to outrageous heights. The statement of "0" soils was DECEPTIVE AND MISLEADING to the PLANNING COMMISSION, the CITY COUNCIL and the general public. 11.06.060 Permit limitations and conditions. (4) Conditions of Approval. In granting any permit under this code, the City Engineer may attach such conditions as may be reasonable necessary to PREVENT CREATION Of A NUISANCE OR HAZARD to public or PRIVATE PROPERTY. This project clearly creates a "nuisance" and serious "hazard" to the adjoining property since a child from the new home could easily jump from his or her lot into the neighbor's yard and drown in the swimming pool or walk on the top of the wall, which will just reaches to the level of it's back yard, and fall several feet to the neighboring ground. It was within the engineer's province to require redesigning of the project in such a way as to insure the SAFETY OF and FROM the adjoining property. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the city engineers to see that the project is designed safely, consistent with the surrounding properties and harmonious to the area. (4) (B) Requirements for fencing of excavations or fills which would otherwise be hazardous. This project must be fenced or guarded day and night BEFORE children are injured riding their bikes over the rises and dips on this attractive nuisance created by the builder. Something must be done to prevent the children who are PRESENTLY playing on the project from falling into the adjoining property or climbing through the fence, damaged by the developer, onto the neighboring property and being injured in the swimming pool or elsewhere on the property. (6) (B) The work will be reasonably SAFE for the intended use and will not result in a hazard to adjoining property —. There is a REAL HAZARD to the adjoining property as previously stated. And, if the neighbor chose, they could fill the gap left between the bank and the six-foot wall (which is not a retaining wall) in order to make their back yard larger. Since this is not a retaining wall, the weight of the additional soil would cause the wall to fall into the neighboring yard INJURING ANYONE nearby as well as the park like landscaping. This could be done without a permit as was the filling of the property on Falcon despite three letters from the city assuring the neighboring property owners that the fill could not be done. © Adequate provisions will be made for DRAINAGE and EROSION control. Measures suggested to date are certainly INADEQUATE for drainage and erosion control. It is absolutely necessary for French drains to be installed on the neighboring property and a cement brow ditch to be built along the entire lot line of the adjacent property to assure proper drainage, prevent flooding of the adjacent property and the possibility of erosion of the piled up soil during a normal rain fall. 11.06.070 Denial of Permit A grading permit shall not be issued to ANYONE if the following conditions are found: (1) Hazards. The City Engineer shall not issue a grading permit in any case where he finds that the work as proposed by the applicant is likely to ADVERSELY affect the stability of adjoining property The adverse effect of this grading is obvious, even to a layman viewing the site. The City Engineer should have denied the permit. Stability is threatened by the lack of proper drainage. 11.06.080 Bonds (d) Whenever the city engineer finds or determines that A DEFAULT HAS OCCURRED in the performance of ANY requirement of a condition of a permit insured hereunder, written notice thereof shall be given to the principal and to the surety on the bond. After receipt of such notice, the surety shall, within the time specified, cause or require the work to be performed, or failing therein, shall pay over to the city engineer the estimated costs of doing the work as set forth in the notice. AT NO TIME were the public or the adjacent property owners informed of the grading HAZARDS created by this project. They should have been pointed out during Ann Hosong's presentation to the Planning Commission. Then the $600 appeal would have addressed the elevations. The developer assured many of us that his project would consist of 14 homes, half of which would be one story, and 2 separate one story low cost houses. He would in no way disturb the adjoining property or integrity of the entire neighborhood. We were also deceived by the planning department which failured to mention the grading elevations to those of us who viewed the plans at the planning department nor were they mentioned or explained during ANY of the public meetings. An engineer showing the average person a grading plan without explaining its ramifications is likened to a doctor showing a patient an x-ray without a professional reading. It was represented that the low cost houses would be built as SEPARATE houses, now we are told they will be built over the garages creating even higher elevations and presenting greater obstructions to the area's views. Developers MUST be required to FULFILL PROMISES made to the public. The city engineer should determined this project to be to be IN DEFAULT. 11.06.100 Fills This entire code has been violated as far as SAFETY is concerned as the fill is CRACKING and slipping and the slabs have yet to be poured. Mr. Bob Wojcik excused this problem by stating the slippage was caused by the neighboring watering system. THIS IS NOT TRUE. The sprinkler system showers away from the slopes. Mr. Paul Landen, who has been employed as a Civil Engineer, was present and said Mr. Wojcik's assessment was incorrect. The owner's landscaper, Mr. Carlos Martinez, was present and informed Bob that sprinklers watered away from the 6-foot rise and could not be the cause of the deepening crack. Mr. Wojcik said that it was his opinion that the sprinklers caused the crack and that was the end of it. It is Obvious the Bob/'s mind is made up and HE IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED BY THE FACTS. There was a light shower for an hour or two a few days prior to Wojcik's visit that caused the crack and the slippage. This is truly a potential for a DEEPER AND LONGER crack and greater SLIPPAGE. There is also the serious danger of cracked slabs or worse to the homes to be built upon these pads. We realize that the planning department and city engineering are trying to SAVE FACE but SAVING this COMMUNITY and the future home owner is more important. 11.06.120 Drainage © Site Drainage. Graded building sites shall have a minimum slope of one percent- towards a public street . A LESSER SLOPE MAY BE APPROVED by the city engineer for sites graded in RELATIVELY FLAT TERRAIN, or where special drainage provisions are made. Originally the TERRAIN WAS RELATIVELY FLAT. The property sloped away (downhill) on Monroe from Alder on a grade corresponding with both Monroe and Park Drive. It has been BUILT UP 6 feet higher than the abutting property on Monroe Street AND 13 feet higher than Park Drive. This creates veritable problems to the abutting property where the side of the PAD IS CRACKING. There is a danger of a slide and no adequate drainage system. The 6 foot rise dams up the water which originally flowed with the terrain turning the adjacent property into a drainage valley between the property uphill and this new 6-foot creation on what was originally downhill. THERE IS NO PLACE for the resulting dammed up water to drain. (e) Overflow Protection. Burms, swales or other devices shall be provided at the top of cut or fill slopes to prevent surface water from overflowing onto and damaging the face of the slope. A minimum precaution of a concrete drainage ditch along the entire property line between the project and the 3955 Monroe Street property should be installed since NO ADEQUATE prevision has been made for run off from the pad's slope onto that property. 11.06.140 Storm damage precautions. If grading is begun prior to November 16th. All protective measures (desilting basins or other temporary drainage or control measures) shall be installed prior to November 16th. This property grading was started prior to November 16 and no adequate protective measures have been done as yet. There are no brow ditches next to the abutting property that have been approved by that property's owner. 11.06.150 Storm damage precautions- Incomplete work. work is commenced after April 15th and before October 1 of any year—and it appears that the grading and INSTALLATION of the PERMANENT draining devices will not be completed prior to November 1, then on or before October 1st the owner of the site on which the grading is being performed shall file or cause to be filed with the city engineer revised plans which include the protective measures There has been light rain. The 6-ft build up next to the adjoining property has a crack which deepens daily. Dirt is falling from the 6-foot rise. We wish to see the revised plans. 11.06.160 Storm damage precautions Effect of noncompliance The city engineer may enter the property for purpose of installing —the drainage and erosion control devices shown on the approved plans-—to protect adjoining property from storm damage or the city engineer may cause the owner of the site to be prosecuted as a violator of this code. There are NO storm drains nor EROSION PROTECTION DEVISES which could possibly protect the neighboring property at this time. The fence has been damaged and children are playing on the light giving them access to the swimming pool next door. I request the developer be required to repair the fencing or install some device to safeguard the children that are playing on the sight, immediately. We want the installation of a concrete brow ditch the length of the adjacent property line NOW to protected the property before the winter rains. The brow ditch MUST run the entire length of the adjacent property to fully protect it from flooding. 11.06.170 Grading inspection and Supervision. (3) We wish an inspection to be done prior to the final grading inspection because, the final inspection would be TOO LATE to INSURE PROTECTION to the surrounding properties. (c) We* request a copy of all the necessary reports, geological recommendations and reports, compaction data and soils engineering and engineering geological recommendations. (e) We would like a copy of the "private engineer's" statement that the rough grading for For land development has been completed . (g) This is to inform you that the completion of the work to date is NOT in accordance with many sections of the city code pointed out herein. 11.06.180 Responsibility of permittee (d) PROTECTION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY. The permittee under the grading permit is responsible for the PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY and NO person shall excavate on land sufficiently close to the property line to ENDANGER PRIVATE PROPERTY without supporting and protecting such property form settling, cracking or other damage which might result. (THE CITY SHOULD ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE). (e) Temporary Erosion Control. The permittee shall put into effect and maintain an precautionary measures necessary to PROTECT adjacent PRIVATE property from damage by erosion, FLOODING, and deposit of mud or debris originating from the site. maintain all n 11.06.210 Depositing earth—upon public Or private property. (a) No person shall dump—earth or LEAVE ANY BANK, slope or other excavation surface unprotected so as to cause any of such materials to be deposited upon or roll- upon or over THE PREMISSES OF ANOTHER without express consent of the owner of each such premisses so affected . Such consent shall be in WRITING > Fill dirt from the raised embankment is presently cracking and about to fall on the adjoining property. There is absolutely no protection from said material and NO discussion or consent from the owner of the property affected. Written consent was never requested. 11.06.220 False statements in application or plans. A FALSE statement was made on the maps originally submitted to the city misleading all those who might examine them in representing that "0" dirt was to be added to the development. There have been "22 loads brought to the development and used to raise the natural levels of the property to 13 feet above Park drive and 6 feet above the adjacent property which would have normally been above the project. While this may have been done with approval of map amendments, it was done in such a way as to totally deceive the local residents. We have been deliberately deceived by planning as there was no mention of this at any of ITS presentations. This has been confirmed by Ann Hysong, who presented the project to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved the project AND THE CITY COUNCIL DENIED THE APPEAL without being informed of the ramifications of the additional fill or projected heights. 11.06.230 Violations (a) Any grading commenced or done contrary to the provisions of this chapter is declared to be, a PUBLIC NUISANCE. Upon order of the city council the city attorney shall commence necessary proceeding for the ABATEMENT of any such public nuisance—. Everyone who has viewed this project and the grading thereof has been offended by the many flagrant violations of the city code regarding protection of the abutting property and integrity of the neighborhood. WE HEREBY REQUEST THIS BE DECLARED A PUBLIC NUISANCE and that the project be suspended and subjected to the penalties provided in the code. The Mayor and the city council have acted in an uninformed manner due to the lack of full disclosure by irresponsible planning and engineering departments. The public has been misled and deceived by these departments. While we want the project to continue, we must have it graded in a more responsible manner. This can be done if the city is willing to pay the cost of regrading. If the city cannot do this then we request the city buy the project and proceed with a more agreeable and harmonious development. ONE THAT WILL CONTINUE GROWTH IN KEEPING WITH SAFETY AND THE CITY'S INTEGRITY. OF CARLSBAD TENTATIVE MAP NO. C 041 f(ZONE- P-1 - "7500) R.LM. ' p,Vx 5742 = ucaiU or cat*, SmU. / \ ->w^- "4 / 'y^N— tfurwmgtMt I MANOR /UNIT I § MAP/S505 ® \ - ifM. 1264G PAR & \r1 (ZONE - R -1 -| 15000) R.L.M.EARTHWORK CUT* I4.00O cxt FILL • 14.000 c.r.t rue afiKH MMoetuafof ma tfiotL mro-a rut TOT of fine uroxAMTAT rue t Ht tor.of nouns, jitoar ( iuiumiu. H tmtinmoe/rr Of c**Lse*o ftu.o sutvsr too* ----040* »7 OM MJt. B. OtO (1C HJ.OO A.M. STREET *A' TYPICAL SECTION -ONSITE STREET >" TYPICAL SECTION -PARK DRIVE NO SCALE TYPICAL SECTION-MONROE STREET RECEIVED Steve and Sherry! Ford „ qq 3869 Woodvale Dr. AUb ] L 1bba Carlsbad Ca, 92008 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT August 11, 1999 City of Carlsbad Engineering Department Lloyd Hubbs, Ken Quon, Bob Wojcik, Clide Williams City Planners Michael Hozmiller, Joe McMaham, Garry Goodman, Dick Cook, Ann Hysong City Council Members Matt Hall, Ramona Finnila, Julie Nygaard, Ann Kulchin City Attorney Ron Bull Mayor Bud Lewis RE: May Development, Monroe and Park Dr. We are astonished, how this project has gotten city approval. We were never notified of this zoning change of property, or the grade plans for said project. Really feel this project was just pushed through, with out any consideration of the neighbors, or the integrity of the neighborhood. This project would be unsightly, considering the majority of the houses surrounding this development are single story. Engineers isn't it your responsibility to represent us your citizens to protect us against this type of project. This project with the present grade, 25' to 28' height houses, the lot sizes so narrow, in the sea of exsisting single story homes, will look like Titanic. Please reconsider putting 2 story homes on this parcel of land. Thank/you Steve For Sherryl Ford PhuocV.Pham James A. Laret, P.E. Wayne W. Wheeler, P.L.S. Dennis R. McCarty, P.L.S. CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • G.P.S. SURVEYING lflVEO d II Job No. 482 April6, 1998 Ms Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad CA 92009-1576 Re: May Subdivision / CT 97-24 Monroe Street at Park Drive, Carlsbad Hydraulic Analysis Dear Ms. Hysong: Generally, detailed Hydrology and Hydraulic Studies are provided with final construction drawings when more design details are known and larger scale drawings are being prepared. In this instance however, there appears to be some staff concern as to whether our project will increase the rate of storm runoff from our site as a result of the development as proposed. The current 4.67 acre parcel is under agricultural land uses with a majority of the site being covered with impervious greenhouses or paving. These existing improvements allow for very limited rain infiltration into the soil and therefore a majority of the rainwater that hit this site will run off of the property as storm runoff. The physical condition of this site has generally existed as it does now for many years. Due to the extent of impervious surfaces onsite at this time, by my observation, a conversion to residential land uses will provide for more pervious surfaces and therefore corresponding reduction in the overall site runoff rate and volume. In support of this visual opinion, I have prepared a Hydrology Basin Map and delineated the current areas of impervious surfaces observed onsite. I have also delineated sub-basin "A-1" and "A-2" which represent the 2 contributing basin areas which should be considered in project design. Sub-basin "A-1" will be directed to a new curb inlet at the northwest corner of Street "A" as shown on our Tentative Map. This will be part of the final construction drawings if this project is approved. Since the rate of runoff from our site, as a result of development, will be reduced our project will have less of an impact upon downstream drainage facilities than the property does now. 5708 Calzada Del Bosque P.O. Box 9661 Rancho Santa Fe CA 92067 6197569374 FAX 6197564231 Ms Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad Aprils, 1998 Page 2 May Subdivision / CT 97-24 Sub-basin "A-2" now drains into Park Drive and southerly toward Tamarack Avenue. With the reduction of impervious surfaces on our property as a result of development, we will be reducing the rate of storm water runoff from our site. The enclosed Drainage Basin Map and support calculations indicate to me that the "after development" conditions will be an improvement to the drainage patterns and rates now experienced on the subject property in its present condition. This project should therefore not be conditioned to extend storm drain systems offsite as contemplated in your previous letters. Please forward this letter and my support calculations to your Engineering Department for review and comment. If any questions should arise, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, LARET ENGINEERING.INC. Imes A. Laret Rlt.E. 29375 JALcc attachment C:\DATA\LETTERS\482HYSNG.HYD z a "JT" XX C" -A - //J /re -/ - 3,1 - 2 Z ' TABLE 2 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD) DEVELOPED AREAS (URBAN) Coefficient._C Soil. Group'"(1) Land Use A B C D Residential: Single Family « .40 .45 fcJOl .55 Multi-Units .45 .50 .60 .70 Mobile homes .45 .50 .55 .65 Rural (lots greater than 1/2 acre) .30 .35 .40 .45 Commercial(2) .70 .75 .80 .85 80% Impervious Industrial(2) .80 ,.85 .90 .95 90% Impervious NOTES: ^Soil Group maps are available at the offices of the Department of Public Works. C(2)v/here actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated impervious- \ ness values of 80% or 90%, the values given for coefficient C, may be revised ^ by multiplying 80% or 90% by the ratio of actual imperviousness to the I tabulated imperviousness. However, in no case shall the final coefficient I be less than 0.50. For example: Consider commercial property on D soih-gioup. Actual imperviousness = 50% Tabulated imperviousness = 80% Revised C = 12 x 0.85 - 0.53 80 IV-A-9 APPENDIX IX-BRev. 5/81 V *«****;» PSON LARRY N.MURNANE LOU1SA.GALUPPO JENNIFER L.OJSICK OF COUNSEL PAUL A. PETERSON PETERSON & PRICE A P R O F E SSIONAL CORPORATION -Uni°n Bank of California Building 530 "B" Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, California 92101-4454 Telephone. (^19) 234-0361 c ee.\a\iiA AIOC.Fax (619) 234-4786 September 9, 1998 Carlsbad OffW 701 Palomar Airport Road Suite 170 Carlsbad, California 92009-1026 TelePh°»e (760) 431-4575 Fax (760) 431-4579_____ ~~~- ^ _.. XT' ^ rile No. 4667.001 Mr. Ray Patchett, City Manager CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 / Re: May Subdivision ZC 97-08/LCPA, 97-12/CT, 97-24/SDP, 98-05/CDP, 97-58 Dear Ray: Thank you for your assistance in moving the project through the system. As you can imagine, our clients were very pleased at the City Council's denial of the appeal and approval of the project. Please be advised that the new ownership entity for purposes of preparing the Permits and Resolutions is Carlsbad Estates, LLC, mailing address, 110 Juniper St., San Diego, CA 92101, telephone number (619) 702-2042, fax number (619) 702-5154. The contact person and signatory for purposes of the Permits and Map would be Mr. Herbert Palmtag, its Manager. We would respectfully request that the Notice of Determination get posted immediately for the certified Mitigated Negative Declaration. We would also request whatever assistance you could give us in assuring that the Local Coastal Program Amendment is Mr. Ray Patchett City Manager September 9, 1998 Page 2 immediately submitted to the Coastal Commission so that it can make it into the next available batch. Once again, thank you for your assistance and all of your staff's assistance in processing this project. Sincerely, PETERSON & PRICE Matthew A. Peterson cc: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, City of Carlsbad Anne Hysong, Associate Planner Ken Quon, Associate Engineer Herbert Palmtag, Manager, Palmtag - Davis Communities 1998-09-08 14:14 619 434 8183 D. AGATEP & ASSOC. 001 P01 » *DONALD A. AGATEP & ASSOCIATES Transmittal DATE: Sep8,1998 TO: Mr Gary Wayne Ass't Planning Director, City of Carlsbad TEL #: (760) 438-1 1 61 2075 Las Palmas Dr FAX #: (760) 438-0894 Carlsbad, CA. 92009-1576 FROM: DON AGATEP, Planning Consultant TEL #: (760 ) 434-1 056 FAX #: (760) 434-81 83 RE: Comments -AB# 14,839- MAY Subdivision- ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12 Page 1 of 3 Gary: Attached is a letter from H. Palmtag, May Subdivision project Owner, addressing the 14 unit May project approved by the Planning Commission, compared to alternativeIG unit subdivision design requested by others. Please review the attached documents, if, after review, additional information is required, please call Don Agatep, (760) 434-1056, as soon as possible. EPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: DON AGATEP. Planning Consultant cc: DA/Plmtg- May-CIS W 9-S8 2956 Roosevelt Street • Post Office Box 590 • Carlsbad • California 92(m • (760) 434-1056 * fax (760) 434-8183 1998-09-08 14:15 619 434 8183 D. AGATEP & ASSOC. 001 P02 C&rlsbad Estates 110 Juniper St San IMego, CA 92101 (619) 702-2042 Fax (619) 702-5154 September 1,1998 Via Facsimile (619) 234-4786 (2 pages w/cover) Matthew A Peterson Esq. PETERSON & PRICE 530 "B" Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, California 92101-4454 Re: Alternative T.M, Layout May Property Dear Matt: 1 received a copy of the "Rough T.M Layout" Jim Laret developed for the upcoming council meeting and have the following comments. It is very easy to make a case in defense of the current proposed T.M. using Jim's rough layout as a comparison. More specifically: The "rough" layout would create the following negative issues. • Traffic accessing onto Monroe would now double. Intersection spacing would be a problem at the cul de sac which would now be only 180' east of Park as opposed to the current spacing of approximately 280' south of Monroe. Additionally, you would have six homes backing out onto Park compared with the two now planned. Here again not a positive traffic issue! Without curb, gutters and sidewalk how do you transition onto Monroe from the cul de sac? It is possible, but would be awkward. • The two lots contiguous to our eastern boundary would now have four houses (lots) backing up along their boundary with lot widths as narrow as 75'! The current T.M. would have only the rear lot line of Lot 4 and Lot 5 (155' & 1487) and the sideyard of Lot 14 (144') contiguous. Without a doubt the current T.M. layout is dramatically less intrusive to these homeowners. • With the "rough" layout we would plot the "affordable housing" element in the rear yards contiguous to our eastern boundary as opposed to internalizing them as we have in the current T.M,, which will have no impact whatsoever on the existing surrounding neighbors. • Lots 10 and 11 are really not usable in the rough layout. To force homes on these would be close to impossible, would bastardize the community, and certainly would fly in the face of community concern for compatibility with surrounding neighbors. 1998-09-08 14:16 619 434 8183 D. AGATEP & ASSOC. 001 P03 r M. Peterson 9/1/98 Page 2 In summary, there is no question that the existing plan is far superior, is easily defensible and when compared with the "rough" layout, highlights the fact that it is the highest and best use for the property. Sincerely, HP:bgt cc: J. Laret X* D. Agatep ] 1 ] ARRY N. MIIRMAN I J ARSHALA.SCARR. . QCpCIWC 5 [ATTHEWA.PETEtjL ntUtlVt ean r PETERSON & PRICE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Telephone 0 "B" Street, Suite 1700 (619) 234-0361 iego, California 92101-4454 3DIS ATGALUppb NNIFERLCUSI0JJY COUNCIL "" (619)234-4786 E-Mail DATE CITY MANAGER AGENDA ITEM* LAW@PetersonPrice.com File No. ptember 2, 1998 . 5468.001 Mayor Claude ("Bud") Lewis Members of the Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: September 8, 1998 Appeal of the May Subdivision (Rezone Local Coastal Program Amendment Tentative Tract Maps Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit) Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council: We represent Jim and Patricia May and Palmtag*Davis Communities with regard to the above-referenced project. We have reviewed a copy of the appeal filed by Mr. and Mrs. Prentice. The appeal focuses on the following three issues. 1. Land use compatibility with the surrounding subdivisions. 2. An alleged increase in density. 3. Traffic issues on Monroe Street (which may endanger children as they go to and from schools and church). Land Use Compatibility with Surrounding Subdivisions The 4.67-acre infill site currently has a split designation of R-l- 7,500 on the westerly half of the property and R-l-15,000 on the easterly half of the property. This proposal would involve a rezoning to R-l-10,000 to allow the a 14-lot subdivision for 14 single family homes and two second dwelling units (to satisfy the projects inclusionary housing requirement) . This infill project is located within the LFMP Zone 1 and is designated for residential low medium density allowing 0-4 DU/Acre. This project would result in a density of 3.4 DU/Acre (just slightly above the growth control point of 3.2 DU/Acre. As you know, the General Plan allows for infill subdivisions to exceed to density range of the GCP by up to 25% of the maximum allocation (5 DU/Acre). The increase above the GCP accommodates the 2 Dwelling Units which satisfies the Inclusionary Housing requirement. Mayor Claude ("Bud") Lewis Members of the Carlsbad City Council September 2, 1998 Page 2 As indicated in your staff report, this rezoning and subdivision will provide for a logical and compatible transition between the R-l-7,500 along the west and southwest, the R-l-10,000 to the north, and R-l-15,000 to the northeast. Even though the proposal is to rezone the project to R-l- 10,000, the lots will range in size from 10,896 square feet to 16,100 square feet with an average lot size just under 12,000 square feet! As you can see by the attached lot size compatibility exhibit, the layout of the subdivision, the number of units, and the lot sizes are compatible with the surrounding subdivisions. In fact, if one were to utilize the existing split zone (R-l-7,500 and R-l-15,000), a yield of up to 16 lots could be achieved! However, the layout and the compatibility with surrounding lots would be jeopardized by utilizing the existing zoning. Increase in Density Although this subdivision results in a 0.2 increase over the GCP, as previously indicated, the General Plan allows for infill subdivisions within LFM Zone 1 to exceed the density range and the GCP by up to 25% above the maximum allocation. This zone change to R-l-10,000 does not result in the maximum density yield. It is not higher than the existing zoning or the General Plan Designation. The public facilities are adequate within LFM Zone 1 to accommodate the proposed units, and, as indicated in your staff report, there are excess dwelling units in the quadrant to ensure that the maximum number of dwelling units in the northwest quadrant would not be exceeded at buildout. By utilizing the existing split zoning on the property, a yield of up to 16 lots could be achieved. As you know, this subdivision only proposes 14 lots which will be in excess of the minimum lot size of the R-l-10,000 zone. Traffic and Safety Issues The tentative map conditions require that the developer provide for full half street improvements along Park and Monroe. This includes driveways, curbs, gutters and sidewalks. There appears to be a split in the community between those folks who are concerning over the safety of children and those who are more concerned over retaining the "rural character" of the neighborhood. We believe that with the installation of curbs and sidewalks that the safety for children going to and from schools and church will be dramatically improved. However, it is ultimately the City's discretion as to whether or not to require these improvements. As the staff report indicates, a mitigated negative declaration was prepared which indicates that this project will not result in any significant traffic impacts to the surrounding circulation system. Mayor Claude ("Bud") Lewis Members of the Carlsbad City Council September 2, 1998 Page 3 Conclusion This project has been thoroughly reviewed by your staff and has received their recommendation of approval. On July 15. 1998. the Planning Commission unanimously approved the request. In hearing the concerns of some of the neighbors, it became apparent that the real issue may involve the concerns over "a change in their neighborhood as the result of new homes being built." Although we understand that concern, if the proposal complies with all of the development regulations, then the General Plan would not result in adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Consequently, we believe the project should be approved and would respectfully request that you; 1. Certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and 2. Adopt the ordinance approving Rezone 97-08 and Local Coastal Program Amendment 97-12 and adopt the various resolutions approving the Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, and Coastal Development Permit. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, PETERSON & PRICE A Professional Corporation Matthew A. Peterson cc: Jim and Patricia May Palmtag*Davis Communities Ray Patchett, City Manager Althea Rautenkranz, City Clerk Cindee Hollingsworth, Mayor and City Council Secretary Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Ann Hysong, Planning Department Ron Ball, Esq., City Attorney §ON COMPA AVG. LOT SIZE 11,96 WOODVALE DR. h IOCIOO IO.SOQ /O.SOQ MONROE: PROPOSED f7500 RfI-15000 /2,O20 J/.77Q t/,6/0 \ EDWARD F. WHITTLER MARSHAL A. SCARR MATTHEW A. PETERSON LARRY N. MURNANE JENNIFER L. CUSICK PETERSON & PRICE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 530 "B" Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, California 92101-4454 OF COUNSEL PAULA. PETERSON Telephone (619)234-0361 Fax (619) 234-4786 E-Mail LAW ©PetersonPrice.com File No. via fax & U.S. mailJuly 21, 1998 James C. Bottomley, Esq. 5963 La Place Ct., Ste. 209 Carlsbad, CA 92008-8823 Dear Mr. Bottomley: As you know, we represent Jim and Patricia May with regard to the May Subdivision which was before the Planning Commission on July 15, 1998 as Agenda Item No. 1. It is our understanding that you represent a group of surrounding neighbors who are concerned over the project. As I mentioned to you after the Planning Commission's unanimous approval and again today, our clients, as well as the developers who are in escrow are prepared to meet with you and your clients to discuss any concerns that they may have. It would be our goal to resolve as many issues as possible prior to this matter going before the City Council. Please contact us at your earliest convenience to arrange a meeting. Sincerely, PETERSON &PRICE A Professional Corporation cc: Matthew A. Peterson Mayor Claude "Bud" Lewis and Members of the City Council Ray Patchett, City Manager, City Of Carlsbad Michael Holzmiller, Planning Dir., Planning Dept., City of Carlsbad *Ann Hysong, Planning Dept., City of Carlsbad Jim and Patricia May STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CITY OF CARLSBAD The Subdivision Map Act and the Carlsbad Municipal Code sets a fifty (50) day time restriction on Planning Commission processing of Tentative Maps and a thirty (30) day time limit for City Council action. These time limits can only be extended by the mutual concurrence of the applicant and the City. By accepting applications for Tentative Maps concurrently with applications for other approvals which are prerequisites to the map; i.e., Environmental Assessment, Environmental Impact Report, Condominium Plan, Planned Unit Development, etc., the fifty (50) day time limits and the thirty (30) day time limits are often exceeded. If you wish to have your application processed concurrently, this agreement must be signed by the applicant or his agent. If you choose not to sign the statement, the City will not accept your application for the Tentative Map until all prior necessary entitlements have been processed and approved. The undersigned understands that the processing time required by the City may exceed the time limits, therefore the undersigned agrees to extend the time limits for Planning Commission and City Council action and fully concurs with any extensions of time up to one year from the date the application was accepted as complete to properly review all of the applications. Date Jame (Print) ' Relationship to Application (Property Owner-Agent) FRM0037 2/96 Planning Department City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA 92008 July 19, 1998 Dear Sir: I would like to be notified when the proposed May housing development project will be heard by the Carlsbad City Council. I enclose a self addressed stamped envelop for the notification. Very truly yours, Pamela J. Wischkaemper 4039 Sunnyhill Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 £itv of Carlsbad Planning Department DATE: July 8, 1998 TIME SENT: Number of Pages Being Transmitted (Including Cover Sheet): TO: Jim Laret COMPANY: Laret Engineering PHONE #: 619 756-9374 FAX#:619756-4231 FROM: Anne Hysong DEPT.: PLANNING PHONE: (760) 438-1161 ext. 4477 FAX: (760) 438-0894 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Jim, I am faxing you changes to findings and conditions required by the City Attorney after the DCC meeting you attended. Changes involve the school finding and condition. The Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD) has requested that all legislative actions be conditioned as stated in Condition 7 of Resolution 4327. The CUSD has advised the City that school facilities are currently at capacity; therefore, any project requesting a legislative action would be annexed into the school district Mello Roos rather than just paying statutory school fees. Since Growth Management findings require that school facilities are adequate to handle additional demand, this condition is mandatory. Return Fax 2075 Las Palmas Drive * Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 * (760)438-1161 y 3920 Monroe Street Carlsbad CA 92008 2 July 1998 Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 La Palmas Drive Carlsbad CA 92009-1576 Re: Assessor's Parcel 207-061-07 May Subdivision ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12/CT 97-24/SDP 98-05/CDP 97-58 We enjoy living across Monroe Street from the May Flower Company. We have owned the house at 3920 Monroe Street for almost 14 years, and the Mays are good neighbors. We have several questions about the proposed subdivision: 1. When we remodeled our house several years ago, the city placed a lien against it to cover future curb, gutter, sidewalk, and road improvements. Will this project activate that lien? 2. Our lot is about 4 feet above street level and already has a steeply-sloping and short driveway. If the street is widened as part of this development, how will our driveway problem be addressed and by whom? 3. Will utilities on the northeast side of Monroe be put underground? 4. The site has been a nursery for many years. Has the soil been tested for pesticide and herbicide residue? Is there a plan for remediation? While we do not question the subdivision per se, we strongly believe that the zoning should remain R-15,000 in keeping with most of the neighborhood (both sides of this block of Monroe except the first five lots from the Park intersection, Alder, Sunnyhill, Skyline, etc.). We are concerned about the loss of the "rural" feel of the neighborhood and increased traffic resulting from a shift to the higher-density R-10,000 lot size. Sincerely, thleem Kippberger and family cc: James May /~ 3920 Monroe Street Carlsbad CA 92008 2 July 1998 Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 La Palmas Drive Carlsbad CA 92009-1576 Re: Assessor's Parcel 207-061-07 May Subdivision ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12/CT 97-24/SDP 98-05/CDP 97-58 We enjoy living across Monroe Street from the May Flower Company. We have owned the house at 3920 Monroe Street for almost 14 years, and the Mays are good neighbors. We have several questions about the proposed subdivision: 1. When we remodeled our house several years ago, the city placed a lien against it to cover future curb, gutter, sidewalk, and road improvements. Will this project activate that lien? 2. Our lot is about 4 feet above street level and already has a steeply-sloping and short driveway. If the street is widened as part of this development, how will our driveway problem be addressed and by whom? 3. Will utilities on the northeast side of Monroe be put underground? 4. The site has been a nursery for many years. Has the soil been tested for pesticide and herbicide residue? Is there a plan for remediation? While we do not question the subdivision per se, we strongly believe that the zoning should remain R-15,000 in keeping with most of the neighborhood (both sides of this block of Monroe except the first five lots from the Park intersection, Alder, Sunnyhill, Skyline, etc.). We are concerned about the loss of the "rural" feel of the neighborhood and increased traffic resulting from a shift to the higher-density R-10,000 lot size. Sincerely, ippberger and family W cc: James May City of Carlsbad Planning Department DATE: July 8,,1998 TIME SENT: TO: Jim Laret COMPANY: Laret Engineering PHONE #: 619 756-9374 FAX#:619756-4231 Number of Pages Being Transmitted (Including Cover Sheet): / FROM: Anne Hysong DEPT.: PLANNING PHONE: (760) 438-1161 ext. 4477 FAX: (760) 438-0894 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Jim, I am faxing you changes to findings and conditions required by the City Attorney after the DCC meeting you attended. Changes involve the school finding and condition. The Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD) has requested that all legislative actions be conditioned as stated in Condition 7 of Resolution 4327. The CUSD has advised the City that school facilities are currently at capacity; therefore, any project requesting a legislative action would be annexed into the school district Mello Roos rather than just paying statutory school fees. Since Growth Management findings require that school facilities are adequate to handle additional demand, this condition is mandatory. J^^J^JL o, c^^^^^^r^,^'^^i^r^-f?/^jd2?t£^^^~^^xj^^^ZzJ- •»*• -3f~*:&- n "•"•"F-Fax 2075 Las Palmasurive * Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 (760)438-1161 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. second dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households, and satisfy the remaining fraction of a unit through the payment of .47 times the average subsidy needed to make affordable to a lower income household, one newly constructed housing unit; d. Public Safety - The project is required to construct public streets to City standards with sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants; and e.Parks and Recreation - The project is required to pay park-in-lieu fees. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and ordinances since: a. c. d. e. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the final map will not be approved unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve the project. In addition, the project is conditioned such that a note shall be placed on the final map that building permits may not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project; The project is conditioned that prior to the recordation of a final map the applicant shall submit evidence to the City that impacts to school facilities have been mitigated in conformance with the City's Growth Management Plan, (as amended concurrently herewith) to the extent permitted by applicable state law for legislative approvals. Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval; All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required ' conditions of approval; and / The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional \ requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21 .90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1. pr RFSO NO 43:-4- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 14. That the project is not required to provide additional public facilities for the density in excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City's public facility plans will not be adversely impacted, in that public facilities are adequate in Zone 1 to accommodate the additional 1.1 unit above the GCP. 15. That there have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities below the control point to offset the units in the project above the control point so that approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit. 16. That all necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance will be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them created by this project and in compliance with adopted City standards. Conditions: 1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map documents) necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 2. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. f 3. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a reduced, legible version of the approving resolutions on a 24" x 36" blueline drawing. Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal Development Permit and signed approved site plan. 4. The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or Facilities and Improvement Plan and to fulfill the subdivider's agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated December 23, 1997, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid, this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void. 5. The final map shall not be approved unless the City Council finds as of the time of such approval that sewer service is available to serve the subdivision. 6. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the final map. to the approval of a final map or the issuance of any permits the applicant shall PC RESO NO. 4327 -5- 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 submit evidence to the City that impacts to school facilities have been mitigated conformance with the City's Growth Management Plan to the extent permitted applicable state law for legislative approvals. If the mitigation involves a financing scheme such as a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District which is inconsistent with the City's Growth Management Plan including City Council Policy Statement No. 38. the developer shall submit disclosure documents for approval by the City Manager and City Attorney which shall disclose to future owners in the project, the maximum extent] possible, the existence of the tax and that the school district is the taxing agencj responsible for the Financing district, ^ ——- 8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this residential housing project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. 10. Approval of CT 97-24 is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ZC 97-08, LCPA 97-12, SDP 98-05 and CDP 97-58. CT 97-24 is subject to all conditions contained in Resolutions No. 4330, 4325, 4326, 4328, and 4329 for the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ZC 97-08, LCPA 97-12, SDP 98-05, and CDP 97-58. 11. The Developer shall proved a minimum of 25 percent of the lots with adequate sideyard area for Recreational Vehicle storage pursuant to City Standards. 12. The developer shall construct a 6' masonry wall approved by the Planning Director at the rear property line of Lots 1 through 5 and along the side property line of Lot 14 prior to occupancy of any unit. 13. Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, or where a map is not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide and restrict two second dwelling units on Lots 7 and 8 as affordable to lower-income households for the useful life of the dwelling units, and to pay to the City an amount equal to .47 times the average subsidy needed to make affordable to a lower income household one newly constructed typical attached housing unit, in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest. PCRESONO, 4327 -6- City of Carlsbad Planning Department June 23, 1998 James May 3926 Park Dr Carlsbad CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 97-24/LCPA 97-12/ZC 97-08/DCP 97-58/SDP 98-05 - May Subdivision The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be available for you to pick up on Friday, June 26, 1998, after 8:00 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be held on July 6, 1998. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 9:00 am. If you have any questions concerning your project you should attend the DCC meeting. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact Anne Hysong at (760) 438-1161, extension 4477. CITY OF CARLSBAD C GARY E. WAYNE Assistant Planning Director GEW:AH:dch c: File Copy Laret Engineering 2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 ® City of Carlsbad Planning Department May 21, 1998 James and Patricia May 3926 Park Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 97-24/ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12/CDP 97-58/SDP 98-05 - MAY SUBDIVISION Your application has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing by the Planning Commission on July 1, 1998. However, for this to occur, you must submit the additional items listed below. If the required items are not received by June 8, 1998, your project will be rescheduled for a later hearing. In the event 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: A) 1 5 copies of your (tentative map, site plans, building elevation plans, floor plans) on 24" x 36" sheets of paper, stapled in complete sets folded into 8%' x 11" size. The site plan and building elevations must include the main structures on Lots 7 & 8. Also, please note on the site plan a designated parking space for the second dwelling unit in either the driveway (tandem) or preferably, the third car garage. B) One 81/2" 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) 600' Owners List - a typewritten list of names and addresses of all property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property, including the applicant and/or owner. The list shall include the San Diego County Assessor's parcel number from the latest equalized assessment rolls. B) 100' Occupant List - (Coastal Development Permits Only) a typewritten list of names and addresses of all occupants within a 100 foot radius of the subject property, including the applicant and/or owner. 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 CT 97-24/ZC 97-08/LCPA MAY 21, 1998 PAGE 2 2/CDP 97-58/SDP 98-05 - MAY S«E)IVISION C) Mailing labels - two (2) separate sets of mailing labels of the property owners within a 600 foot radius and occupants within a 100 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 the Apartment, Suite and/or Building Number 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: Arial 11 pt, Airal Rounded MT Bold 9 pt .Courier 14 pt, Courier New 11 pt,), and MS Line Draw 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) D) 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. Fee - a fee (check payable to the City of Carlsbad) shall be paid for covering the cost of mailing notices. Such fee shall equal the current postage rate times the total number of labels. Cash and credit cards are also accepted. Sincerely, ANNE HYSONO; Associate Planner Arimh Attachment c: James Laret, Laret Engineering Company, Inc. -^^ -->. City of Carlsbad Planning Department FAX TRANSMITTAL DATE: TIME SENT: TO: PHONE #: FAX#: NUMBER OF PAGES BEING TRANSMITTED: (INCLUDING FAX TRANSMITTAL) FROM: DEPT: PLANNING PHONE #: (760) 43 8- 1 1 6 1 ext. V" V 7 FAX#: (760)438-0894 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-O894 City of Carlsbad Planning Department May 21, 1998 James and Patricia May 3926 Park Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 97-24/ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12/CDP 97-58/SDP 98-05 - MAY SUBDIVISION Your application has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing by the Planning Commission on July 1, 1998. However, for this to occur, you must submit the additional items listed below. If the required items are not received by June 8, 1998, your project will be rescheduled for a later hearing. In the event 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: A) 1 5 copies of your (tentative map, site plans, building elevation plans, floor plans) on 24" x 36" sheets of paper, stapled in complete sets folded into 8%' x 11" size. The site plan and building elevations must include the main structures on Lots 7 & 8. Also, please note on the site plan a designated parking space for the second dwelling unit in either the driveway (tandem) or preferably, the third car garage. B) One SYz" 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) 600' Owners List - a typewritten list of names and addresses of all property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property, including the applicant and/or owner. The list shall include the San Diego County Assessor's parcel number from the latest equalized assessment rolls. B) 100' Occupant List - (Coastal Development Permits Only) a typewritten list of names and addresses of all occupants within a 100 foot radius of the subject property, including the applicant and/or owner. 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-O894 CT 97-24/ZC 97-08/LCPA MAY 21, 1998 PAGE 2 |12/CDP 97-58/SDP 98-05 - MAY r C) Mailing labels - two (2) separate sets of mailing labels of the property owners within a 600 foot radius and occupants within a 100 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 the Apartment, Suite and/or Building Number 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: Arial 11 pt, Airal Rounded MT Bold 9 pt ,Courier 14 pt, Courier New 11 pt,), and MS Line Draw 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) D) 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. Fee - a fee (check payable to the City of Carlsbad) shall be paid for covering the cost of mailing notices. Such fee shall equal the current postage rate times the total number of labels. Cash and credit cards are also accepted. Sincerely, ANNE HYSON( Associate Planner AHmh Attachment c: James Laret, Laret Engineering Company, Inc. Phuoc V. Pham JamesA.Laret,P.E. Wayne W. Wheeler, P.L.S. Dennis R. McCarty, P.L.S. CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • G.P.S. SURVEYING Aprils, 1998 Ms Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad CA 92009-1576 Job No. 482 c/ryC;** * Re: May Subdivision / CT 97-24 Monroe Street at Park Drive, Carlsbad Hydraulic Analysis Dear Ms. Hysong: Generally, detailed Hydrology and Hydraulic Studies are provided with final construction drawings when more design details are known and larger scale drawings are being prepared. In this instance however, there appears to be some staff concern as to whether our project will increase the rate of storm runoff from our site as a result of the development as proposed. The current 4.67 acre parcel is under agricultural land uses with a majority of the site being covered with impervious greenhouses or paving. These existing improvements allow for very limited rain infiltration into the soil and therefore a majority of the rainwater that hit this site will run off of the property as storm runoff. The physical condition of this site has generally existed as it does now for many years. Due to the extent of impervious surfaces onsite at this time, by my observation, a conversion to residential land uses will provide for more pervious surfaces and therefore corresponding reduction in the overall site runoff rate and volume. In support of this visual opinion, I have prepared a Hydrology Basin Map and delineated the current areas of impervious surfaces observed onsite. I have also delineated sub-basin "A-1" and "A-2" which represent the 2 contributing basin areas which should be considered in project design. Sub-basin "A-1" will be directed to a new curb inlet at the northwest corner of Street "A" as shown on our Tentative Map. This will be part of the final construction drawings if this project is approved. Since the rate of runoff from our site, as a result of development, will be reduced our project will have less of an impact upon downstream drainage facilities than the property does now. 5708 Calzada Del Bosque P.O. Box 9661 Rancho Santa Fe CA 92067 619 756 9374 FAX 619 756 4231 Ms Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad Aprils, 1998 Page 2 May Subdivision / CT 97-24 Sub-basin "A-2" now drains into Park Drive and southerly toward Tamarack Avenue. With the reduction of impervious surfaces on our property as a result of development, we will be reducing the rate of storm water runoff from our site. The enclosed Drainage Basin Map and support calculations indicate to me that the "after development" conditions will be an improvement to the drainage patterns and rates now experienced on the subject property in its present condition. This project should therefore not be conditioned to extend storm drain systems offsite as contemplated in your previous letters. Please forward this letter and my support calculations to your Engineering Department for review and comment. If any questions should arise, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, LARET ENGINEERING.INC. hies A. Laret RYC.E. 29375 JALcc attachment C:\DATA\LETTERS\482HYSNG.HYD ^•F" -^^- City of Carlsbad Planning Department FAX TRANSMITTAL DATE: PHONE #: TIME SENT: ) ! TO: COMPANY: NUMBER OF PAGES BEING TRANSMITTED: (INCLUDING FAX TRANSMITTAL) FROM: DEPT:PLANNING PHONE #: (760) 438-1 161 ext. FAX#: (760)438-0894 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1 576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-O894 City of Cftrlsbad—«^ •^•^•^•^•^••^^••^••i^^^^^^^BH^—Planning Department April3, 1998 James and Patricia May 3926 Park Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 97-24/LCPA 97-12/ZC 97-08/CDP 97-58 - MAY SUBDIVISION Dear Mr. & Mrs. May: The Planning and Engineering Departments have completed their review of your February 23, 1998 project submittal. The following issues remain and resolution will be necessary prior to scheduling this project for Planning Commission and City Council hearing: 1. To obtain staff support of this project, a Minor Site Development Plan application must be submitted to the Planning Department along with a check for $2,670.00. Otherwise, without a formal application for your inclusionary housing proposal, the project will be recommended for denial. 2. The purpose of the Site Development Plan is to show compliance with the inclusionary housing requirement. Building footprints and architectural elevations should be shown for the lots proposed for second dwelling units, however, the remaining lots should be excluded from the plans to avoid confusion. A standard single family subdivision does not require Planning Commission approval of architecture. Also, please add the scale to architectural elevations. 3. Project conditions recommended by staff will include a requirement that the future owner of Lots 7 and 8 will have to apply for and receive an Administrative Second Dwelling Unit Permit prior to issuance of any future building permits. 4. Project density including the second dwelling units is 3.4 dwelling units/acre. Please correct Item 3 under Development Notes to specify 14 Lots/16 future dwelling units and change Item 8 to 3.4 du/acre. The RLM growth management control point (GCP) for this site is 3.2 dwelling units/acre which allows 15 units. Where zoning would permit a slightly higher yield, the General Plan allows infill projects in this area to exceed the GCP if specific findings can be made. Findings required to allow the increase are that adequate public facilities have been provided and that excess dwelling units are available within the Local Facility Zone. 2O75 La Palinas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 920O9-157G • (7GO) 430-1 1G1 • FAX (7GO) 430-0894 CT 97-24/LCPA 97-12/7C 97-08/CDP 97-58 - MAY SUBDJ^SION APRILS, 1998 ^ ^ PAGE 2 5. The proposed affordable housing proposal must receive a recommendation from the Housing Commission and approval by the Planning Commission. 6. Lot width is measured at the 20' setback line for the purposes of calculating setbacks. It appears that Lot 7 is approximately 95' wide; side yard setbacks would be 9.5' and rear yard would be 19' (now shown as 16' although it scales at 18'). Please check the dimensions on side yard setbacks shown. When I scaled the setbacks shown as 7.5', they are actually 9' in width at 40 scale. Please correct or show correct scale. 7. Since this project is infill and property lines are proposed at the toe of slope, staff will recommend a condition requiring the construction of a uniform, 6' high masonry wall separating the parcel from existing development along the southern and eastern property lines. The design of the wall would require Planning Director approval and the entire length of the wall would have to be constructed prior to the issuance of any building permit. 8. It is still unclear whether or not the existing wall(s) on Lot 9 exceed 42" in the front yard setback. Are there two walls with a combined height of 7'. Walls may not exceed 42" in the front yard setback. This issue must be addressed. Engineering: 1. We have yet to receive the hydraulic analysis for this project, as stated in the applicant's letter of February 19, 1998. No further comments can be made regarding drainage of this project until this analysis is received and reviewed by the Engineering Department. If you have any questions regarding the above, please call Anne Hysong at (760) 438- 1161, extension 4477, or Ken Quon, project engineer, at extension 4380. Sincerely, ANNE HYSON Associate Planner AH:kc Adrienne Landers Ken Quon File *Request To Schedule Project For Planning Commission DATE: 05-19-98 TO: ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR I have asked the applicant to submit: A current (600 foot) owner radius map and property owner's list (For All Projects) A current (100 foot) occupant radius map and occupant list (For CDPs only) Two sets of labels and postage. Now, I would like to request the following project be scheduled for a hearing before the Planning Commission: * Project No(s): CT 97-24/LCPA 97-12/ZC 97-08/CDP 97-58/SDP 98-05 4 Project Name: MAY SUBDIVISION « Project Location: CORNER OF PARK DRIVE/MONROE AVE - NORTHWEST QUAD Requested date of Planning Commission Meeting: 07-01-98 Engineer: KEN QUON (Conditions have been approved by the Engineering Department) * The project must be heard by final decision maker by: LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS A Notice of Public Hearing to County Clerk will be prepared and filed 30 or more days before the requested hearing date. The project is exempt from CEQA and a Notice of Exemption will be filed. Anne Hysong Planner's Signature OK to Schedule on Senior Planner Initial ADP Initials: LARET ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. Land Development, Planning giwveying 5708 Calzada Del Bosqu^ P.O. Box9661 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 19) 756-9374 • FAX (619) 756-4231 10 WE ARE SENDING XOU- • D Attached ', D Unjder separate cover via . D Shop draw/ipes^,^.,^^ ^i&ifrttTo D Plans D Copy of letter D Change order D D Samples _the following items: D Specifications THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: D For approval D Approved as submitted D For your use D Approved as noted D As requested D Returned for corrections D For review and comment D D FQ8 BIDS DUE 19 REMARKS. D Resubmit D Submit D Return .copies for approval . copies for distribution .corrected prints D PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US L If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. MAY GREENHOUSES 619 434 &531 P. 01 CITY OF CARLSBAD UNO USE REVIEW APPLICAT1QM APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES) Administrative Permit - 2nd Dwelling Unit Administrative Variance Coastal Development Permit Conditional Use Permit Condominium Permit Environmental Impact Assessment General Plan Amendment Hillside Development Permit Local Coastal Ptan Amendment Master Plan Non-Residential Planned Development Planned Development Permit {POR DEPARTMENT USE ONLV1 Q Planned Industrial Permit O Planning Commission Determination {3 Precise Development Plen Q Redevelopment Permit Site Development Plan Q Special Use Permit Q Specific Plan O . Tontotivo Pofool Mop ' Obtain from Engln»«lnp D«j>9rtm«m Q Tentative Tract Map D Variance Lj Zone Change Q List other eppllcations not specified (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO<S>.: PROJECT NAME: 3.0*7-OU- 0*7 6J APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type)OWNER NAME (Print or Type} v Pa±r-cji.fAILING ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS TV AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE THAT » AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT AU. TH6 ABOVE FORMATION- A TRUf ^W CORRECT TO THE 88ST OF MY SEMTATIV6 Of THE JftMATION IS TRUE AND EDGE. THAT I AM THE L6Q THAT AU. THE TO THE BE BRIEF LEGAU DESCRIPTION fz-3 3TE: A PROPOSEDPHOJeCTREOqiRINGi^ ;PRQP43SEftPROaECT*TO&UmW<M>Ni&6r^^^ "'"'.' Ofm 16 1 OP MAY GREENHOUSES 434 6531 P. 02 LOCATION OF PROJECT: ON THE f BETWEEN STfiEtt ADDRESS (NORTH. SOUTH. EAST, WEST) J SIDE OF i Pfr&K. (NAME OF STREET) (NAME OF AND 9» LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE { {_ 1OJ PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS 13) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION 16) PERCENTAGE OP PROPOSED PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE 19) GROSS SITE ACREAGE 22) EXISTING ZONING /5«*'23) PROPOSED ZONING 11} NUMBER OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS 14) PROPOSED IND OFFICE/ SQUARE FOOTAGE 17) PROPOSED INCREASE IN LT] (NAME OF STREET) t2) PROPOSED NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS 16) PROPOSED COMM SQUARE FOOTAGE 18) PROPOSED 3EWi USAGE IN EDU 21) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION 24} IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMEBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION, I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE FOR CITY USE ONLY , COMPUTATION APPLICATION TYPE TOTAL FEE REQUIRED FEE REQUIRED D. Q O \ R "1 APR 3 CITY OF DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED RECEIVED BY: F6E PAID RECEIPT NO. Form 16 PAGE 2 6P 207-06,1 l~0"0 I I IOO •cow T H O NJtn K>1$N>c» co X) |SU *^»f\j Nfc\>1U.s to (T\ NaCi S fe' KJUi N ^ ^? ^ N its 65 ^Sft (^4 ^ N> § 00 1?*••». XI ^(M t\>JS N) CDr~pi; Or~ O Z m Z -< 33 0c—I O > sS' Om CO "»».t\j^ !M Vo 00 SN e r City of Carlsbad Planning Department Aprils, 1998 James and Patricia May 3926 Park Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 97-24/LCPA 97-12/ZC 97-08/CDP 97-58 - MAY SUBDIVISION Dear Mr. & Mrs. May: The Planning and Engineering Departments have completed their review of your February 23, 1998 project submittal. The following issues remain and resolution will be necessary prior to scheduling this project for Planning Commission and City Council hearing: 1. To obtain staff support of this project, a Minor Site Development Plan application must be submitted to the Planning Department along with a check for $2,670.00. Otherwise, without a formal application for your inclusionary housing proposal, the project will be recommended for denial. 2. The purpose of the Site Development Plan is to show compliance with the inclusionary housing requirement. Building footprints and architectural elevations should be shown for the lots proposed for second dwelling units, however, the remaining lots should be excluded from the plans to avoid confusion. A standard single family subdivision does not require Planning Commission approval of architecture. Also, please add the scale to architectural elevations. 3. Project conditions recommended by staff will include a requirement that the future owner of Lots 7 and 8 will have to apply for and receive an Administrative Second Dwelling Unit Permit prior to issuance of any future building permits. 4. Project density including the second dwelling units is 3.4 dwelling units/acre. Please correct Item 3 under Development Notes to specify 14 Lots/16 future dwelling units and change Item 8 to 3.4 du/acre. The RLM growth management control point (GCP) for this site is 3.2 dwelling units/acre which allows 15 units. Where zoning would permit a slightly higher yield, the General Plan allows infill projects in this area to exceed the GCP if specific findings can be made. Findings required to allow the increase are that adequate public facilities have been provided and that excess dwelling units are available within the Local Facility Zone. 2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 CT 97-24/LCPA 97-12flt 97-08/CDP 97-58 - MAY SUBDIHON APRILS, 1998 W PAGE 2 5. The proposed affordable housing proposal must receive a recommendation from the Housing Commission and approval by the Planning Commission. 6. Lot width is measured at the 20' setback line for the purposes of calculating setbacks. It appears that Lot 7 is approximately 95' wide; side yard setbacks would be 9.5' and rear yard would be 19' (now shown as 16' although it scales at 18'). Please check the dimensions on side yard setbacks shown. When I scaled the setbacks shown as 7.5', they are actually 9' in width at 40 scale. Please correct or show correct scale. 7. Since this project is infill and property lines are proposed at the toe of slope, staff will recommend a condition requiring the construction of a uniform, 6' high masonry wall separating the parcel from existing development along the southern and eastern property lines. The design of the wall would require Planning Director approval and the entire length of the wall would have to be constructed prior to the issuance of any building permit. 8. It is still unclear whether or not the existing wall(s) on Lot 9 exceed 42" in the front yard setback. Are there two walls with a combined height of 7'. Walls may not exceed 42" in the front yard setback. This issue must be addressed. Engineering: 1. We have yet to receive the hydraulic analysis for this project, as stated in the applicant's letter of February 19, 1998. No further comments can be made regarding drainage of this project until this analysis is received and reviewed by the Engineering Department. If you have any questions regarding the above, please call Anne Hysong at (760) 438- 1161, extension 4477, or Ken Quon, project engineer, at extension 4380. Sincerely, ANNE HYSON Associate Planner AH:kc Adrienne Landers Ken Quon File Housing Team Meeting Notes - 02-04-98 Lots will have to be designated on SDP Affordable Housing Agreement must specify the timing - i.e., one affordable unit after so many market rate units - could be after 6th unit. This may force the developer into tract rather than custom sales - would have to be disclosed. The design of the unit is conceptual - project should be conditioned to allow staff to determine that the actual units are consistent with the 2nd dwelling unit guidelines and get housing commission to buy in to this. March 31, 1998 James and Patricia May 3926 Park Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 97-24/LCPA 97-12/ZC 97-08/CDP 97-58 - MAY SUBDIVISION Dear Mr. & Mrs May: The Planning and Engineering Departments have completed their review of you February 23, 1998 project submittal. The following issues remain and resolution will be necessary prior to scheduling this project for Planning Commission and City Council hearing: 1. To obtain staff support of this project, a Minor Site Development Plan application must be submitted to the Planning Department along with a check for $2,670.00. Otherwise, without a formal application for your inclusionary housing proposal, the project will be recommended for denial. 2. The purpose of the Site Development Plan is to show compliance with the inclusionary housing requirement. Building footprints and architectural elevations should be shown for the lots proposed for second dwelling units, however, the remaining lots should be excluded from the plans to avoid confusion. A standard single family subdivision does not require Planning Commission approval of architecture. 3. Project conditions recommended by staff will include a requirement that the future owner of Lots 7 and 8 will have to apply for and receive an Administrative Second Dwelling Unit Permit prior to issuance of any future building permits. 4. Project density including the second dwelling units is 3.4 dwelling units/acre. Please correct Item 3 under Development Notes to specify 14 Lots/16 future dwelling units and change Item 8 to 3.4 du/acre. The RLM growth management control point (GCP) for this site is 3.2 dwelling units/acre which allows 15 units. Where zoning would permit a slightly higher yield, the General Plan allows infill projects in this area to exceed the GCP if speciific findings can be made. Findings required to allow the increase are that adequate public facilities have been provided and that excess dwelling units are available within the Local Facility Zone. 5. The proposed affordable housing proposal must receive a recommendation from the Housing Commission and approval by the Planning Commission. t t 6. Lot width is measured at the 20' setback line for the purposes of calculating setbacks. It appears that Lot 7 is approximately 95' wide; side yard setbacks would be 9.5' and rear yard would be 19' (now shown as 16' although it scales at 18'). Please check the dimensions on side yard setbacks shown. When I scaled the setbacks shown as 7.5', they are actually 9' in width at 40 scale. Please correct or show correct scale 7. Since this project is infill and property lines are proposed at the toe of slope, staff will recommend a condition requiring the construction of a uniform, 6' high masonry wall separating the parcel from existing development along the southern and eastern property lines. The design of the wall would require Planning Director approval and the entire length of the wall would have to be constructed prior to the issuance of any building permit. 8. It is still unclear whether or not the existing wall(s) on Lot 9 exceed 42" in the front yard setback. Are there two walls with a combined height of 7'. Walls may not exceed 42" in the front yard setback. This issue must be addressed Engineering: 1. We have yet to receive the hydraulic analysis for this project, as stated in the applicant's letter of February 19, 1998. No further comments can be made regarding drainage of this project until this analysis is received and reviewed by the Engineering Department. If you have any questions regarding the above, please call Anne Hysong at (760) 438- 1161, extension 4477, or Ken Quon, project engineer, at extension 4380. Sincerely, ANNE HYSONG, Associate Planner c: Adrienne Landers Ken Quon File PhuocV.Pham James A. Laret, P.E. ^•••^^• \Dcneelina \Dcmfianu CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • G.P.S. SURVEYING Wayne W. Wheeler, P.LS. Dennis R. McCarty, P.LS. February 19, 1998 RECEIVED FEB 23 CITY OF CARLSBADPUNNING DEPT Ms Anne Hysong . Job No. 482 City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad CA 92009-1576 Re: May Subdivision, CT 97-24 Dear Ms. Hysong: Please find attached 10 sets of our revised Tentative Map and 6 sets of a "Preliminary" Site Development Plan representing conformity to your Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. These replacement prints are in response to your "Issues of concern" letter dated January 26,1998. The Conceptual Site Development Plans are intended to delineate our project's ability to conform to the City Inclusionary Housing Ordinance by designating proposed Lots 7 and 8 as "second unit" lots. The applicant does not intend to submit a Site Development Plan at this time as it is their desire not to construct the residential units as part of this application request. Our Replacement Tentative Map does now delineate the 20 foot front yard setback as requested as well as the modifications to "Development Notes" Item No. 8. Regarding the southwesterly lines of Lots 1-3, due to the northerly increase in elevation across this site similar to Park Drive, a requirement to make these lots level with those lots to the south would put Lots 1, 2 and 3 in a hole relative to Park Drive. We can readily pull the toe of the new slope proposed along our southwesterly boundary away from the neighbors property line 3 to 5 feet to provide for surface and slope drainage to traverse toward Park Drive by a small swale. The slopes in question are only 2 to 4 feet in height and the surface runoff from this area is very minimal. Our current proposal also provides for Lots 1, 2 and 3 to surface drain directly into Street "A" and then out to Park Drive as it now exits the site. We request that you revisit this comment and see if there is an alternative to depressing these lots. We have revised the brow ditch locations on Lots 3, 4 and 5 as requested and drained Lots 10-14 to Monroe per your engineering comments. A preliminary hydrology analysis is being prepared at this time which will follow this resubmittal. 5708 Calzada Del Bosque P.O. Box 9661 Rancho Santa Fe CA 92067 6197569374 FAX 6197564231 Ms. Anne Hysong May Subdivision City of Carlsbad CT 97-24 February 19, 1998 Page 2 This site is mostly covered with greenhouse buildings and paved areas which now creates a site runoff of an estimated 80 to 85%. Once graded and developed the site runoff should decrease to 55 to 65% due to more porous soils exposed to the rains. Therefore, subject to verification by our in-process hydrology study, we do not expect any increase in site storm discharge as a result of development. Should this project be obligated to construct the discussed 24" storm drain system offsite this small project would not be economically viable. I do hope that we have adequately addressed your concerns and that this project can move forward. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Si no .E. 29375 C:\DATA\LETTERSV482INCL HSE TO LARET ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. Land Development, Planning 5708 Calzada Del Bos P.O. Box 9661 RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067 . (619) 756-9374 FAX (619) 756-4231 ATTENTION WE ARE SENDING YOU D Shop drawings D Copy of letter D Under separate cover via D Prints D Change order D Plans D / D Samples the following items: D Specifications COPIES .DATE NO.DESCRIPTION THESE AREfrTRANSMITJED as checked below: <z-==>S For adproval For yibur use requested D For review and comment D FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS D Approved as submitted D Approved as noted D Returned for corrections D D Resubmit. D Submit D Return .copies for approval ; for distribution .corrected prints D PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US RECEIVED £&t &p SIGNED: // enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. d8 FRI 08:52 CITY OF CARLSBAD COM DE FAX HO. 43808|P, 02 City of Carlsbad _ yf ~ — , ^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^lg^^_^______^_^_Department January 26, 1998 James and Patricia May 3926 Park Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 97-24/LCPA 97-127 ZC 97-08 CDP 97-587 - MAY SUBDIVISION Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your tentative map, local coastal program amendment, zone change, and coastal development pennit applications (CT 97-24/LCPA 97-127 ZC 97-08 CDP 97-58) 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 (760) 438-1161, extension 4477, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOU3 Planning Director MJH: AHrnm c: Gary Wayne Dee Landers Ken Quon Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide LER RECEIVED FEB 231998 CITY OF CARLSBADPUNNING DEPT 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (760) 438-1161 - FAX (7GO) 438-O894 FR1 08:52 CITY OF CARLSBAD COM DE FAX NO. "onon/1OF C W ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. The proposed project is subject to the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requiring that 15% of the total number of units proposed, or 2.47 units, be provided as affordable housing. This project is therefore required to submit a site development plan identifying the project's affordable homing proposal. The City does not have an established program through which affordable housing fees can be paid for this size project and there are no combined inclusionary housing projects currently constructed in the northwest quadrant from which affordable housing credits could be purchased; therefore, the project's affordable housing requirement should be provided onsite. One possible solution for this project would be to propose second dwelling units. The site development plan would have to specify the lots proposed for second dwelling units and include conceptual building footprints on each lot along with conceptual floor plans and elevations of a single family structure with a second dwelling unit. The purpose of this "prototypical" plan is to illustrate that these lots can accommodate second dwelling units in accordance with the development standards required by the second dwelling unit ordinance (see attached ordinance). NOTE: The Planning Department is unable to support this project without an acceptable affordable housing proposal. The. site development .plan must be submitted in the next 30 days to enable environmental review of this proposal. 2. Please show the front, yard setbacks (20') from front property line on each lot. Also, please show the wall heights of existing retaining walls on Lot 9 and lighten the building footprint of the existing residence and garage. No walls or fences exceeding 42' are permitted in the front yard setback. 3. The western property lines of Lots 1 - 3 are located at the toe of the slope. It is the City's policy that property lines be located at the top of slope to avoid unmaintaiaed slopes, i.e., fences placed at the top of slope . Please, create lots that are approximately level with the adjacent development. / 4. Under "Development Notes", item no. 8, please delete 3.64 du/net ac.. Density is calculated for this project based on total acreage since Park Drive and onsite streets are not deducted from the gross acreage for the purpose of calculating density. Engineering: 1. A hydraulic analysis is required to demonstrate that the proposed drainage facilities ar« adequately sized. 2, The brow ditch proposed to be located behind lots 10-14 does not meet City standards with regards to lot drainage. City standards require that these pads be graded so that drainage of each lot is directed towards Monroe Street. 98 FR1 08:53 CITY OLCARLSBAD COM DE v W 3. The brow ditches proposed for lots 3, 4 and 5 should be designed so that each of these lots conveys drainage independent of each other. We suggest relocating the brow ditch along lot 3 to be along lot 4; and modifying the brow ditches on lots 4 and 5 so that they carry drainage from their own respective areas. 4. Please note that the City's Master Drainage Plan indicates the need for a 24" storm drain on the stretch of Park Drive from Monroe Street to Tamarack Avenue, and then west on Tamarack Avenue where it will join an existing drainage facility. This project is required to install this storm drain, along with a reimbursement agreement for the offsite portion. The City may be willing to provide fee credits to offset the costs of these improvements. An option is for this project to contain onsite mitigation so that the project storm runoff is equal to the current rate of runoff, and downstream flow is not increased. Attached is a redlined check print set of the project. Please return this plan set with the corrected plans to assist us in our continued review. file City of Carlsbad Planning Department October 16, 1997 James May 3926 Park Drive Carlsbad, CA. 92008 SUBJECT: PRE 97-68- MAY SUBDIVISION APN: 207-061-07-00 A preliminary review of your project was conducted on September 25, 1997. Listed below are the issues raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your project. The preliminary review does not represent an in-depth analysis of your project. Additional issues of concern may be raised after your application is submitted and processed for a more specific and detailed review. Planning: 1. The proposed concept for the subdivision of larger than 10,000 square foot lots is acceptable and appears compatible with the surrounding zoning. 2. Processing the request will require a Tentative Tract map, a Coastal Development Permit, a Zone Change, a Local Coastal Program Amendment and a Site Development Plan for the project's affordable housing component. The City will process all of the applications including the Local Coastal Program Amendment which will also require subsequent Coastal Commission approval. 3. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that projects greater than seven units/lots provide affordable housing onsite. An affordable housing agreement shall be made a condition of approval for the tentative map and the agreement may identify that the project will satisfy the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance through the payment of fees or purchase of credits. Staffs preference is that the inclusionary units be provided onsite. Contact Debbie Fountain of the Housing and Redevelopment office regarding the provision of "affordable" housing. 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-O894 PRE 97-68 MAY SUBDPPTSION October 16, 1997 Page 2 Engineering: 1. A hydraulic analysis is required to demonstrate that the proposed drainage facilities are adequately sized. 2. The open brow ditch proposed to be located along Lot 3, and behind Lots 4, 5, and 10- 14 will require frequent maintenance and could become a nuisance. Instead of a brow ditch, we recommend a drainage pipe with a series of inlets to serve each lot. Alternatively, the lot elevations may be modified so that drainage from each lot is directed towards the street. Any drainage facility to be located along these lots will require the establishment of a private easement. 3. It appears that offsite drainage from the east currently drains across the southeast portion of this property. Please note that this proposed development must maintain this drainage pattern and not divert drainage around the property. 4. The City's Master Drainage Plan indicates the need for a 24" storm drain on the stretch of Park Drive from Monroe Street to Tamarack Avenue, and then west on Tamarack Avenue where it will join an existing drainage facility. This project may be required to install this storm drain, along with a reimbursement agreement for the offsite portion. The City may also be willing to provide fee credits to offset the costs of these improvements. An option is for this project to contain onsite mitigation so that the project storm runoff is equal to the current rate of runoff, and downstream flow is not increased. 5. If a formal development application is to be submitted for this project, we recommend that a soils investigation include a determination of the presence of any pesticides or other materials that might be considered hazardous. 6. The project plans should indicate that overhead utilities will be relocated underground. Please contact Christer Westman at (760) 438-1161, extension 4448 or Ken Quon at extension 4380 if you have any questions. Sincerely, GAR/E. WAYNE/ Assistant Planning Director GEW:CW:kr Michael J. Holzmiller Bobbie Hoder Ken Quon File Copy Mike Smith Data Entry Bill Plummer r October 15, 1997 TO: CHRISTER WESTMAN, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FROM: Associate Engineer Quon PRE 97-69, MAY SUBDIVISION We offer the following comments: 1. A hydraulic analysis is required to demonstrate that the proposed drainage facilities are adequately sized. 2. The open brow ditch proposed to be located along Lot 3, and behind Lots 4, 5, and 10-14 will require frequent maintenance and could become a nuisance. Instead of a brow ditch, we recommend a drainage pipe with a series of inlets to serve each lot. Alternatively, the lot elevations may be modified so that drainage from each lot is directed towards the street. Any drainage facility to be located along these lots will require the establishment of a private easement. 3. It appears that offsite drainage from the east currently drains across the southeast portion of this property. Please note that this proposed development must maintain this drainage pattern and not divert drainage around the property. 4. The City's Master Drainage Plan indicates the need for a 24" storm drain on the stretch of Park Drive from Monroe Street to Tamarack Avenue, and then west on Tamarack Avenue where it will join an existing drainage facility. This project may be required to install this storm drain, along with a reimbursement agreement for the offsite portion. The City may also be willing to provide fee credits to offset the costs of these improvements. An option is for this project to contain onsite mitigation so that the project storm runoff is equal to the current rate of runoff, and downstream flow is not increased. 5. If a formal development application is to be submitted for this project, we recommend that a soils investigation include a determination of the presence of any pesticides or other materials that might be considered hazardous. 6. The project plans should indicate that overhead utilities will be relocated underground. Please forward the red-lined check print to the applicant. If you have questions regarding any of the comments above, please contact me at extension 4380. KENNETH W. QUON Associate Engineer c: City Engineer Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer COMMUNITY:MAY ENG COMMENTS ISSUES RESOLUTION MEETING Project: Senior Meeting Date: September 28, 1997 Attendees: ! • Issues Resolution . No. 1. Issue When is an SDP required for the processing of affordable housing units? a. Subdivision of land, no units now, affordable on-site, no standards modifications. b. PUD or straight subdivision (with/without units now) with affordable off-site c. Affordable units purchased off-site d. Affordable units provided off-site Jfv^M&r^ | Ifef^^^-' V V^^V'Wi' tX f ^~''^ *' ' 'V V ^ ' vAvj ^ , Resolution Required Processing Method a. CT with condition for affordable housing agreement (addresses phasing, location), no SDP b. CT & SDP c. CT with affordable housing agreement recorded prior to final map d. SDP n i* A ' B t^i- /-•''% ,•' \ V./-5 r-/ \ !<\f^r\ I /$ -, f& ' \ fi^' s^*"'*t T / i\ y"- /•-A-----'?" ?r V ' >\ hft' 5*u \/-'Y' ^^^1 . •>.'• V- y^j^-^-- * ^-' HW \.v'7 V/?i* .^ f V • ' ~""^ • CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 CARLSBAD ..LLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 '•"-•' ' -?"--x-' - '••-:..-;-• :. 434-2867"""••'''!, •'••:•'"•.- -"'''. J: •• REC'D FROM -K^ fcl?^DATE ACCOUNT NO. -Wto?€c/ - >• : '. •'" •' "'/:' ' '•'" •• ' • ''"'.-• - '• ':i: - •-.- ' ' ; ,:--'"•' • •. ' " ' - -:, RECEIPT JNO! 4SSii DESCRIPTION ^t f7^fV. • ' •'•;•(• -v • '.'•• •-'••• ,; --. ;-, , .... ;. ..... :• ,. .w®^2^ ".• .:S:' ••'.:. •.-'-, -' ./' ->••• •' -;,'- ":. :. ' .,'. * '- • -i - .. - ' «., •: '--; 's"..: . •. , . - • • • ----- '••, -..--•• i" '- •.-.-- • - NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY TOTAL AMOUNT ' -/*10'~~ - 0001 01 02 . • : C-PRHT " J2^,W '. • \ - •-• *V - .' ,""' '- •'-;•""'- - ' •'- " f'' ' "' '; ; ^ 'i- .-;;,-• -i :-"-•- . >-;-;' 'J> '.-:•: ,-'". :.V/^. -.;; Printed on recycled paper.CASH REGISTER PRELIMINARY REVIEW APPLICATION PROJECT NAME: \ 34-~ZS J APPLICANT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: <£*/?&&&?& PROJECT ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(S) (APN): 2O"7— DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL (ADD ATTACHMENT IF NECESSARY) WOULD YOU LIKE TO ORALLY PRESENT YOUR PROPOSAL TO YOUR ASSIGNED STAFF PLANNER/ENGINEER? YES NO PLEASE LIST THE NAMES OF ALL STAFF MEMBERS YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY SPOKEN TO REGARDING THIS PROJECT. IF NONE, PLEASE SO STATE. FOR CITY USE ONLY PROJECT NUMBER:«77- FEE REQUIRED/DATE FEE PAID: RECEIPT NO.: RECEIVED BY: I/ FRM0025 3/96 PAGE 3 of 3 Phuoc V. Pham James A. Laret, P.E. Wayne W. Wheeler, P.L.S. Dennis R. McCarty, P.L.S. CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • G.P.S. SURVEYING September 18, 1997 Job #482 City of Carlsbad Planning Dept 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad Ca 92009-1576 Re; Preliminary Review, 14 Lot Subdivision, APN 207-061-07 Park Drive, May Subdivision Dear Planning Dept., In 1994 the May's applied for a Preliminary Review (PRE 94-23) for a 14 Lot Residential Subdivision which is the same Tentative Map being presented under this Preliminary Review request. The applicants never submitted a formal Tentative Map Application based upon the previous Preliminary Review but they intend to now. Your staff has suggested that we reapply for a new Preliminary Review for the subject property which is the purpose of this submittal. I have addressed the comments made by your department under PRE 94-23 and reflected most of them on the accompanying Tentative Map. We are aware that a Tentative Map and Rezone Application are needed for this project. The applicants do not wish to process a Site Development Plan at this time because the architecture and floor plans for each lot have not been established as yet. The applicants seek to pay into the Affordable Housing fund instead of providing onsite units if allowed. Based upon our Vesting Deed and our Title Report from First American Title Company the Fee Ownership of this property runs to the centerline of Park Drive and to the sideline of Monroe Street as shown by the heavy line shown on our Map. The owner is aware of the requirement to replace removed pine trees along Monroe Street as a Map Condition. Should the drainage along the back of lots 10 thru 14 need to be placed in an enclosed below ground private drain system, the applicants would do so under the project's Grading Plans. Surface waters entering the site from the east would be collected and adequately transported across this site. A storm drain study will be prepared with the project's Grading and Improvement Plans which will insure no negative down stream impacts as a result of this development. Small amounts of storm water eminate from this site and from the east and so no extensive drainage facilities are anticipated. The applicants have previously performed a Preliminary Soils Investigation and a Phase I Soils Investigation on the site which will need to be updated. No significant issues have been raised as a result of these studies. 5708 Calzada Del Bosque P.O. Box 9661 Rancho Santa Fe CA 92067 6197569374 FAX 6197564231 City of Carlsbad, September 22, 1997 Page Two I have attached a copy of your previous response letter for PRE 94-23 and we ask that you re-review this Map in light of any City regulatory changes made since 1994. We thank you for your time and we ask that you/contact us should any questions arise in your review. .E. 29375 Letters\482carlsb City of Carlsbad Planning Department August 2, 1994 James A. Laret, P.E. 5708 Calzada Del Bosque PO Box 9661 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 SUBJECT: PRE 94-23 - MAY MAP APN: 207-061-07 Preliminary review of your project was conducted on July 28, 1994. Listed below are the issues raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your project. The preliminary review does not represent an in-depth analysis of your project. Additional issues of concern may be raised after your application is submitted and processed for a more specific and detailed review. Planning: 1. The proposed rezone of the property to R-l-10,000 appears to be compatible with the surrounding zoning, which consists of R-l-7500, R-l-10,000, and R-l-15,000 zoning. According to the City Zoning map, the zone boundary line separating the R-l-7500 Zone from the R-l-15,000 Zone appears to be in the correct place on your site plan. A rezone will require an application for a zone change, which is subject to the City Council's approval. A subdivision will require an application for tentative tract map. 2. Because this project consists of creating more than six dwelling units, the project is subject to meeting the inclusionary housing requirements by constructing new units for lower-income households (Section 21.85.040 of the City Zoning Ordinance). Not less than fifteen percent of the base residential units must be set aside for occupancy to lower-income households. The base equals the site's net developable acreage multiplied by the growth control point (the net acreage is the same as the gross subdivision area since Park Drive and the on-site street are not considered undevelopable per section 21.53.230 of the Zoning Ordinance). 3.2 (gcp) X 4.67 (net developable acres) = 14.94 dwelling units ; rounded down to 14 dwelling units. 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619)438-1161 PRE 94-23 - May Map August 2, 1994 Page 2 14.94 (base) X .15 (inclusionary housing) = 2.24; rounded up to 3 dwelling units set aside for low-income housing (or 2 units plus a fee equal to the remaining fractional unit times the average subsidy needed to make affordable to low-income household). These units may be constructed as second dwelling units in conformance with the standards established by Gty Council Ordinance No. NS-283. , The proposed preliminary review does not show how affordable housing requirements will be met. This information must be provided through application of a Preliminary Review for Affordable Housing Projects (see guidelines for preliminary review submittal requirements) and, subsequently, a Site Development Plan (SDP). We suggest that you meet with Evan Becker in the Housing and Redevelopment Department prior to application submittal. Evan will then set up a project concept meeting with the City's Housing Team. SDPs are processed pursuant to Chapter 21.06 of the Zoning Ordinance and must be processed for all affordable housing projects. As part of the SDP submittal, the low-income unit floor plans and building elevations, the lots designated for low-income households, and the precise proposal describing how the inclusionary housing ordinance will be met must be provided. In addition, an affordable housing agreement must be submitted and approved by the Qty prior to issuance of a final map. 3. Map 2647 of Carlsbad Highlands shows the property line along Park Drive at the edge of the street rather than the center as shown on your map. Please provide verification of property line location with your application submittal. If the property is smaller in area due to incorrect representation on your preliminary plans, the project's affordable housing requirements and density may be affected. 4. The property is in the California Coastal Zone and is subject to Coastal Commission approval. I suggest that you contact the Coastal Commission regarding their project requirements. 5. Where possible, the existing pine trees should be preserved. Trees which are removed must be replaced on a one-to-one basis. Engineering: 1. Lot No. 6 does not meet the City's minimum 33' lot width requirement. 2. The open brow ditch proposed to be located behind lot Nos. 10-14 will require frequent maintenance and could become a nuisance. Instead of a brow ditch, we recommend a drainage pipe with a series of inlets to serve each lot, or a modification of the lot elevations so that drainage from each lot is directed towards Monroe Street. Any drainage facility to be located in the rear of these lots will require the establishment of a private easement. PRE 94-23 - May Map August 2, 1994 Page 3 . 3. It appears that offsite drainage from the east currently drains across the southeast portion of this property. Please note that this proposed development must maintain this drainage pattern and not divert drainage around the property. 4. The City's Master Drainage Plan indicates the need for a 24" storm drain on the stretch of Park Drive from Monroe Street to Tamarack Avenue, and then west on Tamarack Avenue where it will join an existing drainage facility. This project may be required to install this storm drain, with the offsite portion to be provided either through a reimbursement arrangement or with City capital funding. An option is for this project to contain onsite mitigation so that the project storm runoff is equal to the current rate of runoff, and downstream flow is not increased. 5. If a formal development application is to be submitted for this project, we recommend that a soils investigation include a determination of the presence of any pesticides or other materials that might be considered hazardous. Enclosed is a redlined plan and the inclusionary housing ordinance and guidelines. Please contact David Rick at (619) 438-1161, extension 4328 if you have any questions. Since p: WAYNE Assistant Planning Director GEW:DR:lh c: Michael Holzmiller Bobbie Hoder Adrienne Landers Bob Wojcik Ken Quon File Copy Data Entry August 1, 1994 TO: DAVID RICK, PLANNING TECHNICIAN II FROM: Associate Engineer VIA: Principal Land Use Engineer PRE 94-23, MAY TENTATIVE MAP We offer the following comments: 1. Lot no. 6 does not meet the City's minimum 33' lot width requirement. 2. The open brow ditch proposed to be located behind lot nos. 10-14 will require frequent maintenance and could become a nuisance. Instead of a brow ditch, we recommend a drainage pipe with a series of inlets to serve each lot, or a modification of the lot elevations so that drainage from each lot is directed towards Monroe Street. Any drainage facility to be located in the rear of these lots will require the establishment of a private easement. 3. It appears that off site drainage from the east currently drains across the southeast portion of this property. Please note that this proposed development must maintain this drainage pattern and not divert drainage around the property. 4. The City's Master Drainage Plan indicates the need for a 24" storm drain on the stretch of Park Drive from Monroe Street to Tamarack Avenue, and then west on Tamarack Avenue where it will join an existing drainage facility. This project may be required to install this storm drain, with the offsite portion to be provided either through a reimbursement arrangement or with City capital funding. An option is for this project to contain onsite mitigation so that the project storm runoff is equal to the current rate of runoff, and downstream flow is not increased. 5. If a formal development application is to be submitted for this project, we recommend that a soils investigation include a determination of the presence of any pesticides or other materials that might be considered hazardous. Please forward the red-lined check print to the applicant. If you have questions regarding any of the comments above, please contact me at extension 4380. KENNETH W. QUON Associate Engineer CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE \ CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 434-2867 REC'D FROM. .»*" -. DATE ACCOUNT NO. C-f^AsL^- - - - RECEIPT NO. DESCRIPTION ~fh#J* /fltS) \lA*.t^~sJi /&i/*Jfc,/ • ' :/ " . &j if/u^j) r ' - -^ • •- ?ib2 v?^/^ " . , - — - - - NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY TOTAL AMOUNT An A/-,/ /sT^-C- v_x / / - - ^_E>C'rfT , ^?"j»f*0i_j t Tv* 1 1 ~- ^-r' •• ^ - - - • - " /J-- ^ Printed oh recycled paper.CASH REGISTER PRELIMINARY REVIEW APPUCATION PROJECT NAME' CITY OF CARLSBAD TENTATIVE MAP (MAY) APPLICANT NAME:MR' JAMES D°UGLAS MAY MAILING ADDRESS: 3926 PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD CA92008 PHONE NUMBER:434-3121 PROJECT ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(S) (APN):.207-061-07 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL (ADD ATTACHMENT IF NECESSARY): **SEE ATTACHED LETTER WOULD YOU LIKE TO ORALLY PRESENT YOUR PROPOSAL TO YOUR ASSIGNED STAFF PLANNER/ENGINEER? YES NO g n ^i PLEASE LIST THE NAMES OF ALL STAFF MEMBERS YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY SPOKEN TO REGARDING THIS PROJECT. IF NONE, PLEASE SO STATE. ONLY COUNTER PERSONNEL FOR CITY USE ONLY PROJECT NUMBER:PR £ FEE REQUIRED/DATE FEE PAID: RECEIPT NO.: RECEIVED BY: Dana M. Seguin, P.L.S CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • G.P.S. SURVEYING July 14, 1994 Client No. 482 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Attn: Mr. Michael Holzmiller Re: Preliminary Subdivision Review, "May" Subdivision A.P.N. 207-061-07 Dear Mr. Holzmiller, Please find attached our application for a Preliminary Review of the May's proposal to subdivide their property on Park Drive and Monroe Street in the City of Carlsbad. At this time, the site is being utilized as a flower growing operation and this use has existed for a number of years. One single family residence exists on the site and the applicants currently reside at this location. The surrounding property has been developed with single family residences on lots that range from approximately 7,500 square feet to 22,000 square feet. The subject site currently has two zones on it equally split between the R-1-7500 and the R-1-15000 Zone Designations. The subject site is a transition property between the R-1-7500 zoned property immediately south and west of the site and the R-1-10000 and the R-1-15000 zoned property immediately north and east respectively of the site. The applicant seeks to rezone the entire property to a compatible R-1-10000 zone and subdivide the site consistent with this new zone. All streets are to be built to City Standards and all public utilities are to be provided to each newly created lot. Pad grading is proposed as part of this project as well as the construction of all permanent drainage facilities. The one single residence on site is to remain and the existing green house structures are to be removed as part of the development. We believe that the proposed lot sizes and lot configurations are very compatible with all surrounding properties. This is a zone transition property and therefore the applicant's request to seek a rezone to the R-1-10000 from the split zone is a reasonable one. We would appreciate your preliminary review of our proposal and ask that we be provided an opportunity to orally present this project to your staff at the appropriate time. 5708 Calzada Del Bosque P.O. Box 9661 Rancho Santa Fe CA 92067 619 756 9374 FAX 619 756 4231 Mr. Michael Holzmiller July 14, 1994 Page Two Thank you for your consideration and we ask that you contact us should you need any further information. 29375 \lttr\482holzmi