The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPCD 57; PARTNERS EQUITY; Planning Commission Determination (PCD)J .... J. ~ :> ~ tftlPLICATION o Zone Change OGeneral Plan Amendment DTentative Tract Map OPlanned unit Developnent OMajor condominilIDl Pennit DMinor condominilIDl Permit OMaster Plan OMajor CondominilIDl Conversion OMajot Redevelopnent Permit REQUEST (check other boxes if appropriate) DMinor Redevelopnent Permit DPrecise Developnent Plan DSpecific Plan DSite Developnent Plan DConditional Use Permit o Variance . ~Planning Commission Determination OSpecial Use Permit Dlilministrative Variance lete Descripti<?E_ of p~oject (attach additi9nal sheets if neces~ary) , (See attached) . ~ Location of Project ... 864 Chinquapin Z Z. Legal Description (complete) (See attached) cC~ .J' r-~--------------------~--~~------~--TAs~s~e~s~s~o~r~s-p~a~r~c~e~l~·7.N~uffibe-·r-r~~--------------~ 206-040-32-00 ~ Zone General Plan Existing Land Use RDMQ PropOsed Zone N/A OWner Name (Print or Type) Partners Equity Mcullng Ad ress RMH Proposed General Plan N/A 5120 Campus Drive, Post Office Box 709~ City and State ZlP Telephorie Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 975-0727· I CERrIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL CMNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT 'lD THE BEST OF MY KNC»lLE[x;E. SIGNATURE DATE ~~ None Slte Acreage 1.54 Applicant Name (Print or Type) Chinquapin Developers Malllng Ad ress 5120 Campus Drive, Post Office Box 7090 Clty and State ZlP Telephone Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 975-0727 I CERI'IFY THAT I AM THE OONER I S REPRESENTATIVE AND 'IHAT ALL. THE ABOVE INFORMATIOO IS TRUE AND CORRECT To THE BEST OF MY KNcmu:rx;E. SIGNA'IURE DATE 1/19/84 -_X.f after the ~nforrnation _ hav~ submitted. has been re ..... ed, it is determined .Lhat fu~ther ~nformation"'requ~red, you w~ll be so ad ed. APPLICANT: AGENT: NEHBERS: PARTNERS EQUITY (GENERAL PARTNERIHIP) Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication) 2030 Leeward Lane Newport Beach, Ca·92660 Business Address (714) 499-5297 Telephone Number ,KEN STACK Name 5120 Campus Drive Newport Beach Ca 92660 Business Addres~ (iJ 4) 975-0727' Telephone Number .' CHARLENE CHAMBERLI·N (GENERAL PARTNER) . 653 Treasu re Is 1 and Laguna 'B'c~ Name . (individual, partner, joint.. -=-------.;;...;...H-o-m-e-1.-;dd-r-e-s-s---...;::.,g""'2"6 .... S ... 'r-, venture, corporation, syndication) 2030 Leeward Lane Newport Beach Ca 92660 Business Addre.ss 642-9561 (Bus i ness) 499-5297 (Home) Telephone Number Telephone N~~er MARY PH,I PPS 2030 Leeward Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Home Address 2030 Leeward Lane Newport Beach Ca 92660 3~siness AddreSS 642-9561. . 642-'9561 Telephone N~er Teleph~:me ~~u.wer (Attach more sheets if necessary) I/He decl~e under, penalty 'of perjury that the information contained l.n this'dis- closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be' relied upon as being true and correct until amended. PARTNERS EQU ITY Appli~ant ~~. )/ ~-.... ··7. :;...~--.... ~-, , ..... , ~j: ;'" ~~~~~ • EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Northeasterly 243.54 feet of· the southwesterly 391.94 feet of the Southeasterly 375.73 feet of Tract 237 of THUM LANDS, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1681, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, December 9, 1915. EXCEPTING THEREFROM .that portion lying Northeasterly and Southeasterly of the Southwesterly boundary of the land described in deed to the State of California, recorded November 3, 1966 ~s File No. 175261 of Official Records. l' , • Chinquapin Landing is a development of 25 2-story townhouse condominiums on 1.54 acres of land. The site is located at the intersection of Chinquapin and 1-5. The units have been situated as far from the freeway pide of the lot as possible. Conditions of approval for this project require the design and construction of a' noise attenuation wall alongside Interstate 5 with attenuation of noise levels to comply with HUP Noise Suitability Criteria. A sound analysis was undertaken and the report has been made available to the planning staff. The results of that study showed readings of as high as 78 CNEL's on-site, (HUD requires a maximum of 65 CNEL on exterior balconies). It is the request of the developer to construct an 11-1/2' sound attenuation wall which is well-designed and landscaped. The 6' standard for wall height in residential applications is understandable and well-suited to wallS which are ,contiguous to other residential zoning. In this situation, ,the long side of the lot (366') lies aside of Interstate 5. Due to the fact that the .site is only 190' wide there is a great deal of audio-visual impact from the freeway. Sound penetration is particularly high as is stated in the acoustical report. Much of the housing which adjoins the freeway in thi~ immediate area. consists of single family, 1 story houses. Many predate the existence of 1-5 as a 6 and 8 lane freeway; some might well have been in place when the freeway was a 2 lane artery. The conditions' tha~ existed in 1954 are radically different in 1984, and changes in the criteria that walls are judged by should reflect that. It is the opinion of the developer that residential housing abutting multiple lanes of an interstate highway system which' sustains an ever-increasing flow of vehicles including heavy industrial use by diesel tractor trailer rigs should not be subject to a 6' wall height restriction. A freeway which cannot be governed by noise limitations nor controlled by the hours of its use should not be seen in the same light as laundry hanging out to dry. 1-5 has massive audio/visual impact on the residences which must exist next to it and the design of Chinquapin Landings sound attenUation wall addresses itself to those conditions. Altho~th HUD's standards can be met through special glazing techniques such as dual pane 311 seperated glass, residents will still be confronted with freeway noise when they step outside or open a window for fresh air. A higher wall would lower this annoyance dramatically. The wall in question has negligible impact on the surrounding neighborhood because it can be viewed solely from the . freeway. It is attractively designed with planting alcoves and an espalla on the bottom 4' to support plant growth. Its appearance will most certainly be aesthetically pleasing and will be a positive visual addition to the traffic corridor itself. DATE RECEIVED: ~-"""'II EXEMPT OR EXCEPTED: ------------------------- Posted: -----------------Prior Compliance: ----------------Published: ------- Filed: Filed: NEGATIVE DECIARATION: --------------------- Posted: ----------~-Published: Notice of Detennination: ------------- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: Notice of , --------".N"...o..,..ti"":"· c-e--o""""f=-- Preparation:_______________ Completion: ________ _ Notice of Detennination: ------ PLANNING COMMISSION 1. Date of Hearing: ___ """02""'--'-.Q;J-= ..... -....;g:!-t/-'--_____ _ 2 • Publication: tils --------'P~7~---------- 3., Notice to Property OWners : ___ «r-=-r6.L,f)<--___ _ 4. ' Resolution No. ____ ~c9:Q==~= _______ __ ACTION: '?:::en ,-ed) (Continued to: ~~------------------ 5. Appeal: ---------------------- CITY COUNCIL 1. Date of Hearing:_' ___________________ __ 2. Notices to City Clerk: --------------- 3. Agenda Bill : _____________________ _ 4. Resolution No. ------------~------Date: -------ACTION: ----- 5. Ordinance No. ' Date: ----------~-------------------- CORRESPONDENCE Staff Report to Applicant: ________ _ Resolution to Applicant: __________ -----