HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDP 89-49A; Peluso Residence; Hillside Development Permit (HDP)CITY OF CARLSBAD ^
LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION
1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECKBOXES)
• Administrative Permit - 2nd
Dwelling Unit
• Administrative Variance
• Coastal Development Permit
n Conditional Use Permit
Q Condominium Permit
• Environmental Impact
Assessment
• General Plan Amendment
]^ Hillside Development Permit
Q Local Coastal Plan Amendment
Q Master Plan
• Non-Residential Planned
Development
Q Planned Development Permit
(FOR DEPARTMENT
USE ONLY)
•
Q Planned Industrial Permit
• Planning Commission
Determination
Q Precise Development Plan
Q Redevelopment Permit
Q Site Development Plan
Q Special Use Permit
• Specific Ptan
TontotivG Porool Mop
Obtain from Engineering Department
Tentative Tract Map
• Variance
• Zone Change
• List other applications not
specified
IFOR DEPARTMENT
USE ONLYI
2)
3)
4)
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).:
PROJECT NAME:
215-491-39
PELUSO RESIDENCE
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 4,500 square foot SFR
5) OWNER NAME (Print or Type)
PHILIP P. PELUSO
6) APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type)
SAME AS OWNER
MAILING ADDRESS
26 31 ACUNA COURT
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE
LA COSTA, CA 92009 (760) 431-1115
CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE
1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE
INFOR^MVHDN IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY
KNpWLJp^^'-^^'^^^
1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THF
OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND
CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
Pm^TURE* DATE SIGNATURE DATE
7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 49 of Carlsbad Tract No. 75-4, Map No. 8302
NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT FtEQUIRlNd MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE PILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M.
A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRIMG ONLV ONE APPLICATION Bg INLEDi MUSt BE SUBMITTED PftlOR tO 4:00 P.M.
Form 16 PAGE 1 OF 2
• 8) LOCATION OF PROJECT:
ON THE
BETWEEN
EL FUERTE STREET, LA COSTA
SOUTH
(NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST)
ACUNA COURT
(NAME OF STREET)
STREET ADDRESS
SIDE OF
AND
EL FUERTE STREET
(NAME OF STREET)
BOLERO STREET
(NAME OF STREET)
9) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
10) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS
13) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION
16) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED
PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE
19) GROSS SITE ACREAGE
22) EXISTING ZONING
NA
2.4
P-C
11) NUMBER OF EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
14) PROPOSED IND OFFICE/
SQUARE FOOTAGE
17) PROPOSED INCREASE IN
ADT
20) EXISTING GENERAL
PLAN
23) PROPOSED ZONING
NA
RL
P-C
12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
1 5) PROPOSED COMM
SQUARE FOOTAGE
18) PROPOSED SEWER
USAGE IN EDU
21) PROPOSED GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATION
NA
RL
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 EJNURY FOR THJS PURPOSE
FOR CITY USE ONLY
FEE COMPUTATION
I OTAL FEE REQUIRED
1:10 ' 0 a
\oo • <^ 0
RECEIVED
JUN 1 3 1997
CiTY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT.
DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED
RECEIVED BY:
DATE FEE PAID RECEIPT NO.
tonii 16 PAGE 2 OF 2
<^.^(> (r^^lhj^'^ll • CITY^ OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSiADmLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, cRlFORNIA 92008
434-2867
REC'D FROM I
C-PRMT 450.00
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRiPTION AMOUNT
H DP /•hiU4v/( H Dp 5^/- r 4) —
—
50
MVice C>pp. 1 nf) —
r
RECEIPT NO. 39800 NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY TOTAL
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statemem or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all
applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City
Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. APPLICANT
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the
application.
pll>l,h 7^ 'P^/iJJ-0
])IAJU^ f>i. T^&/u^o
OWNER
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the
property involved.
iTO
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership,
list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares
in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of
the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust.
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad. CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894
Have you had rr^k than $250 worth of business trai^k;ted with any member of
City staff, Board^^ommissions, Committees and/or C^fficil within the past twelve
(12) months?
I I Yes Q No If yes, please indicate person(s):
Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club,
fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city
and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or
combination acting as a unit."
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
of ownfef/date ' Signature of applicant/date
Philip P. Peluso Same
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Disclosure Statement 10/96 Page 2 of 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION
PROJECT NAME: PELUSO RESIDENCE
APPLICANTNAME: PHILIP P. PELUSO
Description/Explanation:
The Applicant proposes to constaict a new single family residence on a 2.398 acre site located
on the Southwesterly side of El Fuerte Street in La Costa. The site is can generally be described as
moderately to steeply sloping to the South. The average existing ground slope gradient is 33.4%. The
Applicant wishes to construct a 4,500 square foot, two story home on this site and to construct the
minimum grading required to allow for the construction of the home, construct a driveway to a three
car garage, and to construct a moderate sized yard that would allow for a lap pool and yard area.
The proposed residence is located on the project site as close to El Fuerte Street as possible.
The site is moderately sloping (15% to 25%) for the first 175 feet Southerly and adjacent to El Fuerte
Street and the proposed grading is restricted to this area. The driveway crosses the lot from West to
East to allow fbr the garage and house elevations to be as low as possible with respect to the adjacent
street elevation without requiring excessively large walls or cuts adjacent to the street. The yard area
on the Southwesterly side ofthe house is set 1.5 feet lower than the house slab grade to minimize the
proposed grading as much as possible. An existing 24" storm drain pipe crossing under El Fuerte
Street outlets on the property near the Northwesterly corner. This pipe requires the construction of
a 4 foot to 12 foot retaining wall along the Northwesterly edge of the proposed pad fill area to allow
forthe construction of the proposed driveway. The site (design is similar to other existing residences
in the area, and is almost identical in site design concept to the existing SFR adjacent to and Easterly
of the project site.
This application is an amendment to the existing HDP No. 89-49 submitted to the City of
Carlsbad on October 11,1989 by Alexander Zilitsky. The present owner has commissioned a new
house design prepared by Architect Gary Dougherty. The floor plan and grading proposed is the result
of several design iterations between the Architect and Engineer. The proposed site design is similar
to the previously approved HDP except that the driveway turnaround area is reduced and the building
footprint more compact resulting in reduced grading.
SOUTHLAND TITLE
OF SAN DIEGO
4520 EXECUTIVE DRIVE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121
(619)552-0333 FAX IMO. {619)458-0546
MARA ESCROW
701 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, SUITE 13 0
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009
ATTENTION: TOMMY WILLIAMS
YOUR NO. 2-9031-TW/PELUSO
OUR NO. 56031-31
DATED AS OF JULY 24, 1996 AT 7:30 A.M.
IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED APPLICATION FOR A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE
SOUTHLAND TITLE OF SAIM DIEGO
HEREBY REPORTS THAT IT IS PREPARED TO ISSUE, OR CAUSE TO BE ISSUED AS OF THE DATE
HEREOF, A POLICY OR POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE DESCRIBING THE LAND AND THE ESTATE OR
INTEREST THEREIN HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, INSURING AGAINST LOSS WHICH MAY BE SUSTAINED
BY REASON OF ANY DEFECT, LIEN OR ENCUMBRANCE NOT SHOWN OR REFERRED TO AS AN
EXCEPTION IN SCHEDULE B OR NOT EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE PURSUANT TO THE PRINTED
SCHEDULES, CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS OF SAID POUCY FORMS.
THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS FROM THE COVERAGE OF SAID POLICY OR POLICIES
ARE SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED LIST. COPIES OF THE POLICY FORMS SHOULD BE READ. THEY
ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE OFFICE WHICH ISSUED THIS REPORT.
THIS REPORT (AND ANY SUPPLEMENTS OR AMENDMENTS HERETO) IS ISSUED SOLELY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FACILITATING THE ISSUANCE OF A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE AND NO LIABILITY IS
ASSUMED HEREBY. IF IT IS DESIRED THAT LIABILITY BE ASSUMED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A
POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE, A BINDER OR COMMITMENT SHOULD BE REQUESTED.
PLEASE READ THE EXCEPTIONS SHOWN OR REFERRED TO BELOW AND THE EXCEPTIONS AND
EXCLUSIONS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT "A" OF THIS REPORT CAREFULLY. THE EXCEPTIONS AND
EXCLUSIONS ARE MEANT TO PROVIDE YOU WITH NOTICE OF MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT COVERED
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY AND SHOULD BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS PRELIMINARY REPORT IS NOT A WRITTEN REPRESENTATION AS
TO THE CONDITION OF TITLE AND MAY NOT LIST ALL LIENS, DEFECTS AND ENCUMBRANCES
AFFECTING TITLE TO THE LAND.
THE FORM OF POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE CONTEMPLATED BY THIS REPORT IS:
1. CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY [X]
2. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY []
3. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION RESIDENTIAL TITLTWSURANCE POLICY []
4. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLIC/FO ^M B []
TITLE 0FFICER7~DAN KVACHUK
ORDER NO.: 56031-31
SCHEDULE A
THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS
REPORT IS:
A FEE
TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN:
MAYA ZELITSKY, TRUSTEE OF THE ZELITSKY SURVIVOR'S TRUST UTD JUNE 20,
1989, AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST AND TO MAYA ZELITSKY, TRUSTEE OF
THE ZELITSKY MARITAL TRUST UTD JUNE 20, 1989, AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF
INTEREST AS TENANTS IN COMMON
THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
SEE ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A"
SOUTHLAND TITLE OF SAN DIEGO
2
ORDER NO.: 56031-31
EXHIBIT "A"
LOT 4 9 OF CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 75-4 LA COSTA ESTATES NORTH, IN THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO
MAP THEREOF NO. 8302, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 5, 1976.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM 1/16TH OF ALL COAL, OIL, GAS AND OTHER MINERAL
DEPOSITS CONTAINED IN THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, AS RESERVED BY THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA IN PATENT RECORDED APRIL 22, 1954 IN BOOK 5212, PAGE 490
OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, THE RIGHT TO THE USE OF THE SURFACE, INCLUDING
ITS RIGHT TO ENTER SUCH LANDS TO A DEPTH OF 500 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE
WAS RELEASED AND WAS QUITCLAIMED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO LA
COSTA LAND COMPANY BY A QUITCLAIM RECORDED JUNE 30, 1971 AS FILE/PAGE
NO. 141047 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTING 1/2 INTEREST IN OIL AND MINERAL RIGHTS FOR A PERIOD OF
20 YEARS FROM DATE OF RECOMMENDATION TO BE CONTINUED IF OIL OR
MINERALS SHALL BE DEVELOPED WITHIN FIVE MILES OF THE PROPERTY,
OTHERWISE TO REVERT TO THE LAND.
RIGHTS OP EXPLORATION SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED, HOWEVER, SLANT DRILLING
MAY BE MADE FROM AN ADJOINING PROPERTY, PROVIDED THAT THIS DRILLING BE
AT LEAST 100 FEET IN DEPTH MEASURED ANYWHERE ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED,
IN LOTS 3 AND 4 WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER SECTION 30,
TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST AND THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO
MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY AS RESERVED BY
GERMAIN M. GRAEF, HORACE L. GRAEF, AND ROBERT W. GRAEF IN DEED
RECORDED JUNE 27, 1960 AS FILE/PAGE NO. 129955 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
SOUTHLAND TITLE OF SAN DIEGO
3
ORDER NO.: 56031-31
SCHEDULE B
AT THE DATE HEREOF EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND
EXCLUSIONS IN THE POLICY FORM DESIGNATED ON THE FACE PAGE OF THIS REPORT WOULD BE AS
FOLLOWS:
1. PROPERTY TAXES, INCLUDING ANY ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED WITH TAXES,
TO BE LEVIED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996 - 1997 WHICH ARE A LIEN
NOT YET PAYABLE.
2. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES, IF ANY, ASSESSED PURSUANT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 3.5 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75) OF
THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
3. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL
THERETO AS SHOWN OR AS OFFERED FOR DEDICATION ON THE RECORDED
MAP SHOWN BELOW.
MAP NO: 83 02
RECORDED: MAY 5, 1976
EASEMENT PURPOSE: SEWER
AFFECTS: THE SOUTHERLY 20 FEET OF SAID LAND
4. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL
THERETO AS SHOWN OR AS OFFERED FOR DEDICATION ON THE RECORDED
MAP SHOWN BELOW.
MAP NO: 83 02
RECORDED: MAY 5, 1976
EASEMENT PURPOSE: DRAINAGE
AFFECTS: THAT NORTHWESTERLY PORTION OF SAID LAND AS
DELINEATED ON SAID MAP
5. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL
THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT
GRANTED TO: LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
PURPOSE: SEWER PIPELINE OR PIPELINES, MANHOLES,
LATERALS AND APPURTENANCES
RECORDED: MAY 12, 1976 AS FILE/PAGE NO. 76-143526 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS
AFFECTS: THE SOUTHERLY 20 FEET OF SAID LAND
LIMITATIONS ON THE USE, BY THE OWNERS OF SAID LAND, OF THE
EASEMENT AREA AS SET OUT IN THE EASEMENT DOCUMENT HEREINABOVE
SHOWN.
6. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (DELETING THEREFROM ANY
RESTRICTIONS BASED ON RACE, COLOR OR CREED) AS SET FORTH IN THE
DOCUMENT RECORDED MAY 19, 1976 AS FILE/PAGE NO. 76-152036 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
SAID COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS PROVIDE THAT A
VIOLATION THEREOF SHALL NOT DEFEAT THE LIEN OF ANY MORTGAGE OR
DEED OF TRUST MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE.
SOUTHLAND TITLE OF SAN DIEGO
4
ORDER NO, 56031-31
A DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN INDEBTEDNESS IN THE AMOUNT SHOWN
BELOW, AND ANY OTHER OBLIGATIONS SECURED THEREBY:
AMOUNT: $52,200.00
DATED: FEBRUARY 27, 1977
TRUSTOR: KAZIMIERZ BACZYNSKI AND LINDA RUTH BACZYNSKI,
HUSBAND AND WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS
TITLE INSURANCE AND TRUST COMPANY, A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
LA COSTA LAND COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS
CORPORATION
MAY 6, 1977 AS FILE/PAGE NO. 77-171224 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS
TRUSTEE:
BENEFICIARY:
RECORDED
WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING RECONVEYANCE INFORMATION OR
AN INDEMNITY FROM THE PROPER ENTITY REGARDING THE ABOVE
MENTIONED DEED OF TRUST. WE SHALL NOTIFY YOU OF OUR FINDINGS
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
UNTIL ADVISED IN WRITING, PLEASE CONSIDER SAID ITEM.
A DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN INDEBTEDNESS IN THE AMOUNT SHOWN
BELOW, AND ANY OTHER OBLIGATIONS SECURED THEREBY:
AMOUNT:
DATED:
TRUSTOR:
TRUSTEE:
BENEFICIARY:
RECORDED:
$120,000.00
DECEMBER 3, 1993
MAYA ZELITSKY, TRUSTEE OF THE ZELITSKY FAMILY
TRUST U.D.T. DATED JUNE 20, 1989
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
ALEXANDER KREMENETSKY AND IRINA KREMENETSKY,
HUSBAND AND WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS
DECEMBER 9, 1993 AS FILE/PAGE NO. 1993-
0828085 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING RECONVEYANCE INFORMATION OR
AN INDEMNITY FROM THE PROPER ENTITY REGARDING THE ABOVE
MENTIONED DEED OF TRUST. WE SHALL NOTIFY YOU OF OUR FINDINGS
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
UNTIL ADVISED IN WRITING, PLEASE CONSIDER SAID ITEM.
A DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN INDEBTEDNESS IN THE AMOUNT SHOWN
BELOW, AND ANY OTHER OBLIGATIONS SECURED THEREBY:
AMOUNT:
DATED:
TRUSTOR:
TRUSTEE:
BENEFICIARY;
RECORDED;
$130,000.00
MARCH 24, 1995
MAYA ZELITSKY, TRUSTEE OF THE ALEXANDER
ZELITSKY AND MAYA ZELITSKY 1989 TRUST UDT
JUNE 20, 1989
LA JOLLA PACIFIC BANCORP, A
CORPORATION
HOME INVESTMENT AND LOAN, A
CORPORATION
MARCH 24, 1995 AS FILE/PAGE NO. 1995-0122699
OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
SOUTHLAND TITLE OF SAN DIEGO
5
ORDER NO.: 56031-31
10. MATTERS WHICH MAY BE DISCLOSED BY AN INSPECTION OR BY A SURVEY
OF SAID LAND THAT IS SATISFACTORY TO THIS COMPANY, OR BY
INQUIRY OF THE PARTIES IN POSSESSION THEREOF.
AN INSPECTION OF SAID LAND HAS BEEN ORDERED; UPON ITS
COMPLETION WE WILL ADVISE YOU OF OUR FINDINGS.
11. ANY INVALIDITY OR DEFECT IN THE TITLE OF THE VESTEES IN THE
EVENT THAT THE TRUST REFERRED TO IN THE VESTING PORTION OF
SCHEDULE A IS INVALID OR FAILS TO GRANT SUFFICIENT POWERS TO
THE TRUSTEE (S) OR IN THE EVENT THERE IS A LACK OF COMPLIANCE
WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THE TRUST INSTRUMENT.
END OF SCHEDULE B
SOUTHLAND TITLE OF SAN DIEGO
6
^ ORDERNO.: 56031-31
SCHEDULE OF NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS
PLEASE CONSIDER AND/OR COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO
THE CLOSE OF ESCROW.
NOTE NO. 1:
IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRUST HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO, THIS
COMPANY WILL REQUIRE THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM BE SUBMITTED FOR
REVIEW PRIOR TO CLOSING:
(A) A CERTIFICATION OF TRUST IN THE FORM OF AN ACKNOWLEDGED
DECLARATION SIGNED BY ALL CURRENTLY ACTING TRUSTEES, CONTAINING
THE INFORMATION SPECIFIED IN THE ATTACHED FORM.
REFERENCE: MAYA ZELITSKY, TRUSTEE OF THE ZELITSKY SURVIVOR'S
TRUST UTD JUNE 20, 1989
NOTE NO. 2:
IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRUST HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO, THIS
COMPANY WILL REQUIRE THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM BE SUBMITTED FOR
REVIEW PRIOR TO CLOSING:
(A) A CERTIFICATION OF TRUST IN THE FORM OF AN ACKNOWLEDGED
DECLARATION SIGNED BY ALL CURRENTLY ACTING TRUSTEES, CONTAINING
THE INFORMATION SPECIFIED IN THE ATTACHED FORM.
REFERENCE; MAYA ZELITSKY, TRUSTEE OF THE ZELITSKY MARITAL
TRUST UTD JUNE 20, 1989
NOTE NO.
WE WILL REQUIRE A STATEMENT OF INFORMATION FROM THE PARTIES
NAMED BELOW IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THIS REPORT, BASED ON THE
EFFECT OF DOCUMENTS, PROCEEDINGS, LIENS, DECREES, OR OTHER
MATTERS WHICH DO NOT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBE SAID LAND, BUT
WHICH, IF ANY DO EXIST, MAY AFFECT THE TITLE OR IMPOSE LIENS OR
ENCUMBRANCES THEREON.
PARTIES: ZELITSKY, MAYA
(NOTE: THE STATEMENT OF INFORMATION IS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE
THE SEARCH AND EXAMINATION OF TITLE UNDER THIS ORDER. ANY
TITLE SEARCH INCLUDES MATTERS THAT ARE INDEXED BY NAME ONLY,
AND HAVING A COMPLETED STATEMENT OF INFORMATION ASSISTS THE
COMPANY IN THE ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN MATTERS WHICH APPEAR TO
INVOLVE THE PARTIES BUT IN FACT AFFECT ANOTHER PARTY WITH THE
SAME OR SIMILAR NAME. BE ASSURED THAT THE STATEMENT OF
INFORMATION IS ESSENTIAL AND WILL BE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
TO THIS FILE.)
SOUTHLAND TITLE OF SAN DIEGO
7
ORDER NO.: 56031-31
NOTE NO. 4
WE WILL REQUIRE A STATEMENT OF INFORMATION FROM THE PARTIES
NAMED BELOW IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THIS REPORT, BASED ON THE
EFFECT OF DOCUMENTS, PROCEEDINGS, LIENS, DECREES, OR OTHER
MATTERS WHICH DO NOT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBE SAID LAND, BUT
WHICH, IF ANY DO EXIST, MAY AFFECT THE TITLE OR IMPOSE LIENS OR
ENCUMBRANCES THEREON.
PARTIES: PELUSO, PHILLIP M. AND DIANE M.
(NOTE: THE STATEMENT OF INFORMATION IS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE
THE SEARCH AND EXAMINATION OF TITLE UNDER THIS ORDER. ANY
TITLE SEARCH INCLUDES MATTERS THAT ARE INDEXED BY NAME ONLY,
AND HAVING A COMPLETED STATEMENT OF INFORMATION ASSISTS THE
COMPANY IN THE ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN MATTERS WHICH APPEAR TO
INVOLVE THE PARTIES BUT IN FACT AFFECT ANOTHER PARTY WITH THE
SAME OR SIMILAR NAME. BE ASSURED THAT THE STATEMENT OF
INFORMATION IS ESSENTIAL AND WILL BE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
TO THIS FILE.)
NOTE NO. 5:
IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BUYERS IN THIS TRANSACTION
ARE:
PHILLIP M. PELUSO AND DIANE M. PELUSO
PLEASE ADVISE US IMMEDIATELY IF THE NAMES ARE MISSPELLED, OR IF
THERE ARE ANY OTHER PARTIES NOT SHOWN HEREIN ABOVE.
NOTE NO.
ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 1985, THE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE WILL
CHARGE, IN ADDITION TO THE REGULAR RECORDING CHARGES. AN EXTRA
$20.00 RECORDING FEE, UNLESS A DOCUMENT EVIDENCING A CHANGE OF
OWNERSHIP IS ACCOMPANIED BY A "PRELIMINARY CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP
REPORT". IN LIEU OF SAID REPORT, SIGNED BY THE TRANSFEREE, THE
RECORDER WILL NOT CHARGE AN EXTRA FEE, IF THE DOCUMENT IS
ACCOMPANIED BY AN AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE TRANSFEREE THAT THE
TRANSFEREE IS IN FACT NOT A RESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA. OUR TITLE
BILLING WILL BE ADJUSTED TO INCLUDE SUCH ADDITIONAL FEES WHEN
APPLICABLE.
SOUTHLAND TITLE OF SAN DIEGO
8
ORDERNO.: 56031-31
NOTE NO. 7:
AS OF JANUARY 1, 1990, CHAPTER 598, CALIFORNIA STATUTES OF 1989
(AB 512; INS. CODE SEC 12413.1) BECAME EFFECTIVE. THE LAW
REQUIRES THAT ALL FUNDS BE DEPOSITED AND AVAILABLE FOR
WITHDRAWAL BY THE TITLE ENTITY'S ESCROW OR SUBESCROW ACCOUNT
PRIOR TO DISBURSEMENT OF ANY FUNDS. ONLY CASH OR WIRED FUNDS
CAN BE GIVEN IMMEDIATE AVAILABILITY UPON DEPOSIT. CASHIER'S
CHECKS, TELLER'S CHECKS AND CERTIFIED CHECKS MAY BE AVAILABLE
ONE BUSINESS DAY AFTER DEPOSIT. ALL OTHER FUNDS SUCH AS
PERSONAL, CORPORATE OR PARTNERSHIP CHECKS AND DRAFTS MAY CAUSE
MATERIAL DELAYS IN DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS ON THIS ORDER. IN
ORDER TO AVOID DELAYS, ALL FUNDING SHOULD BE BY WIRE TRANSFER.
OUTGOING WIRE TRANSFERS WILL NOT BE AUTHORIZED UNTIL
CONFIRMATION OF THE RESPECTIVE INCOMING WIRE TRANSFER OR
AVAILABILITY OF DEPOSITED CHECKS.
OUR WIRING INSTRUCTIONS FOR OUR LOAN PAYOFF ACCOUNT IS:
IMPERIAL BANK
2 01 NORTH FIGUEROA STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
ROUTING NUMBER: 1222-0144-4
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 31-002192
(NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO REFERENCE THE TITLE ORDER NUMBER AND
TITLE OFFICER).
NOTE NO. 8
IF THE TITLE COMPANY IS REQUIRED TO PAY THE REAL PROPERTY TAXES
FOR ANY TAX PARCELS INCLUDED IN THE TRANSACTION, SUFFICIENT
FUNDS WILL BE WITHHELD FROM THE ESCROW TO PAY THE TAXES UNLESS
ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING APPLIES:
A: THE TAXES SHOW AS "PAID" ON THE TAX COLLECTORS ROLLS AS
REPORTED TO THE TITLE COMPANY.
B: THE OWNER/SELLER OF THE PROPERTY CAN PROVIDE ESCROW WITH
SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID. PROOF OF THE
PAYMENT MUST BE BY PHOTOCOPY (FRONT AND BACK) OF THE PAID CHECK
TO THE TAX COLLECTOR. IF PAID BY THE LENDER, A WRITTEN
STATEMENT BY LENDER THAT THE TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID WILL SUFFICE.
NOTE NO.
THERE ARE NO CONVEYANCES AFFECTING SAID LAND, RECORDED WITHIN
SIX (6) MONTHS OF THE DATE OF THIS REPORT.
SOUTHLAND TITLE OF SAN DIEGO
9
ORDERNO.: 56031-31
NOTE NO. 10
PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ARE SHOWN BELOW FOR
PRORATION PURPOSES AND THE AMOUNTS ARE:
FISCAL YEAR 1995 - 1996
1ST INSTALLMENT: $1,666.66 PAID
PENALTY: $NONE
2ND INSTALLMENT: $1,666.66 PAID
PENALTY: $NONE
EXEMPTION: $NONE
LAND: $279,304.00
IMPROVEMENTS: $NONE
PERSONAL PROPERTY: $NONE
CODE AREA: 09053
ASSESSOR'S NO.: 215-491-39-00
NOTE NO. 11:
THE CHARGE FOR A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE, WHEN ISSUED THROUGH
THIS TITLE ORDER, WILL BE BASED ON THE SHORT-TERM RATE.
SOUTHLAND TITLE OF SAN DIEGO
10
s-v A4
L.A COSTA .VfEADOWS 'JHIT WAP .MO 739"/
VSiXn" --v W.I
\ —-"N..
i«--™>»:^.>"«^-^5sr^ "-1?;
5 81
.S •!
S g! fJXrfi ^feW Jtt." «* 6tiSf:!ilT .WV/ tJ'W/
S 3' •n S-
«5-3S, . o
Sol
c —'
o ?.
2 "
3 Si;
1^ 1
I
^ EXHIBIT "A" ^1
LIST OF PRIRIINTED POLICY EXCLUSIONS AND E^KPTIONS
CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY --1990
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise
by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance or govemmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting
or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a
separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect
of any violation of these laws, ordinances or govemmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or
encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
(b)Any govemmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance
resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, bul not excluding from coverage any taking
which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant;
(b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by
the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy;
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy or;
(e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for the estate or interest insured
by this policy.
4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent
owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable doing business laws of the stale in which the land is situated.
5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based
upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law.
6. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate or interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured
lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, stale insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws.
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE (SCHEDULE B - PART I)
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attomeys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of :
1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority tha! levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public
records.
Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the
public records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by
persons in possession thereof.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records.
4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the
public records.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof: (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or
not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records.
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY (10-17-92)
AND AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LEASEHOLD OWNER'S POLICY (10-17-92)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company wiil not pay loss or damage, costs, attomeys' fees or expenses which arise
by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance or govemmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting
or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land: (iii) a
separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect
of any violation of these laws, ordinances or govemmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or
encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
(b)Any govemmental police power not excluded by (al above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance
resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records al Date of Policy, bul not excluding from coverage any taking
which has occurred prior to Dale of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant:
(b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by
the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy.
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or
(e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy.
4. Any claim which arises out of the transaction vesting in the Insured the estate or interest insured by Ihis policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state
insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on:
(a) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or
(b) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by the policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure:
(i) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or
(ii) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor.
Form 2210-7 (Continued on back)
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY
WITH A.L.T.A. ENDORSEMENT FORM 1 COVERAGE (10-17-92)
AND A.L.T.A. LEASEHOLD LOAN POLICY (10-17-92)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise
by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance or govemmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting
or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment ofthe land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a
separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect
of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or
encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
(b) Any govemmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance
resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking
which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant;
(b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the msured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by
the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy;
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (except to the extent that this policy insures ihe pnority of the lien of the insured mortgage over any statutory lien
for services, labor or material *[or to the extent insurance is afforded herein as to assessments for street improvements under construction or completed al Date of
Policy]); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been su.stained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mongage.
4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent
owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated.
5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is ba^cd
upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law.
6. Any statutory lien for services, labor or materials (or the claim of priority of any statutory lien for sen ices, labor or materials over the lien of tho msured nioilgagc)
arising from an improvement or work related to the land which is contracted for and commenced subsequent to Date of Policy and is not tlnanced in whole or m part by
proceeds of the indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage which at Date of Policy the insured has advanced or is obligated to advance.
7. Any claim which arises out of the transaction creating the interest of the mortgagee insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptc\, state
in.solvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, lhat is based on:
(a) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or
(b) the subordination of the interest of the insured mortgagee as a result of the application of the doctrine of equitable subordination; or
(c) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure:
(i) to timely record the instmment of transfer; or
(ii) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor.
* Inner Brackets denote coverage not contained in Leasehold Loan Policy.
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION RESIDENTIAL TITLE INSURANCE POLICY (6-1-87)
PRINTED POLICY EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
The Exclusions and the Exceptions of the ALTA Residential Policy Form recite that you are not insured against loss or damage, costs, attomeys' fees and expenses
resulting from:
Exclusions
1. Govemmental police power, and the existance or violation of any law or
government regulation. This includes building and zoning ordinances
and also laws and regulations conceming;
• land use
• improvements on the land
• land division
• environmental protection
This exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these
matters which appear in the public records at Policy Date.
This exclusion does not limit the zoning coverage described in Items 12
and 13 of Covered Title Risks.
The right to take the land by condemning it, unless:
• a notice of exercising the right appears in the public records on the
Policy Date.
• the taking happened prior to the Policy Date and is binding on you if
you bought the land without knowing of the taking.
3. Title Risks:
• that are created, allowed, or agreed to by you
• that are known to you, but not to us, on the Policy Date — unless they
appeared in the public records
• that result in no loss to you
• that first affect your title after the Policy Date — this does not limit the
labor and material lien coverage in Item 8 of Covered Title Risks
4. Failure to pay value for your title.
5. Lack of a right:
• to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in
Item 3 of Schedule A
or
• in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch your land
This exclusion does not limit the access coverage in Item 5 of Covered
Title Risks.
B 2210-7
r
PROOF OF PUBLIcitloN
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen ofthe United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court ofthe County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21,1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
^1 /fO
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated af California, this ^xl •^T day
of
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space iswthe County Clerk's Filing Stannp
Proof of Publication of
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR
ENVIRONMBNTAL COMPLIANCB
Please Take Notice: The Planning Department hai determined that the environ-mental efTede of the project deeeribed below have already been considered In conjunction with previously certified envi-ronmental documents end, therefore, no additional environ-mental review will be required and a notice of determlnetlon will be filed. Project Title: Peluso Residence Proiect Location: South side of El Fuerte Street between Acu-na Court and Bolero Street Project Description; Grading for the development of a 4500 SF single family home on a sloping Infill residential lot. Justification for this detenninatTon Is on file In the Planning De-partment, Community Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, Califomia 92009. Comments from the public are In-vited. Please submit comments In writing to the Planning De-
Bartment within 20 days of date of publication, lated: JULY 21,1997 CASE NO: HDP 89-49(A) CASE NAME: PELUSO RESIDENCE /s/Mlchael J. Holzmlller, Planning Director Legal 50459 July 21,1997
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
PUBUC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Please Take Notice:
The Planning Departnnent has determined that the environmental effects of the
project described below have already been considered in conjunction with
previously certified environmental documents and, therefore, no additional
environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed.
Project Title:
Project Location:
Peluso Residence
South side of El Fuerte Street between Acuna Court and
Bolero Street
Project Description: Grading for the development of a 4500 SF single family
home on a sloping infill residential lot.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las
Palmas Drive, Carlsbaci, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited.
Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of
date of publication.
DATED: JULY 21, 1997
CASE NO: HDP 89-49(A)
CASE NAME: PELUSO RESIDENCE
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 21, 1997
MICHAEL J. HOLZr
Planning Director
ER
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO:.
DATE RECEIVED:
(To he complete M' slaft)
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME:.
2. APPLICANT:
HDP 89-49
PHILIP P. PELUSO
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: ^^^^ ACUNA COURT, LA COSTA
(760) 431-1115
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New Single Family Residence and Grading
requiring Hillside Development Permit. See attached Project
Description/Explanation
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this
project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially
Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist
on the following pages.
I [ Land Use and Planning
I I Population and Housing
I I Geological Problems
• Water
• Air Quality
I I Transportation/Circulation Q Public Services
[]]] Biological Resources []] Utilities & Service Systems
I I Energy & Mineral Resources []] Aesthetics
[~~] Hazards Q Cultural Resources
Q Noise Q Recreation
I I Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION
PROJECT NAME: PELUSO RESIDENCE
APPLICANTNAME: PHILIP P. PELUSO
Description/Explanation:
The Applicant proposes to construct a new single family residence on a 2.398 acre site located
on the Southwesterly side of El Fuerte Street in La Costa. The site is can generally be described as
moderately to steeply sloping to the South. The average existing ground slope gradient is 33.4%. The
Applicant wishes to construct a 4,500 square foot, two story home on this site and to construct the
minimum grading required to allow for the construction of the home, construct a driveway to a three
car garage, and to construct a moderate sized yard that would allow for a lap pool and yard area.
The proposed residence Is located on the project site as close to El Fuerte Street as possible.
The site is moderately sloping (15% to 25%) for the first 175 feet Southerly and adjacent to El Fuerte
Street and the proposed grading is restricted to this area. The driveway crosses the lot from West to
East to allow tor the garage and house elevations to be as low as possible with respect to the adjacent
street elevation without requiring excessively large walls or cuts adjacent to the street. The yard area
on the Southwesterly side of the house is set 1.5 feet lower than the house slab grade to minimize the
proposed grading as much as possible. An existing 24" storm drain pipe crossing under El Fuerte
Street outlets on the property near the Northwesterly corner. This pipe requires the construction of
a 4 foot to 12 foot retaining wall along the Northwesterly edge of the proposed pad fill area to allow
for the construction of the proposed driveway. The site design is similar to other existing residences
in the area, and is almost identical in site design concept to the existing SFR adjacent to and Easterly
ofthe project site.
This application is an amendment to the existing HDP No. 89-49 submitted to the City of
Carlsbad on October 11,1989 by Alexander Zilitsky. The present owner has commissioned a new
house design prepared by Architect Gary Dougherty. The floor plan and grading proposed is the result
of several design iterations between the Architect and Engineer. The proposed site design is similar
to the previously approved HDP except that the driveway turnaround area is reduced and the building
footprint more compact resulting in reduced grading.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred id and MdcMii)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): ( )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? ( )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
( )
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? ( )
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
•
•
•
Less Than
Significan
t IiiipacI
•
•
•
•
No
linp;ict
m
m
• m
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( )
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
( )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( )
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• U
III, GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fauh rupture? ( )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
( )
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
( )
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( )
0 Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( )
h) Expansive soils? ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
( )
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ( )
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • X
• • • m • • •
• • • m
• • •
• • m •
• • m •
• • • Kl
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to arid diiacned)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ( )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?( )
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ( )
0 Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ( )
g) Altered direction or rate of fiu .v of groundwater?
( )
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
( )
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
( )
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
( )
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
InipncI
• m
• • • m
• • • 0
• • • M
• • • K
• • • m • • • m
• • •
• • • K
• • •
• • • K
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? ( )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
( )
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
( )
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
( )
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative
transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)?
( )
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts?
( )
• • m •
• • • m
• • • m
• • • K
• • • m
• • •
• • • K
Rev. 03,/28'96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental ddctinients may be riefei-i^diB Wirl Mdchecl)
vn. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal resuh
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
( )
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)?
( )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
( )
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
( )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
c) Resuh in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
• • •
• • • m
• • •
• • • Kl
• • •
• • •
• • • m
• • • y
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? ( )
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? ( )
d) Exposure of people to existing soufces of potential
health hazards? ( )
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ( )
• • • K
• • •
• • •
• • • m
• • • m
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
( )
•
•
•
•
•
•
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( )
b) Police protection? ( )
c) Schools? ( )
• •
• • •
• • y •
Rev. 03/28/96
1^^ 1 Issues (and Supporting Informairoh Sources):
(Supplemental documenls may be referred to dnd attached)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
( )
e) Other govemmental services? ( )
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( )
b) Communications systems? ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( )
Xlll. AESTHETICS. Would the pronosal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
( )
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
( )
c) Create light or glare? ( )
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( )
c) Affect historical resources? ( )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
( )
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( )
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
( )
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
^^1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
otentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Less Than No
Significan Inipact
t Impact
3 •
m •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
m
m m m
0
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • m
• • • m • • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Infomiltron Sources):
(Supplemehidl documents may be ^^MM i6 MiMdrM^
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantir^lly reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of Califomia history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
•
Less Than
Significan
tInipact
No
Impact
• m
• m
•
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to Which they address site-
specific conditiotis for the project.
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: HDP 89-49(A)
DATE: Julv 15. 1997
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: PELUSO RESIDENCE
APPLICANT: Philip P. Peluso
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2631 Acuna Court. Carlsbad. Califomia
92009: Phone: (760) 431-1115
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: June 13. 1997
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Grading for the development of a 4500 SF single family residence
on a 2.4 acre lot.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
I I Land Use and Planning
I I Population and Housing
I I Geological Problems
• Water
^ Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation |^ Public Services
I I Biological Resources |^ Utilities & Service Systems
I I Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
I I Hazards Cultural Resources
I I Noise Q Recreation
I I Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Q I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I I I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Enviroimiental Review (MEIR 93-01),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
7- i^^T?
Ignature Date
Planning Directors Signkttire Date
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Enviroimiental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
"No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect firom "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impacf is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impacf is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from mcompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-mcome or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
•
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significan
Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• K
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housmg, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• m
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result m or
expose people to potential hnpacts mvolving:
a) Fauhmpture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ((# 1 :Pgs 5.1 -1 - 5.1 -15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1.15)
d) Seiche, tsimami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 -1 - 5.1 -15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or imstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1-5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the land? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 -1 - 5.1 -15)
h) Expansive soils? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.M5)
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
IV. WATER. Would the proposal resuh in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as floodmg? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
•
•
•
•
• m
• m
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supportmg Information Sources).
c) Discharge mto surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
d) Changes m the amount of surface water m any water
body? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -5..2-11)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or du-ection of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
g) Altered dhection or rate of flow of groundwater?
((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -5..2-11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#l:Pgs
5.2-1 -5..2-11)
Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significan
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any au- quality standard or contribute to an i i
existing or projected au- quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1-5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
-5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative
transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - i i
5.7.22) '—'
• • m
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • K
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supportmg Information Sources).
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal resuh
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or theu- habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
anunals, and bhds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24)
c) Locally designated natural commimities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5,4-1
- 5.4-24)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
•
No
Impact
• m
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1-5.13-9)
c) Resuh m the loss of availability of a known mmeral
resource that would be of futiu-e value to the region and
the residents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1 -5.13-9)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• M
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal mvolve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (mcludmg, but not lunited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1-5.10.1-5)
b) Possible mterference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (# 1 :Pgs 5.10.1 -1 - 5.10.1 -5)
e) Increase fu-e hazard in areas with flammable bmsh,
grass, or frees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result m:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- | |
15) ^
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- i i
1-5.9-15) ^
•
•
•
•
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered goverrunent
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fu-e protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12,6-1 - 5,12.6-4)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supportmg Information Sources).
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,
pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.8-7)
e) Other govenmiental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal resuh in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utiHties:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1-5.13-9)
b) Communications systems? (# 1; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12,3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (# 1 :Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1-5.11-5)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1-5.11-5)
c) Create light or glare? (# 1 :Pgs 5.11 -1 - 5.11 -5)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Dismrb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10)
c) Affect historical resources? (#1 :Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-1-5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses withm the
potential rnipact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • M
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources).
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eluninate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or elunmate important
examples of the major periods of Califomia history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are mdividually
lunited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either dhectly or mdu-ectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
•
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
• M
• m
• ^
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis of this proposed infill single family development has been completed through the
General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-
01). The MEIR is cited as source #1 in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent with
the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a Subsequent Project that was
described in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. There will be no additional significant impacts due
to this development that were not analyzed in the MEIR and no new or additional mitigation
measures or altematives are required. This Subsequent Project is, therefore, within the scope of
the prior MEIR and no new environmental document nor Public Resources Code 21081 findings
are required. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to
this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this project.
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This project entails 4700 cubic yards of grading on a hillside lot to enable the construction of a
4500 square foot single family residence and a driveway. The site's topography is relatively
steep, containing large areas of slope that exceed 40% gradient. The parcel is located adjacent to
existing single family development. Grading to create the building pad and driveway will
modify the topography of the sloping site. However, this project will be developed consistent
with the Development and Design Standards of the Hillside Development Ordinance whereby:
the pad and driveway will be constructed upon the less steep areas of the property (0-15%
gradient), no sensitive habitat or native vegetation will be disturbed, the development will not
encroach into existing slopes with gradients of greater than 40%, proposed grading quantities
(7,154 cubic yards/acre) are within the acceptable limits, and manufactured slopes will not
exceed 19 feet in height. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance call for single family
development on the site and the proposal complies with all applicable provisions of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
10 Rev. 03/28/96
Coimcil Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air
quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
altemative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic firom a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design ofthe project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impacf. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, Califomia, 92009,
(760) 438-1161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Enviromnental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
CITY OF d^itLSBAD REVIEW AND COMME^^M EMO
DATE: JULY 14. 1997 REVISED PLAN
TO: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
*POLICE DEPARTMENT - J. SASWAY
*F1RE DEPARTMENT - MIKE SMITH
*BUILDING DEPARTMENT - PAT KELLEY
*COMMUNITY SERVICES - MARK STEYAERT
*COMMUNITY SERVICES - VIRGINIA McCOY
* WATER DISTRICT
LANDSCAPE PLANCHECK CONSULTANT - LARRY BLACK
SCHOOL DISTRICT
*NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT - Planning Department
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC - BICH TRAN (Memo Only)
*ALWAYS SENT EXHIBITS
FROM: Planning Department
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON APPLICATION NO. HDP 89-49(A)
NOTE: Please use this number on all correspondence.
PROJECT TITLE: PELUSO RESIDENCE
APPLICANT: PHILIP PELUSO
PROPOSAL: 4500 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to:
CHRIS DECERBO the Project Planner in the Planning Department. 2075 Las
Palmas Drive, by .. 7-28-97 If not received by that date, it will be assumed that you
have no comment and the proposal has your endorsement as submitted. If you have
any questions; please contact CHRIS DECERBO at 438-1161, extension ttts , .
THANK YOU ' ^
COMMENTS: 4^5 A/^ /^^{prv^^y^'^^^ //'W^^t;^^^ ^Uy^/ly3f~
PLANS ATTACHED / FRM0020 5/94
Memorandimi
TO: Senior Planner, Chris Decerbo
FROM: Associate Engineer, Clyde Wickham
DATE: July 22, 1997
RE: HDP 89 - 49(A) , PELUSO RESIDENCE
We have completed our review of the Hillside Development Permit identified
above. From an Engineering standpoint, we recommend approval ofthe
amendment subject to the following condition:
• The proposed design shall conform to the development plans for the
"Peluso Residence" drawn by Resource Development Corp. dated July
21,1997.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this project further, please give
me a call at ext. 4353.
CLYDE WICKHAM
Associate Engineer
Land Development Division
c: Principal Engineer, Land Use Review Division
City Engineer
CITY OF d^LSBAD REVIEW AND COMME^/1 EMO
DATE: JULY 1997 REVISED PLAN
TO: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
*POLtCE DEPARTMENT - J. SASWAY
*FIRE DEPARTMENT - MIKE SMITH
*BUILDING DEPARTMENT - PAT KELLEY
•COMMUNITY SERVICES - MARK STEYAERT
•COMMUNITY SERVICES - VIRGINIA McCOY
* WATER DISTRICT
LANDSCAPE PLANCHECK CONSULTANT - LARRY BLACK
SCHOOL DISTRICT
*NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT - Planning Department
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC - BICH TRAN (Memo Only)
*ALWAYS SENT EXHIBITS
FROM: Planning Department
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON APPLICATION NO. HDP 89-49(A)
NOTE: Please use this number on all correspondence.
PROJECT TITLE: PELUSO RESIDENCE
APPLICANT: PHILIP PELUSO
PROPOSAL: 4500 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY RFSIDFNCF
Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to:
CHRIS DECERBO the Project Planner in the Pianning Department. 2075 Las
Palmas Drive,; by y 7-28-97 If not received by that date, it will be assumed that you
have no comment and the proposal has your endorsement as submitted. If you have
any questions; please contact CHRIS DECERBO at 438-1161, extension 4445 . .
THANK YOU
COMMENTS: AJ^^J t. -
1 -/
PLANS ATTACHED FRM0020 5/94
0 • hlsCjqy-l
City of Carlsbad
Planning Departnnent
August 5, 1997
Mr. Philip P. Peluso
2631 Acuna Court
La Costa, CA 92009
SUBJECT: HDP 89-49(A) - PELUSO RESIDENCE
The City has completed a review of the application for a Hillside Development
Permit for grading on a single family lot and construction of a single family home
located on El Fuerte Street (APN: 215-491-39).
It is the Planning Director's determination that the project is consistent with the
City's Hillside Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code and therefore APPROVES this request based on the following:
Findings:
1. That the hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints
map (Exhibit "C", dated August 5, 1997) which show existing and proposed
conditions and slope percentages.
2. That undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been
properly identified on the constraints map (Exhibit "C", dated August 5,
1997).
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose and
requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, in that:
(a) natural resource areas, wildlife habitats and native vegetation areas
will not be impacted;
(b) the proposed building pad will be located on the less steep (0% - 15%
gradient) area of the property, and minimal grading, adequate building
setback from edge of slope, and a generous amount of landscaping
will ensure the preservation of the natural appearance of the hillside;
(c) the hillside development will be aesthetically pleasing due to the
sensitive site design, satisfactory architecture and landscaping;
(d) all hillside conditions have been incorporated into the planning process;
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894 ^
HDP 89-49(A) - PELUSO ^IDENCE
AUGUST 5, 1997
PAGE 2
(e) the project complies with the land use and open space conservation
elements of the Carlsbad General Plan in that the General Plan allows
for single family development of the site and the proposed site design
is sensitive to the site's hillside topography;
(f) erosion and siltation will be minimized through sound grading and
erosion control techniques;
(g) a minimal amount of grading (4,700 cubic yards over .657 acre) is
needed to support the proposed project design; and
(h) the intensity of development (one 4500 SF single family home on a
2.4 acre lot) is minimized such that the proposed development will be
compatible with the existing topography.
4. That the proposed grading and development will not occur in the
undevelopable portions of the site, as shown on Exhibits "A"-"F", dated
August 5, 1997.
5. That the project design minimizes disturbance of hillside lands in that the
proposed pad grade closely follows the existing topography, manufactured
slopes will not exceed 19 feet in height, and 4,700 cubic yards of grading
over a .657 acre area (7,154 cubic yards/acre) is considered acceptable by
the City's Hillside Development Ordinance.
6. That the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts
illustrated in the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual in that
development concepts such as: screening of retaining walls, minimizing the
extent of grading, landscaping manufactured slopes, the creation of a hillside
sensitive accessway (driveway), adequate slope edge setbacks, and the use
of varied rooflines have been incorporated into the project.
7. The Plaiming Director has foimd that, based on the EIA Part II, this Subsequent Project
was described in the MEIR 93-01 as within its scope; AND there will be no additional
significant effect, not analyzed therein; AND that no new or additional mitigation
measures or altematives are required; AND that therefore this Subsequent Project is
within the scope of the prior EIR; and no new environmental document nor Public
Resources Code 21081 findings are required.
8. The Planning Director finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project altematives
identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been
incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
ftl HDP 89-49(A) - PELUSO RESIDENCE
AUGUST 5, 1997
PAGE 3
9. Planning Director finds that:
a. the project is a subsequent project as described in CEQA Guidelines -15168(c)(2)
and (e);
b. the project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad's General Plan;
c. there was an EIR (MEIR 93-01) certified in connection with the Carlsbad
General Plan;
d. the project has no new significant enviromnental effect not analyzed as significant
in the prior EIR (MEIR 93-01);
e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or a Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163 exist.
10. The Planning Director finds that the project, as conditioned herein for (HDP 89-49(A)),
is in conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan, based on the following:
a. Land Use - The single family residence on a 2.4 acre lot (.41 du/ac) is consistent
with the RL (1 du/ac) General Plan designation.
11. 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. The project has been conditioned to ensure the building permits will not be issued
for the project iinless 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.
b. Statutory School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in
the San Marcos School District.
c. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
d. 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 wdll enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
HDP 89-49(A) - PELUSO ^IDENCE
AUGUST 5, 1997
PAGE 4
12. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
constmction 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 ciraiulative impacts created by the project.
13. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6.
14. That the project is consistent with the City's Landscape Manual, adopted by City Coimcil
Resolution No. 90-384.
Conditions:
1. The Planning Director does hereby APPROVE the Hillside Development Permit for
the single family residential project entitled "Peluso Residence". (Exhibit(s) "A" -
"F", dated August 5, 1997, on file in the Plaiming Department and incorporated by this
reference), subject to the conditions herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to
make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Hillside
Development Permit documents, as necessary to make them intemally consistent and in
conformity with the Planning Director's final action on the project. Development shall
occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
substantially 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.
3. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
assurances of the availability of sewer facilities have been given by the Leucadia County
Sewer District in writing.
4. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits, including, but not limited to the
following:
a. All development within Zone 6 shall conform to the provisions of Section 21.90
of the Carlsbad Mimicipal Code and to the provisions and conditions of this Local
Facilities Management Plan.
b. All development within Zone 6 shall be required to pay a public facilities fee
pursuant to the standards adopted by the City Coimcil on July 28, 1987, and as
amended from time to time and all other applicable fees. Development in Zone 6
shall also be responsible for any additional fees to be incorporated into this plan
ftl HDP 89-49(A) - PELUSO RKIDENCE
AUGUST 5, 1997
PAGE 5
that are foimd to be necessary to enable facilities to meet the adopted performance
standards.
c. All development in Zone 6 shall be in conformance with the adopted Citywide
Facilities and Improvements Plan as adopted by City Council Resolution 8797 on
September 23,1987.
5. If any condition for constmction 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 Coimcil determines that the project without the
condition complies with all requirements of law.
6. Prior to the issuance of the building permit. Developer shall submit to the City a Notice
of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the
City of Carlsbad has issued a Hillside Development Permit No. HDP 89-49(A) on the
real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property
description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of
approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of
Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment
to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by
the Developer or successor in interest.
7. The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with
the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City's Landscape Manual. The plans
shall be submitted to and approval obtained firom the Planning Director prior to the
approval of the final map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first. The
Developer shall constmct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and
maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free fi-om weeds, trash, and
debris.
8. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings
so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or
addresses shall contrast to their background color.
9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, or prior to the approval of a final map and/or
issuance of certificate of compliance for the conversion of existing apartments to air-
space condominiums, the Developer shall pay to the City an inclusionary housing impact
fee as an individual fee on a per market rate dwelling unit basis.
10. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
I HDP 89-49(A) - PELUSO RRIDENCE
AUGUST 5, 1997
PAGE 6
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of
this Hillside Development Permit.
Code Reminders:
11. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code.
12. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 18 months fi'om the date of project approval.
13. Approval ofthis request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections ofthe
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
14. All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape
Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning
Department.
CITY OE^CARLSBAD
GARY WAYNE/
Assistant Planning Director
GEW-.CD-.kr
Bobbie Hoder
Clyde Wickham
File Copy
Data Entry
Planning Aide
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
July 10, 1997
Mr. Philip Peluso
2631 Acuna Court
La Costa, CA 92009
SUBJECT: HDP 89-49(A) PELUSO RESIDENCE
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning
Department has reviewed your Hillside Development Permit, application no. HDP 89-
49(A), as to its 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
appiication, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or othenwise, 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 ofthe date ofthis communication.
Please contact your staff planner, Chris DeCerbo, at (760)438-1161, extension 4445, if
you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincej
ilCHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:CD:kr
Gary Wayne
Clyde Wickham
Bobbie Hoder
File Copy
Data Entry
Planning Aide
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894 ^
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Engineering:
1. The proposed 6" drainage system and outlet should be reconsidered and
possibly connected to the existing storm drain outlet to reduce erosion and
damage to the slope.
2. The existing storm drain outlet appears to be located on a steep slope with no rip
rap or erosion control in place. This might have been an oversight by the
Engineer and the facility may not need additional protection.
3. The proposed driveway at the top of slope with a 10' crib wall below could pose a
hazard. The height from driveway surface to bottom of wall, worst case is about
20'. We recommend a guard rail or berm to protect a run-off type accident.
Pevfelof^meht^
|CoHppi^t4dH
531 Enclnitast Blvd, Suiijbol, Encinitas, CA <^2024
Tel (61^; ^42-1106 Fax: C61<^; ^142-2514
Email: RPCorp2000@aol.com
July H, iqq-r
jN«n-oo-rM
Page 1 of 2
PELUSO RgSIPENCE
El Fuerte street. La Co&ta
C-ity of Carlsbad Hillside Development Permit No. &q-4q
Response to Hillside Pevelopment Plan Review
Planning Department:
Chris PeCerbo oommunlcated to us by phone that the City luas concerned
Lulth the appearance of the tail retaining tuali shoiun on our plans to allooi for the
construction of the proposed drlveoiay adjacent to the City's public storm drain
easement, have added a note to the Hillside Development Flan. Sheet 1
indicating that the u;all a»lll be Plantable Keystone fNall. This u;all is a natural
looking split-faced concrete wall that alloois for planting and irrigation in the
wall at various vertical intervals.
Engineering Department:
i^e have met with Clyde JAiickham of the City of Carlsbad Engineering
Department at the site, and with Ed Peluso. the Contractor representing the
owner to discuss site drainage, erosion and the "runaway driveway" Issues, /ie
agreed that the best solution to the drainage and erosion Issues was to leave
the proposed site drainage outlet and headwall at the location shown on the
intitally submitted plan, but to take additional measures to prevent site erosion.
The site soils are composed of genera^ fractured rocky material with many
small to large boulders visible on the surface. K4e have added a note to the
plan Indicating that the existing boulders should be placed at the outlet of the
City's existing public storm drain and at the outlet of the proposed site
drainage system to prevent future erosion. There will be plenty of naturally
occuring rock on the site to use for this purpose and this will provide an
environmentally friendly way of moving them out of the way of the Imported fill
proposed for the house pad. In addition, selected large boulders with good
appearance for the purpose will be placed on the on the outside
rsouthKNesterly; shoulder of the proposed driveway to provide a traffic safety
JNfin-007M
Page 2 of 2
feat, ^i^i Z A ^ f^ ^d'^'ed to State this requirement. These
btfk f^^m ^.""f '^'"^'^'"9 details after have received them
ftitJ^tln?,- '^^".f'l'^. Mr. Wckham has indicated that these
^hfUMIM^ o "'f* the Engineering Department's concerns in their revieu- of
the Hillside Development Permit.
^^wir^nfi^^ '''"^^ "^^'7° '"scuss these issues further, or if any
olt^i.?nlnf JT^-t r T'"'!'^'' '° =^tain the City's approval of our HillsidI Development Permit Application.
Brian Don^i^
Project ^ineer