HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP 38; La Costa Vale; Specific Plan (SP)CITY
OF
CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ANALYSIS FOR
APRIL 24, 1973
TO:PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIFIC PLAN CASE NO. SP-38
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. CT 72-20
DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION:
The applicant LA COSTA LAND COMPANY, is hereby requesting approval of a
specific plan and tentative map to allow the development of 254 lots on
290 acres. The eventual development of these lots could produce a
maximum of 1987 dwelling units. The property is generally located north
of La Costa Avenue, west of Rancho Santa Fe Road (realigned) and south
of the 200' San Diego Gas and Electric Co. easement in La Costa.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The lot and density breakdown of the proposed development is as follows:
TYPE OF LOT
(Density)
Multiple residential
condominiums (11 d.u./acre)
Multiple residential
condominiums (14 d.u./acre)
Single family
(7,700 sq.ft. min)
Single Family
1/2 ac. min.)
Park
School
EasementsL"'.petals
NUMBER OF
Lots
44
14
143
45
1
2
5
254
ACRES
95.3
53.3
55.5
45
13
20
..9,9
290
NUMBER OF
UNITS.
1049
750
143
45
. -
_ «.
1987
CT 72-20
Page 2.
This subdivision os proposed to be developed in two units and will be
known as La Costa Vale Units 2 and 3 (formerly 2 thru 4). The average
density of the overall development is 6.85 dwelling units per acre. The
net density (excluding school sites, park and easements) is 7.9 dwelling
units per acre.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
The subject property is vacant and is adjacent to the San Marcos Creek
Canyon. An existing RD-M area is developing to the west and a single-
family development (La Costa Vale Unit #1) is just being completed to the
south. The area to the west is master planned but no specific plans have
been approved. The site basically consists of rolling hills and gentle
valleys and is cut in half by a 100' San Diego Gas and Electric Company
easement. The most significant land form is the San Marcos Creek Canyon
which borders the north-westerly boundaries of the subdivision.
ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN:
1. ZONING: Existing:
Proposed:
Adjacent:
P-C
P-C
North: P-C
West: P-C
South: R-l
East- P-C
and RD-M
2. GENERAL PLAN:
The adopted La Costa Master Development Plan designates the north
half of the subject property as Low-Medium Density Residential (6.5 d.u./acre)
with provisions for an elementary school and adjoining park site. The
south half of the property is designated as Medium Density Residential
(10 d.u./acre) with provisions for an elementary school and adjoining
park site.
The Planning Department finds that the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the existing zoning and approved Master Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS:
The Planning Director found that this development might have a significant
environmental impact and a final Environmental Impact Report was prepared
as required by the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972
(attached).
CT 72-20
Page 3.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is Staff's recommendation that the specific plan be approved for the
following reasons:
1. The proposed development will not adversely affect adjoining
properties.
2. The specific plan is consistent with the applicable General Plan
for this area.
Further, staff recommends approval of the tentative map subject to the
fulfillment of the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Improvement plans shall conform to the City of Carlsbad Engineering
Design Criteria and Standard Plans.
2. The applicant shall provide a fully actuated traffic signal at the
intersection of La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road.
3. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall meet the requirements
of the respective service districts.
4. All cut and fill slopes shall be rounded and be approved by the City
Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. New Rancho Santa Fe Road shall be extended northward across the
200' San Diego Gas and Electric easement and connect to the existing
Rancho Santa Fe Road at the applicant's expense.
6. Street lighting, at the applicant's expense, on La Costa Avenue
and all four-lane roads, shall be placed on both sides of the street in a
lighting pattern approved by the City Engineer.
7. Hillside lots with, frontage on two streets shall relinquish, access
rights to one street as approved by tha City Engineer.
8. Thirty-foot curb to curb streets as indicated on the typical street
section shall not be approved. 3Q,' 5KAu__ &F- R^<S?oi&£:1>6H f)LL
9. Raised medians shall be provided by the Applicant on 102 ft. wide
streets as required by the City Engineer.
CT 72-20
Page 4.
10. The C.C.&R's for this development shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
11. On-site fire hydrants and fire protection appurtenances shall be
constructed in accordance eith Fire Department requirements.
12. Park-in-Lieu fees and/or park land dedication shall be granted to
the City prior to recording the final map. Parks and Recreation Dept. shall
make the determination as to which lands will be accepted as dedication.
13. This development shall meet all of the requirements of the Department
of Public Health.
AM—14. •*» storm drain discharge flhaH be allowed into San Marcos Creek CanyonFLAW woe txe^roe. 4 c±rnr
15. All utilities, including provisions for cable T.V., shall be placed
underground.
-r ,
16. ''It ia stpengly upgod that the applicantAwork together with the Encinitas
and San Dieguito Union High School Districts to develop some mutual agree-
ment regarding the impact on schools due to this development.
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL C. ZANDER,/^
Assistant Planner'
STATS OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY RONALD RHAGAN,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
REGION 5
350 Golden Shore
Long Beach, California 90802
April 16, 1973
Mr. Michael C. Zander . A C&^
Planning Department U-™
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Zander:
We were unable to submit our comments by the recommended date
of April 6, however, a phone call to your department indicated
no action was planned on this report until April 24. Therefore,
we have reviewed the material and have the following comments.
This project will result in the loss of 290 acres of wildlife
habitat and the loss of the number of animals occupying it.
This loss is often ignored by substituting indications that the
wildlife will relocate in adjacent habitat; however, this tem-
porary relocation results in conflicts and competition between
the relocated wildlife and the wildlife population already being
supported by that adjacent habitat. The conflicts and compe-
tition will result in loss of one or the other (sometimes both)
of the competitors. This loss is a direct result of the project.
We were gratified to note the 150-acre area (San Marcos Creek
Canyon) being set aside for preservation. The reason, of course,
is because it is too difficult to develop it. However, there
may be some future time when development of even these less
choice areas will be proposed. If the desire is actually to
preserve the area in perpetuity, some legal means of donating
it into public ownership should be considered.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Montgomery
Regional Manager
Region 5
cc: Chief of Operations
WMS - Region 5
MEMORANDUM Date: August 8. 1972
TO: c.ity Manager, Fire, Engineering, Building, Parks & Recreation
FROM: . PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: Request for approval of a Tentative Map for La Costa Vale
Units 2-4 (269 lots) single family units.
Applicant: La Costa Land Company
The subject matter is scheduled for public hearing before
the- Planning Commission on in HP s-C-berluJLed • Your
recommendations are requested, and should be returned to this
office by August 14, 1972 , for inclusion in a com-
prehensive Staff Report.
Your attendance is requested at a Staff Meeting,
August 10, 1972 __, at 10:00 A.M.
No Staff Meeting required; Please indicate your
recommendations below and return.
DONALD A. AGATEP
Associate Planner
Attachments: Application
Plot Plan
RECOMMENDATIONS Date;
TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM:
COUNTY OF DIEGO
C.J. HOUSON
Director
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
Department of Sanitation & Flood Control
County Operations Center, 5555 Overland Avenue, San Oiego, California 92123 ..... Telephone: 278-9200
27 March 1973
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA. 92008
Mr. Michael C. Zander
Planning Department
Attention:
SUBJECT: La Costa Vale Units
We have reviewed the environmental impact report on this land development
project with respect to flood control and drainage as requested in your
letter of 15 March 1973.
The report does not provide adequate topographical and design data for us
to determine whether the proposed land use will create flood control and
drainage problems. We suggest the tentative map be forwarded to us for
review.
Although La Costa is within the City, the drainage and flood control
facilities are to be maintained by the San Diego County Flood Control
District. Therefore these facilities must meet the District's standards
and also be approved by the District prior to acceptance for maintenance.
HOUSON
HS:re
Copy: Zone 1 Commission
SAN DIEGO MUSEUM OF MAN'
An educational, »o»-proft corporation jonndtd in 19U, col-
lecting for pMirity t*d displaying tie lif* M4 history of mm.
BOARD: OF DIRECTORS
Edward}. Muzzy
President
Malcolm A. Lovet Ph.DVice President
Stanley A. MacVice President
Paul TchangVice President ;
Walter J. ZableVice President
E. Miles Harvey
Treasurer
Mrs. Jerome f>. RyanSecretary
Baylor BrooksHoward L. Chemoff .
Kenneth £. CocksMiss Pauline desGrangesDon Dickinson j
Robert Gadbois "Mrs. E. Miles Harvey
T.M.HeeglandRoy M. Heramb .'•
Mrs. M. Keith Hollenbeck
Mts. William JefferyFredW.JittsonOscar]. Kaplan, PkD.
Edward I. Levy, MJ3,James C. MacLaggan, MJ>.Robert C. Myers
Mrs. S. Falck NielsenGordon fettit
Mrs. John P. Scripps
John P. Starkey
J.Stacey SuUivan, Jr.Mrs. R. Victor Venberg
Meno L. Wilhelms
Lowell E. English, Maj. Gen. Ret,Director
Spencer L. Rogers, PhJD.Scientific Director
March 15, 1973
iur. Michael C. Zander ' . ."'-'''•.; -.'-•' . ' '•""•' '•••'•' '. •• ' . ': '• • •.'.•.
PI a anlng £ssistaat • ; --,'-"''..- -\ • • ', "';:',•% ''•"'•. ' : '''•'.-' .'-' ''
City of Qarlebad ..', : '••':.. . :' : /'',;• /-:'" •'•••'•-.' .'"••'. -,."...-.•'••-
.1200 Elsi 'Avenue -••...,.' -..;-••-;. -/•'•' :;.vvv \ '.-, .,-.•:. -:. ;•'.;..';.'•••: '••_'•
.Carlsbad, California 92O08 ;" •-.. -: ;•'. -• ?• '. ' •. '• •, . .. ; .' : •:/'."'. ••
Dear Bir. Zander; -..'•.-'-.'',". . ..; ..'-..'-'•.- '• /: ''' v.:A • ' •/ V ' .
In reply to your letter of March 15 regarding archaeological
resources at the site of t»a Costa Vale, I can report the" ' "'
Our records indicate three recorded sites in the vicinity,
one of. them adjacent to the area of the proposed devslop-
menti These ^ sites are 1>-179, T7-181, and "-132; I have
tnarked your map with the site locations and enclosed it
for your reference. Site 7r-181 is described as o site of
very concentrated occupation, including two rook cairns
which, if they still exist, should definitely be •looked
intu. Sits TXL32 is describsd as an ares of nuamrous
concentrations of occupational ai'-itgrial. Bbth of these :
sites involve the San Dieguito culture, the earliest re-. .: .
••ffirded for the-Saa/Dlfl^o' araa. Sits .'";-! 73 is described
as a .9i7io.ll area of La Jolian -cult ire occupation with only
a f aw shells .present in the .Bidder..
The entire area around these sites is described in the files
as a region of continuous Ssn Dieguito material, the files
include the •statement; that the Encinitas Srant pleteau (be-
tween San Marcos and Snci nit as Creaks) is one of the greatest"
concentrations , of San Dieguito occupation in San Diego County.
Under these circumstances, with the presence of 17-181 just to
the southwest, it would be advisable to conduct an on-site
assessment to determine the nature of archaeological resources
on the La Gosta Vale site, 'iixperience has shown that major
unrecorded sites somstiraes exist even in areas where sites .
have been previously recorded. '"Ith the proxiaity of these
sites to the proposed developne'tit, tbere is a good liklihood
that archaeological .Hiaterial -"exists en 'the -La Costs'. Vale tract.
You raight wish to contact "r, -Psnl Sse'll (phone 2->8-53QO} or ..:•.
jir. Tim ••Jross • ('•/.nth ropy L'ogy L^b, .hons ^'y3-35?0), Dept. of .'.'••
itntViropology, California State: ;Jni varsity '^nn Dieco, 5704 College
. Avo, .,: ^ an --.pie^o, CA 12115, to 'see -if .'tVey' have, any recorded sites
for your area, and to inquire about an on-site assssssient for'
logical rssourcas. . .'•/•:'' ., . •
/al--u'e- in planningI trust that this infor^intiar-.• v/ill be
for the ' L«. Costs . Vftle project.
IJLAbJt. i JL. .!3oG E! Prado. Balboa Park,.San Oiego, Ga Associate Curatori!3 92igt; Telephone '(7H\ 239-2001
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 6, 1977
TO: _/) James C. Hagaman, Planning Director
FROM: un Bud Plender, Assistant Planning Director
RE: Conversation with Gus Theberoe, Shapell Industries
Recently I reviewed preliminary plans for development of a portion
of the Vale area of La Costa. Mr. Theberge of Shapell Industries
presented the plans to me, Tim Elanagan, and Mike Zander.
Briefly the development is for clustered detached homes and duplexes
on a private street to be sold as a condominium. This so called
condominium is on lots originally subdivided and approved by Specific
Plan for higher density multiple family condominiums.
There were some technical problems on building over lot line and
access in limited access areas. However Mr. Theberge explained
all this could be taken care of by modification of the development
or boundary adjustments.
More importantly I indicated to Mr. Theberge that the design of the
project does not meet the intent of the Specific Plan and that the
development had great design flaws in not providing sufficient
guest parking, insufficient setback from private street, and improperly
designed streets.
I added that the present ordinance and S.P. does not provide for staff
description in this plan. Therefore I was going to request this matter
be brought foreward to the CC for their review and direction. I
further stated staff would recommend that the S.P. be deleted and
that development would have to take place as per PUD ordinance.
Mr. Theberge understood our position and has written Mr. Bussey a
letter explaining their position, (see attached).
I have prepared Agenda Bill and report in this matter for the
July 19, 1977 City Council meeting.
BP:jp
*
I
MEMORANDUM
DATE: i.'.;•
TO: |K•.^4
FROM: '"
RE:
JULY 8, 1977 ?. •
Paul Bussey, City Manager
i'
James C. Hagaman,1 Planning Director
Condominium Development in Areas Approved by Specific Plan
INTRODUCTION; £-
Hrf' ' '.': ^
Recently the City has received plans for detached single family units on '^
lots approved by Specific Plansvfor condominiums. They appear to be classic,-;
examples of the type of development that the City Council has indicated
they found problems with. Unfortunately the City is committed to approve
the plans we have accepted for building permits, but staff wishes to
review this matter with the City Council for direction on future appli-
cations.
HISTORY; >-
Prior to the latest amendment to the Planned Community (P-C) zone the 5
method to approve development In the P-C zone was by Specific Plan. %
Evidently the intent was to approve a site plan for each lot or develop
a set of regulations under the process of Specific Plan. Unfortunately
this was sometimes unacceptable to developers and land holders because
they did not know at the time of.subdivision what the site plan would
be. To accommodate this apparent problem the City accepted application
for Specific Plans that were nothing more than Tract Maps. None or few
development standards were established on the plans or made part of the
adopting documents, except statements such as certain lots will be used -
for multiple family condominiums at a certain density. Some Specific 2
Plans Indicate that development shall meet standards of a certain zone <|
•such as R-3, but site review was never made a part. %
APPROVED SPECIFIC PLANS:
From a brief review of the files it appears there are at least three
Specific Plans that lack complete development regulations. These SpecificPlans contain approximately 730 dwelling units some of which have already
been built. One completed project is a particular problem (Woodbine)
because it was built as detached single family residential
development or use regulation. This means that apartments
garages converted to apartments etc. without City control,
be other examples of this poor processing in the P-C zone.
with no
could be built,
There may
However, the main
S.P. 38 (Vale).
issue at this time is on condominium lots approved by
VALE III:
The City recently approved building permits for a "condo14 project In
La Costa located along the west side of Rancho Santa Fe Road, north
of La Costa Boulevard, known as Vale III. The approved Specific Plan
shows only vacant lots with •note stating that the area will be built
with multiple family residential at either 11 or 14 OU/AC depending on
the lot?. There are no development standards on the plan or the adoptingdocuments.
At the time of approval It was assumed that the development would be
attached units with common parking and open areas, similar to the •
existing condo developments 1n La Costa. The approved building permitshowever,~"are for 150 detached;single family homes. Each of the
proposed units are fronted on" a private street. The density 1s approx-imately 5.4 units per acre, less than half the density listed in the
General Plan and Master Plan.
Staff approved the first phase of 50 units request because there are' no
development standards on the property. However, we feel that the project
1s substandard and may lead to problems in the future and will set a low
standard for single family development in Carlsbad. For instance, most
garages are only 10' from the curb of the private street, this means
that if the cars were parked on the drive t'^ey would be over the side-
walk and extend into the street, some street side yards are only 10'
from the street, (R-l standards require approximately 20' from street),
the distance between buildings 1s as low as 10' in some cases, (the R-l
has a minimum of 12' along side yard lines); the private streets are
30' curb to curb, (36* 1s standard City width).' In summary the project
when completed will appear as a crowded single family development with
little private yard, narrow streets, autos parked across sidewalks and
insufficient guest parking on the. private streets.
The private streets will appear like public streets and will be basi-
cally the only reason there 1s a need for a home owners association.There is a good possibility there will be a request to abandon the
association and request the City acceptance of the streets. The Citycould decline, but the Council may find it difficult to deny such a
request from concerned citizens that have a problem in that theirstreet needs maintenance. For all Intentions the streets are public.
%•* •
The General Plan Indicates 10-20 dwelling units per acre and the '•
original subdivider put in utility systems for this higher density.The density approved in the building permit is 5.4 per acre, this
means added costs in maintaining these higher than necessary systems
at City expense. Not meeting the permitted density also may be a
problem when there is a need for multiple family units. It may be
necessary to amend GP and zoning to provide higher densities in areasthat are less than desirable for such higher density of planning a
city.
-2-
503
so/
tvjl
\r m
'405,
413
/ "3
w I .(fff I &f/ A)f/ /$
A/
.
'/
/
November 27, 1972
La Costa Land Company
Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Gentlemen:
After evaluation of the "short form" environmental assessment
submitted to this office on November 9, 1972, by R1ck Engineering,
1t has been determined that the project known as "La Costa Vale
Units 2-4" could have significant environmental effects and fur-
ther Information 1s needed 1n order for this department to prepare
a long form" environmental Impact statement.
In addition to the Information required, as defined 1n Resolution
No. 3017, adopted by the Carlsbad City Council on November 8, 1972,
please elaborate on any steps being taken to preserve the character
of the existing land forms 1n the area of the project, I.e. the
San Marcos Creek canyon running along the northerly boudnary of the
tract.
Please submit the required Information as soon as possible so this
department may begin Its preparation of the preliminary environmental
Impact statement.
Sincerely,
Michael C. Zander,
Assistant Planner
MCZrle
cc: Rick Engineering
1200 ELM AVENUE || ^^,1 TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 IWyJ/tf7I (714)729-1181
Citp of Cartefoab
t£k~r?,
Enclosed for your review is a copy of the draft environmental
Impact report for
Your comments would be greatly appreciated by
In the event that no comments are received by the aforementioned
date, we will assume you are in concurrence with the report.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Planning Department
6
WOODSIDE/KUBOTA * ASSOCIATES, INC.
mHoinmmmm
2965 Roosevelt St. • P. O. Box 1 095 • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (71 4} 729-1 1 94
April 16, 1973
Mr. Donald A. Agatep
Director of Planning
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
Subject: Carlsbad Tract No. 73-8
Specific Plan 115 Carlsbad Palisades
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
RECEIVED
Q 107-3j ia/j
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Eiannlng Department
Dear Mr. Agatep:
This office has reviewed the subject project and has determined
that this project is not within the retail service area of the
Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
truly yours ,
John R. Pierce,
Project Engineer
cc: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
JRP/sp
In Orange County, Santa Ana
MEMORANDUM
DATE : June 5, 1973
TO : THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM : Ed Johnson, Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Addendum to materials submitted for
La Costa Vale 2-3
Case No. EIR-35
SP-38
CT 72-20
As of this date after meetings held with representatives
of La Costa, staff has not resolved the specific parks
program for the total La Costa project. Since the La Costa
Vale development includes a proposed parks dedication,
this item was continued at your last Council meeting to
permit the resolution of the parks situation.
Rather than to hold up this project with another continuance,
staff would recommend approval of the proposal as outlined
in the previously presented materials with the addition
of the following condition:
.*>
(The Final Map shall not be recorded until such time as
n agreement has been reached between the City of Carlsbad
and La Costa Land Company regarding required parks
dedication and fees.
WRITE *T... DONT SA^ IT 21, 1D77
_ IRV ROSTONTo__ Reply wanted.
tR CDStB Fron, JQHN STANLEY No reply necessaiy_
Re: VALE II CONDOMINIUM NOTE
You have requested ray opinion as to processing for a condominium project
consisting of one or more subdivided lots within this subdivision with
the City of Carlsbad.
The Subject Property is zoned P. C. The subdivision map bears a note
which recites that the applicable lots "are lots and is (sic) a condominium
project as defined in Section 1350 of the Civil Code of the State of California,
and is filed pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act".
Under this procedure, each lot is thus a subdivision (condominium) and
no further subdivision map need be filed.
Government Code Section 66427 provides that the governing body cannot
refuse to approve a subdivision because of the placement of buildings,
etc., so long as they are not violative of local ordinances.
Civil Code Section 1370 provides that unless a contrary intent is clearly
expressed, local zoning ordinances shall be construed to treat like
structures, lots, or parcels in like manner regardless of whether the
ownership thereof is divided by sale of condominiums rather than by
lease of apartments. The City of Carlsbad has not expressed a contrary
intent by ordinance.
Under the P. C. ordinance, prior to last year's amendment, setbacks
were established by each specific plan. In the early subdivisions, the
specific plan resolution made no references to setbacks but merely left
them to establishment in the CC&R's. For Vale II, we provided only for a
front yard setback. No side yard setbacks were established as we con-
templated that a project might consist of more than one lot.
Subsequent P. C. zoned subdivisions have incorporated conventional set-
backs by specific references to those required in conventional subdivisions,
e.g. R-l in Green Valley Knolls.
It is my understanding that because there is no reference in Vale n to
side yards, the City Engineer has interpreted this to require those
which would be required in a RDM zone.
The RDM zone (Carlsbad Code Section 21.24. 050(3)) allows a zero
side line setback upon application if the owners of both lots are in agree-
ment. However, where adjacent lots are owned by the same person, I
see no legal reason why an application would be necessary.
The Carlsbad Code Section 21.04.075(2) defines building site as including
two or more lots when used in combination for a building or group of
buildings. Section 21.46.050 provides for an automatic modification of
side yard requirements where a building or group of buildings covers
the common boundary line between two lots. In such cases, the combined
MEMO
Irv Roston
June 21, 1977
Page Two
lots constitute a single building site.
In conclusion I see no legal reason why building permits cannot be drawn
for structures which might either cover lot lines or encroach in what
would otherwise be required side yards.
In addition, I see no practical reason why the City should first require a
boundary adjustment eliminating interior lot lines as a condition of granting
building permits as the City's building code allows the City to require the
construction of necessary improvements as a condition of approval of
building permits. In the instant case, all subdivision improvements which
would be required have already been installed.
The only caveat I would add is that it may take City Council action to
clarify the matter and compliance with the simple procedure of a boundary
adjustment might be faster. Accordingly, it is my recommendation that
a conference with the City Engineer and Planning Director be set up to
determine their respective positions before proceeding further.
JOHNV. STANLEY
cc: David Zenoff
Fred Morey
Shaped Industries of San Diego, Inc. 3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, California 92110
(714) 222-0345
W. R. (Bill) Effinger
June 22, 1977
James Hagaman, Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Hagaman:
Reference is made to the recent conversation between yourself,
Gus Theberge of this office, and Fred Morey of Rancho La Costa
regarding the^gale n~~^ondominium project we are currently con-
templating i^i the City of Carlsbad within the development of
Rancho La Costa.
We have attached an explanation given to us by John Stanley,
attorney for La Costa, establishing the basis on which we entered
into acquisition agreements with Rancho La Costa, and why we
have proceeded to develop plans assuming all we had to do was
pull building permits for the subject project.
We would appreciate your reviewing the attached letter while you
are in the process of reviewing our request, and suggest it may
help in the disposition of the issuance of building permits to us.
As you know, there is currently a serious sewer shortage problem
through the Leucadia Water District, and we have been informed
that even though we pay for sewer permits, unless we pay for
building permits, they will not grant sewer hook-ups to us.
Therefore, we feel it is extremely essential, if not imperative,
that we resolve this matter as soon as possible. We would desire
drawing down all 282 building permits so we may get started with
the assurance we would have sewers.
We would appreciate your sitting down as soon as possible with Gus
Theberge and outlining any requirements you may have along the
James Hagaman, Planning Dir.
City of Carlsbad
June 22, 1977
Page 2
line of our previous request.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
OF SAN DIEGO, INC,
W.R. Effinger
Division Manager
cc: Bud Plender, Ass't Planning Dir.
John Stanley, La Costa
Shapell Industries
of San Diego, Inc.
A Subsidiary of
Shapell Industries, Inc.
3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, California 92110
(714) 222-0345
June 27, 1977
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Att: Paul Bussey
City Manager
Re: Vale II Subdivision
Dear Mr. Bussey:
I met this morning with two members of the Planning Department
staff to discuss our Monarch Terrace project designed to be built
on Vale II subdivision lots. This condominium project, according
to a letter (enclosed herewith) from Mr. Stanley at La Costa,
is in conformance with the condo notes on said subdivision so that
it is our intention to obtain building permits without further ado.
Upon meeting with the staff however, Mr. Plender informed me that
although we were technically in conformance with the Specific
Plan and P.C. zone, the staff would refer this development to the
City Council for review and recommend reversal of the Specific
Plan guidelines permitting this type of subdivision.
The basis for this action is apparently that current concepts
regarding planning and control of such condominium projects can-
not be properly managed under the Specific Plan and P.C. zone.
It would appear to me that at such time as the Vale II subdivision
was approved, a contract was established between the City of
Carlsbad and La Costa to which each party is bound. Shapell
Industries would like to proceed with its development as quickly
as possible and is willing to perform according to the requirements
set forth in the ordinance.
Paul Bussey
City of Carlsbad
June 27, 1977
Page 2
Your prompt attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO, INC,
h
cc:Tim Flanagan
Bud.^Blender
Irv Roston
John Stanley
Gus Theberge
Development Coordinator
1200 ELM AVENUE ,
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Wni (7)4)
Citp of Cartebab
July 8, 1977
Gtu The.be.ige,
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES
3272 Ro.iecAa.n4 St>ie.e.t
San lUego, Call^o/tnla 92110
RE: PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR I/ALE II SUBPIflSION
A^ I me.nt'Lone.d to you 1 have. d-c6c.u4.Aecf
pta.n& (a-itk the. CJ,ty Manage/t.. He ag/tee^ M>^cik me that the.
concept o^ oa/t pu.fipo&e. &kou.td be ^.eu-cewed by the. C<ity
Coanc/c£ bet$o^e any moA.e woA.fe -c4 done.. Voat te.tte.ft. and OU.JL
tizpotit viJiLSL be &u.bmi.tte.d to the. Connect on the.*.*. Jaty 19,
1977 meeting and u)i.lt be ava^.£ab£e on July 15, 1977. 1^
you. w<i&h you. may obtain one. fatiom th-L&
you. have, any qu.e.t>t4.on& , p£ea^e j$ee£ ^ee to c.att me.
Bad
ASSISTANT PLANNING PIRECTOR
S£P
f*1 A ^- -ir>T» ' ASSOCIATES31 AugUSt 1977 JohnBretton
Homer Delawie FAIA
ASSOCIATES
JohnBretton
Michael B. Wilkes
Memorandum of meeting held August 30, 1977 at the Carlsbad
City Hall.
; Those present: Planning Director
; Assistant Planning Director - Bud Plender
Engineering Department? Mr. Flanigan
VTN - Tom Romero
Shapell Industries - Gus Theberge
i Architect - Homer Delawie
The meeting began at 2 p.m. and Mr. Delawie presented a 20 scale
•••' " plan of lot 286 which had been rendered to show landscape area,
• texture drives, house locations, etc. Mr. Delawie pointed out
i. that standard driveway approaches were being utilized and that
each of the private drives would have a cobble stone or brick
';. like texture. There will be gate posts at the entrance to each
• private drives but no gates. Visitors parking would be provided
7 at 90 degrees to the private driveway within the 25 ft setback in
• some cases and along the 28 ft wide private drives on others.
*...."' Visitor parking totaled 3/4 car per unit not including driveway
-*• parking nor public street parking. Mr. Delawie pointed out that
2/3 of the units met the 3 to 7 ft or over 20 ft setback require-
;: ments requested by the city in our- earlier meeting of 19 August
;r 1977. . . . ; .
.-1- •' . "' • •' "- " ' .
'"-, Bud Plender then stated that their PUD Ordinance requires 32 ft
|: -; wide street. We pointed out that the 28 ft wide private drive
!c . allows a 20 ft driving line and 8 ft parking area.
'; Plender then said the PUD Ordinance requires 25 ft front yard set-
' back from the public street. Mr. Delawie pointed out that that
1 .. was not allowed as the 25 ft setback from the public street is in
}•• the CC&R' s. '
; Mr. Plender stated he did not like the 90 degrees parking backing
;. into the parallel parking. Mr. Theberge stated we could eliminate
the parallel parking where this occurs, although we did feel the
|. .{'25 ft driving lane will give ample turning radius.
u__;._ ... . ... „ _ _
Homer Delawie Associates AIA Architecture & Pluming • :>b'7 Piessiciio Jr.-/e. San Diego. California 92110 • (714) 299-6690
!' I
'I:
Page 2 31 August 1977
;''I'I;
-1
Mr. Plender stated that where the 3 to 7 ft setback was utilized
automatic garage door openers should be provided.
We then reviewed the banks and Mr, Flanigan stated he did not
like 1% to 1 slopes, Mr, Romero stated we could give them 2 to 1
slopes if a 5 ft setback from the edge of the slopes would be
allowed. He also pointed out that Carlsbad Ordinances state that
the setback should be half the height of any adjacent slope. Mr.
Flanigan stated he did not enforce that, Mr. Romero asked that
as we go to 2 to 1 slopes would a bench be required at every 30
ft in elevation as stated by Ordinance, Mr. Flanigan stated he
allows the elimination of benches up to 40 ft changes in elevation.
Mr, Flanigan recommended that we use, an elongated bulb instead of
a hammerhead private drive on lot ;21,
Discussion was held on lot 289 where a private drive closely para-
llels the public street. Mr, Delawie stated that the reason for
this was he did not want any garages backing out on to a public
street and that he plans to landscape the 10 ft strip between the
public and private streets. The Planning Department suggested
mounding this area slightly also. Some discussion was held in
this area regarding utilizing a 20 ft private drive with 8 ft wide
pocket where parallel parking was required. This seemed to meet
with the city's approval, Mr. Flanigan stated that there is some
difficulty in sweeping the parking pockets but Mr. Delawie pointed
that these were private drives and that it would be the responsi-
bility of. -the property owners.
Mr. Theberge summarized by pointing out that 2/3 of the units met
the requested setback requirements and that we had over 2/3 of a
car visitor parking per unit not counting the public street park-
•ing.. Counting the public street parking it will be over 1% cars
per unit visitors parking. He then asked the Planning Director
what their position, was and what they were proposing to the Coun-
cil. The Planning Director pointed out they were coming up with
driveway approach standards and general development standards for
condominiums and that any decision on this project was in the
councils hands. Mr. Delawie pointed out that they were now develop-
ing standards after we have completely developed the project in
total accordance with the existing regulations. He also went on
record that we had made every attempt to meet all the requirements
requested at the last meeting of August 19, 1977.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:30 p.m.
1200 ELM AVENUE • • j^a? • TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 W^H7 riSM (714)729-1181
Citp of Cartefcafc
November 2, 1977
Gus Theberge
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES
3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, California 92110
SUBJECT: SP-38
Dear Gus:
Thank you for submitting preliminary plans "for your proposed subdivision
in La Costa. These plans are presently being reviewed by our engineering
and fire departments. As soon as they complete their review, you will be
'notified and we can discuss their comments.
As I mentioned to you on the phone a couple of day's ago, the disposition
of Lot 290 is' still unclear. Even though a previous letter of mine indicated
that the City owned it, more thorough checking has indicated that La Costa
Land Company is the owner of the property. The City of Carlsbad does, however,
have a pedestrian and parking easement on the lot.
*
The City Manager wished me to indicate to you that my previous letter was in
error, and that the City has not yet determined how the lot will be developed
and maintained, and who will do it. Hopefully we will have more information
on this matter soon.
Sincerely,
Bud Plender
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
*cc:, City Manager
Engineering
• Fire
BP:ar
MEMORANDUM - November 21, 1977
TO: Bud Plender, Planning
FROM: Jere Riddle, Engineering
SUBJECT: SP 38 (S&S - La Costa - Vale 2)
I have reviewed the plot plans on subject project and recommend that the
developer be required to give consideration to making the following revisions:
1. SLOPES - Slopes should be 2:1 maximum unless otherwise approved.
2. GRADES - Grades on the private streets should not exceed 14% in
any instance.
3. STREET RADIUS - The 20' radii on the private streets should be increased
to 30'±. Where the corners are more than 90° the radius should
be increased more.
4. STREET CONFIGURATION - The street configuration on Lot 277 in particular
is poor and should be smoothed out. I would also suggest re-
visions in the street alignment on Lots 280 and 283.
5. SLOPE SETBACK - D.U.'s should be set back 5' minimum from the top or toe
of all slopes.
6. PARKING - The guest parking is very inadequate. Developer should provide
one additional parking space, centrally located, for each D.U.
7. SIDEWALK - A sidewalk (4* min.) should be provided on one side of each
private street.
8. BUILDING SETBACK - Buildings should be set back 25' *from curb face
(+ 4' where sidewalk occurs) - * this figure could be reduced
to 5' if garage door openers are required.
9. STREET LIGHTS - Street lights should be required.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
It is my opinion that private streets, such as those proposed, should provide
sidewalk and street lights like a public street. I think these needs are
obvious and need no explanation.
The lack of guest parking is the big problem with the proposed plan. The
MEMO to Bud Plender -2- November 21, 1977
RE: SP 38
private street is too narrow to provide for any "on street" parking. This is
par for most private streets. However, the plan as submitted, with minor
exception, does not provide for centrally located guest parking. There are
some "external" guest parking bays proposed which should be eliminated. If
central guest parking is required the plans will have to be reworked extensively.
On the matter of slopes, grades, street radii, and street configuration - these
have been marked on the plans.
I would be happy to meet with you and/or the developer and go over each item
at your convenience.
\ Jere Riddle
' Principal Civil Engineer
GJR:ms
Shape)! Industries
of San Diego, Inc.3272 Rosecrans StreetA Subsidiary of . San DieaO( California 92110
Shapell Industries, Inc. (714) 222-0345
February 14,1978
CITY OF CARSLEAD
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Jerry Riddle
Principle Civil Engineer
Dear Jerry:
Please reference the Monarch Terrace (Vale II) project.
I am returning to you herewith the checked prints of
the exterior lots of this subdivision. I am also enclosing
the redesigned layout per your review and request for change.
We have managed to include all of the items which you
suggested at our previous meeting. The only question yet
to be resolved between your department and Planning has to do
with Bud Plender's last comment regarding parking within the
.setback from the public street. I believe that a review
of the current design will show that the project could suffer
a loss of approximately 10 parking places, if this sugges-
tion were followed. I would hope that there would be some
leeway in this criteria since we have all worked so hard to
generate the necessary parking.
I am also enclosing two copies of the landscape plan
for the model complex for this project in the Green Valley
Knolls area. We are still expecting to be before the Council
on the encroachment matter February 21, 1978.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely yours,
Gus Theberge
Development Coordinator
Enclosures
Shapell Industries
of San Diego, Inc.3272 Rosecrans Street
A Subsidiary of San Diego, California 92110
Shapell Industries, Inc. (714) 222-0345
March 14, 1978
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 91008
Attention: Jerry Riddle, Principal Civil Engineer
Re: Monarch Terrace (Vale II) Condominium Project
Dear Jerry,
I am enclosing herewith prints of the interior lots
design involving the attached Monarch Terrace units"! T
believe you will be pleased, as we are, at the layout and
specifically, at the parking ratio. Your comments will be
appreciated so that we may finalize this portion of the
project.
As to the exterior lots design involving the detached
units, we are awaiting your decision (along with the Plan-
ning Department's) on the parking within the setback from
the public street. We are prepared to comply with what-
ever determination is made.
A determination also remains to be made regarding the
Model Complex for this project in the Green Valley Knolls
area. Having complied with the Planning and Engineering
Department requirements in this regard, we are awaiting
your direction as to how to proceed to get our models
built.
Thank you for all your help.
Sincerely yours,
Gus Theberge
Development Coordinator
1200 R..M AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORf^lA 93003
TELEPHONE:
(711)729-1181
Cttp 0! Car&tmfc
April 4, 1978
G u s T h e b e r g e
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES '.'.'
3272 Rose arans Street ,
San Diego, California 92110
SUBJECT: Monarch Terrace (Vale II) Condominium Project
Dear Mr. Theberge:
This letter is in response to questions made at our meeting of
March 30, 1978. The main topic of discussion at that meeting
was the requirements for off-street visitor parking. We also
briefly discussed landscaping of the subject project. After
you left I discussjsd the project with Mr. Hagaman the Planning
Director and Mr. Riddle, Principle Civil Engineer. I believe
we arrived at a solution that would be acceptable both to your
firm and the City. It is unfortunate that your project design
cannot accommodate the Amount of off-street visitor parking
that we had originally planned on. However, we feel that a
reduced amount of parking would be acceptable along with park-
ing that will be allowed on public streets. To this end then
your project should include the following off-street visitor
parking s t a n d a r ds :
1 .One off-street visitor parking place for each two dwelling
units or portion thereof. Example: 1 to 2 dwelling units
would need 1 parking space, 3 to 4 dwelling units would
require 2 parking spaces, etc. This parking ratio will be
applied to each individual lot.
2 .Parking spaces will not be located within the 20'
areas.
setback
3. Parking spaces should be conveniently located and accessible
to units which they are intended 1:0 serve.
Regarding landscaping: Please submit your landscaping and
irrigation plans to the Planning Department for approval. The
landscape design should help to distinguish! the p u b I i c r i g h t -
of-way from the private streets. It should also set or accent
a common theme for each lot.
Gus Theberge
April 4, 1971
Page Two
You may know that the City is currently in the process of dev-
eloping some condominium standards, we expect these standards
to be adopted in the very near future. We will accept the fact
that the approved specific plan for your project indicates dev-
elopment of condominiums to the RD-M standards. Therefore , your/project will not be required to comply with the new condominium
standards, should they be adopted before permits are issued for
your project.
Before applying for a building permit, you will need to present
proof of sewer availability to the City.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further
assistance, for we are anxious to continue processing your
application.
?Sincerely,
Don I,. Rose
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DLR:ar
1200 ELM AVENUE H . ?3f7 . B TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 WU^S/ tfflf «714) 729-T181
Citp of Cartefcafc
May 22, 1978
Shapell Industries
ATTN: Gus Theberge
3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, CA 92110
Re: La Costa Vale, Unit II
This letter follows our conference of May 10, 1978, in which
we discussed the off street parking arrangement for the
subject project. As a result of the meeting, we arrived at
the following:
1. This department is prepared to approve the concept
of the parking proposal you submitted with a cover letter,
dated April 24, 1978. An adequate number of spaces is provided.
2. We agreed that some sort of screening is needed
between the guest parking spaces and the dwelling units.
The screening is to be indicated on the landscaping and
irrigation plans. Fencing and/or landscape screening is
proposed. I would like to add to our May 10 discussion
that if landscape screening is proposed, the plant material
should be fast growing and protected from foot traffic by
some sort of barrier. A rail fence would suffice.
3. I mentioned that our code treats parking spaces
as accessory buildings. The purpose is to allow for future
enclosure of parking spaces. Normally, this would require
a 10' setback. It appears that this code provision is in-
tended to apply to required off street parking for project
residents and not guests. I've discussed this with the
Planning Director. He agrees with my appraisal but the
code is not clear. A determination on this issue is
forthcoming.
4. Finished plans should provide for pedestrian
circulation separate from vehicular. You indicated that
this is intended.
5. You asked for some "first blush" comments on
your proposal for lots 284-293. You wanted to know how
Gus Theberge
May 22, 1978
Page Two (2)
the proposal would measure up to our proposed condominium
standards, the situation with sewer, and how staff felt
about the concept. I'm not prepared to answer these questions
yet. I hope you can be patient a little longer. Our condo-
minium standards could change significantly in the near
future and I haven't discussed your new proposal in much
detail with the director. I am planning to do this in the
near future.
Please call me if you have any questions regarding this letter
or your project.
r-
A./'tV-i
Don L. Rose,
Associate Planner
DLRrle
cc: Jim Hagaman, Planning Director
Jere Riddle, Principle Engineer
J
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
J
TELEPHONE:
(714)729-1181
dtp of Cartebab
June 30, 1978
Shapell Industries
3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, California 92110
ATTENTION: W.R. EFFINGER
RE: Monarch Terrace (Vale II)
This, letter follows a discussion we had at the Planning Department
counter a few weeks ago. In a nut shell you asked:
1) What the status of your project is?
2) What steps need to be completed prior to
building permit issuance?
3) What work can be accomplished without sewer
availability?
41 What is needed for approval of your schematic
development plan?
I'll address each item separately to keep things' from getting
mixed up.
1) Current Project Status. You have an approved final subdivision
map, and an approved specific plan that is somewhat vague.
Your proposal was presented to the City Council sometime back.
Council gave direction that the applicant and City staff would
work together to complete a development plan for the property
.in question. The development plan must, of course, meet the
intent of the approved specific plan and the P.C., (Planned
Community) zone. City staff has been working with your firm
to nail down a schematic development plan. We have not yet
completed this process, but I feel we are near completion.
2) Steps to Issuance of Building Permits. Before building permits
can be issued, the following steps must be completed:
a. Work with City staff to complete schematic development plan,
b. Submit supplemental environmental information addressing
impacts of reformulated project.
c. Secure grading permits.
1. Implement mitigation for grading for E.I.R.
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES
JUNE 30, 1978
PAGE TWO (2)
4i-
d. Secure sewer allocations
e. Secure building permits.
3) Work That Can Be Accomplished Without Sewer Availability.
Item 2, above, listed 5 steps to issuance of building permits.
You can complete items a, b, c, & d without the required
sewer availability. Item e (issuance of building permit)
cannot be completed without the availability of sewer.
4) What is Needed for Approval of the "Schematic Development Plan".
It's my understanding that the City Council directed City staff
to work with staff from your firm to complete a schematic
development plan. Admittedly this directive is vague and
general. • The process and the conclusion were not specified.
I've conferred with Engineering and the Planning Director
and I feel we are close to an acceptable development plan.
After studying the plans you've submitted, visiting the site
and after several discussions with representatives of your
firm and other City staff, I feel the following steps
remain to complete the schematic development plan:
4
1. City staff to meet with representatives of your firm on
site to discuss arrangement of buildings.
*
a. The yield you propose is not an issue; the
arrangement of the building is.
b* The general arrangement of building sites is
approved. Some additional grading will no doubt
be needed, but that will be reviewed when final
drawings are submitted.'
C. The number of off street, visitor parking spaces
shown on the present plan is adequate.
• **
2. After we agree on the rearrangment of improvements, your
firm should submit two copies of the revised plan showing
proposed grading, location of buildings, private and
'" public streets, drives & walks, parking, landscaped areas
and property lines. Also accompanying this plan should
. be a Sheet showing elevations of the proposed types of
buildings. We would need a sufficient number of
"elevations to review the design theme of the project.
3. Both sets of plans will be labeled, dated, stamped
approved and signed by the Planning Director. That's
assuming the plans adequately dipict bur agreements.
.2
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES
JUNE 30, 1978
PAGE THREE (3)
You will then be free to begin the necessary steps to building
permit issuance as outlined in this letter. The biggest stumbling
block to completion of your project is the availability of sewer.
You'll have to deal with the Leucadia County Water District for
sewer allocation. We will require proof of sewer availability
before we issue building permits.
As you know we are currently processing a Zone Code Amendment
which will establish development standards for condominiums. The
City has already approved the specific plan for your project.
The process we are going through now is relative to the conditions
of the approved plan and the directions of the City Council.
We will not be applying the standards of the proposed condominium
ordinance to your project, should the ordinance be adopted prior
to issuance of development entitlements. However, should you
come in with a new subdivision map, a new specific plan, or a
substantial modification to either or both, the new standards,
if in effect at the time would apply. * I'm not aware, at this •
time, of any other existing or proposed changes in land use regulations
that could effect the. subject project.
I would like to schedule a meeting with you soon to get things
moving for we are anxious to speed your project along. Please
call me so we can set up a time convenient for you.
Sincerely, .
Don L. Rose
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DLR : ar
.»*.«
.3
1200 ELM AVENUE if ^7. M TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 iK&WjyJI (714)729-1181
CW/ce of f/?e C/fy Manager
Citp of Cartebafc
July 13, 1977
Gus Theberge
Development Coordinator
Shapell Industries of
San Diego, Inc.
3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, California 92110
Subject: Vale II Subdivision
Thank you for your letter dated June 27, 1977. Your
concern over the Vale II subdivision lots is certainly
understood. The staff, however, is trying to respond
to City Council concerns which have been repeatedly
expressed over certain development problems.
There is little question that the original subdivision
approval contemplated condominiums, but of a different
nature and configuration than now proposed. The
development proposed may or may not be considered as
an improvement over the original plans, but there are
no development standards which the project can be
judged against.
I will bring this matter to the Council's attention as
early as possible to determine if they wish to take
any action on this matter. You will be kept informed
of any action concerning this matter.
PAUL D."
City Manager
PDB:ldg JUL 1 8 1977
CITY I* CARLSBAD
Planning Depart.'
1200 ELM AVENUE f. j JS>'7 . 1 TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 H^Wo1/^ ' (714)729-1181
August 23, 1978
Shapell Industries
3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, Ca. 92110
Attention: Mr. Gus Theberge
Re: Monarch Terrace (Vale II)
This letter follows our recent meetings on Monarch Terrace.
Some time back the City Council approved a specific plan
for La Costa Vale that was not very specific. I understand
that a condition of approval was that your firm was to work
with city staff toward a development plan for the subject
property. We have been working toward that point for some time
now and I thought we were nearing completion. However,
it appears,'that we are now at an impasse.
I perceive the current status of our joint efforts as follows:
1. The proposed yield is not an issue.
2. The number of off street visitor parking spaces has been
agreed on - one for each two units.
3. The general arrangement of building sites has been
mutually accepted. Staff has indicated the elevations
of some of the sites could be an issue depending on the
development proposed for these sites.
4. The locations of building types is an issue. You
propose three story super block structures for the most
prominent sites. Staff feels that is inappropriate
and can not support your proposal.
Regarding item 4 above; it's true that the Council understood
that the building sites were to accomodate some sort of
condominium development. However, I can find no evidence that
„ Shappel Indust
August 23, 1978
Page two
the type of structures envisioned are the type which you now
propose. In my opinion the E.I.R. prepared for your project
does not address the project which you are now proposing
adequately or accurately.
Of course these conclusions are all subject to challenge. If
you wish to exercise your right to challenge then I suggest
you start with Mr. Hagaman, the Planning Director. However,
if you wish to pick up where we left off, I stand ready to
assist you in carrying out your project.
DON L. ROSE
cc: Jere Riddle
DLR:ms
CKC Development Company
2101 EL CAMINO REAL
OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92054
(714) 721-0994
942-2900
April 13, 1982
Mr. Mike Howes
Planning Dept.
City of Carlsbad
Dear Mr. Howes,
We are the legal owners of 44 Lot in La Costa (La Costa Vale
Unit #3, Carlsbad Tract 72-20, Lots 379, 380, 428, through 439,
456 through 471, 473 through 486). We were infonred that in
Carlsbad Tract 72-20, Specific plan #38, Lots 379 and 380 are
multiple Residential lots with density up to 14 DU/acre and the
rest lots are allowed for single family dwelling with minimum
lot size of 7,500 s.f. (attachment).
Please verify the density allowance in specific plan #38 on
the above lots.
Your effort in researching and verification is greatly appreciated.
Dick Chiang
>- LOT AND DENSITY BREAKDOWN^
JT
Type_pf Lot -
. Density Lot Numbers No. of Lots Acres No. of Units
Multiple Residential ,,,'.-
HDU/Acre 251 to 270
274 to 291
296 to 311 54 94.3 1,045
Multiple Residential
14 DU/Acre - . 378 to 391 14 53.3 750
Single Family ; .
7,500 SF/Lot 292 to 295, 338
to 377, 394to499 150 , 56.5 150
Single Family .
.1/2 Acre Min./Lot 312 to 337, 500 to
Park
School
Easements
506, 508 to 517
272
271, 519
273,392,393,
.507 and 578
43
1
2
5
43 43'
: .-.--« '
• ' • 13
20
\
9.9
TOTALS 269 290 1,988
j&jyd4A^
f /> I
La Costa Vale Units 2-4
July 26, 1972
J#3917
-
cr
3-
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
D Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-5596
D Building Department
(714) 438-5525
O Engineering Department
(714) 438-5541
D Housing & Redevelopment Department
3096 Harding St.
(714)438-5611
D Planning Department
(714) 438-5591
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Citp of Cartebafc
April 15, 1982
Dick Chiang
2101 El Camino Real
Oceanside, CA 92054
RE: La Costa Vale - CT 72-20 - Lots 379, 380, 428-439, 456-471,
473-486
Dear Mr Chiang,
This letter is in response to your letter of April 13, 1982,
concerning the above mentioned lots. All of these lots have
different numbers on the tentative map than they do on the final
map for this tract. This often occurs as there may be some
minor lot line adjustments or renumbering of lots between
tentative map approval and final map approval. All of the above
mentioned lots have been designated as: Natural with 0.5 acre
minimum area, single family dwelling unit lots, on the approved
tentative tract map.
Although the lots have different numbers on the tentative map and
final map staff feels that the tentative map designation for
these lots is still pertinent due to the steep topography of
these lots and the existing development in the area. Addition-
ally, the tentative map designation for these lots is in confor-
mance with the General Plan Designation of RLM, Residential
Low-Medium, 0-4 dwelling units per acre.
If you desire to further subdivide this property you will have to
file a tentative map and an amendment to Specific Plan 38. As I
have mentioned to you previously, I do not know if staff could
support a further subdivision of the subject lots due to the
steep topography. I hope this letter answers your questions in
regard to your property in La Costa Vale. If you have any
further questions regarding this matter please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Bill Hofman
City of Carlsbad
By:
Mike Howes
Assistant Planner
BH:MH:rh
-2-
''*:(IA. - COSTA. I/ALE) UNIT NO. 3 _
SITE
CT 12-2.0
CITY
OF
CARLSBAD
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR
LA COSTA VALE UNITS 2-4
April 24, 1973
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 35
ACCEPTABILITY OF DRAFT REPORT:
The draft report titled "Environmental Impact Report:La Costa
Vale Units 2 through 4, Carlsbad, California", proposed by La Costa
Land Company, and prepared by Rick Engineering Company, was accepted
by the Director of Planning as the preliminary E.I.R. This report
was then forwarded to the following agencies for their review:
1. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
2. IREM (County)
3. CPO (County)
4. State Department of Fish & Game
5. San Diego Ecology Centre
6. Department of Sanitation and Flood Control (County)
7. Phil Stanbro (Environmental Consultant)
8. Museum of Man (San Diego)
The only agencies to reply were the Museum of Man, Dept. of Fish
and Game, and the Dept. of Sanitation & Flood Control. These comments
are attached to this report. The points raised will be discussed in
this report.
FINAL REPORT:
1. Project Description
The information provided in the draft EIR on Pgs. 1-4 gives an
adequate description of the proposed project.
2. Environmental Setting Without the Project
Pages 4-9 of the draft EIR provide an adequate description of the
environmental setting without the project.
3. Identify Environmental Impacts
The draft EIR, on Pgs. 9-13 identifies the basic environmental
Final EIR/La Costa Vale Units 2-4 . April 19, 1973
Page 2
impacts of the development. Emphasis should be placed on the
following:
a. Change of natural land form - Approximately 3,000,000
cubic yards of dirt are proposed to be moved to accommo-
date this development. Of prime import is the protection
of the character of San Marcos Canyon. The developer's
engineer has worked closely with Staff to minimize this
possible impact.
b. The removal of vegetation and subsequent displacement of
wildlife.- The comments received from the State Department
of Fish & Game are some of the best received to date from
outside reviewing agencies. They look at the long-range
effect of the development on wildlife and the effect's
relationship on adjoining areas. Please read this letter
(attached).
c. Change in method of drainage - The drainage on the project
site will change from overland sheet flow and flow in
natural channels to flow in street gutters and in an under-
ground storm drain system. This action will basically
eliminate natural ground water recharge and ultimately
might cause some unknown latent effect on the environment.
d. Municipal Services - Any project of this size will have
an effect on municipal services such as fire, police, school
system, utilities and roads.
4. Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided Should
the Proposal Be Implemented
Page 14 of the Draft EIR provides this information.
5. Mitigation Measures Proposed To Minimize the Impact
The developer's proposals are found on Pages 15-17 of the Draft
EIR. These, and Staff's, have been included as conditions of approval
of the Tentative Map, wherever possible.
6. Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Alternatives are found on Pages 18-19 of the Draft EIR.
7. The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term
Environmental Productivity.
Page 20 of the Draft EIR provides this information.
FINAL EIR/La Costa "-Me Units 2-4 - April 19, 1973
Page 3
8. The Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Activity Upon
the Neighborhood and/or Community
The connection of La Costa Avenue with Rancho Santa Fe Road
will be the most significant growth inducina impact.
See Page 22 of the Draft EIR.
9. The Boundaries of the Area Which May be Significantly Affected
by the Proposed Activity
Page 23 of the Draft EIR provides this information.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the acceptance of the Final Environmental
Impact Report consisting of the Draft EIR, replies from outside re-
view agencies, and this analysis.
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL C. ZA'NDjJIJ/,
Assistant Planrf
I (MENTAL IMPACT ASSESS?-:
n.,U cl January 24, 1974
Nania of Applicant: La Costa Land Company
Permit Applied For: Grading Permit
Location of Proposed Activity: The ^tivity site is located
on the Northerly side of Alga Road between Estrella Del Mar Road"
and the 200 foot wide San Diego Gas and Electric Company Easement.
I. Background Information. " '-' -
1. .Give a brief description of the proposed activity.
The applicant proposes to continue the grading operation
that was commenced under County of San Diego Grading
Permit L-6352. The applicant proposes to import approx-r
imately 259,000 cubic yards of dirt that will'come from
future City, approved projects at La Costa-. The fill is
to be placed in the canyon opposite the end of Almaden
Lane. ' • . -
2. Describe the activity area, including distinguishing
natural and manmade characteristics.
The site is located in a canyon on the Northerly side of
Alga Road. A large portion of the canyon has already been
filled to approximately the elevation of Alga Road. The
land to the East rises steeply through the 200 foot wide"
San Diego Gas and Electric Company power easement to' a
steep manmade bank-at the boundary of La Costa Meadows
Unit No. 1. ' . ' - ;
The land to the North rises steeply from the fill line
to the.top of a ridge. The ridge runs approximately East
and West and forms the boundary of the fill area on the
West. West of the location that the ridge intercepts Alga
Road is a large drainage channel that runs North and South.
South of the project location is the La Costa Golf "Course,
improved lots and vacant land East of Alicante Road.
' " APPENDIX B.
11. Environmental Impact Analysis.
Answer the follovn'ng questions by placing a check in the
appropriate space.
Yes . No_
1. Could the project significantly change present
land uses in the vicinity of the activity?
2. Could the activity affect the use of a re-
creational area, or area of important
aesthetic value?
7. Could the activity significantly affect
•the potential use, extraction, or con-
servation of a scarce natural resource?
3. Could the activity affect the functioning
of an established community or neighbor-
hood? x
x
4. Could the activity result in the displace-
ment of community residents? _ _ x
5. Are any of the natural or man-made features ;
in the activity area unique, that is, not - , .
found in other parts of the County, State, .
or nation? " • _
6. Could the acti vitysignif icantly affect a
historical or archaelogical site or its xsetting? _ __ _
8. Does the activity area serve as a habitat,
food source, nesting place, source of water, '
etc. for rare or endangered wildlife or x
fish species? • '
9. Could the activity significantly affect x
fish, wildlife or plant life? .
10. Are there any rare or endangered plant x
species in the activity area? • ______
11. Could the activity change existing features
of any of the city's lagoons, bays, or
tidelands? X
Yes .. No.
12. Could the activity change existing features
of any of the City's beaches? . x
13. Could the activity result in the erosion
or elimination of agricultural lands?
14. Could the activity serve to encourage
development of presently undeveloped
areas or intensify development of already x
developed areas?
15. Will the activity require a variance from
established environmental standards (air, •
water, noise, etc)? . ^
16. Will the activity require certification, .
authorization or issuance of a permit ' -
by any local, State or Federal en-
vironmental control agency? x
17. Will the activity require issuance of
a variance or conditional use permit * •' v
by the City? '
18.Will the activity involve the application,
use, or disposal of potentially hazardous
materials? ' y
19. Will the activity involve construction
of facilities in a flood plain?
20. Will the activity involve construction •
of facilities on a slope of 2.5 per cent x
or greater? '' .-' •
21. Will the activity involve construction
of facilities in the area of an active
fault? x_
22. Could the activity result in the
generation of significant amounts
ofnoise? . x
23. Could the activity result in the gen-
eration of significant amounts of dust? X
24. Will the activity involve' the burning
of brush, trees, or other materials? x
25. Could the activity result in a significant
change in the quality of any portion of the
region's air or water resources? (Should
note surface, ground water, off-shore)
25. Vlill the"-0 be a significant change o
existing and form?
(a) indicate estimated grading to be
done in cubic yards. 259/000 Cubic, Yards of fill.
(b) percentage of alteration to the
present land form. 40% .
(c) maximum height of cut or fill
slopes, 80 £eet - .
27. Will the activity result in substantial
increases in the use of utilities, xsewers, drains or streets? -
III. • State of No Significant Environmental Effects
If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions in
Section II, but youthink the activity will -have no significant enviro-
mental effects, indicate your reasons below: - ..••• " .---••
The trucking operation to bring the fill to the site--could _;- '.,-
cause a temporary inconvenience to the neighbor's/ however/
the disruption of the neighborhood'will be temporary'and
many of the surrounding homes are not permanent residences.
IV. Comments or Elaborations to Any of the Questions in Section II.
f~if additional space is needed for answering any questions,
attach additional sheets as may be needed.)
The land form will change significantly from a deep valley to
a sloping pad. This, however, will not have a significant "
adverse environmental impact beacause it will prevent the
ponding of water and provide the road bed for Alga Road t9
be widened to its ultimate width and the majority of the
<.. . canyon has already been filled. _ .',_.-., . .Signature:. * J^I /ZZ^/Zg^fr^ \
(Person completing report)^-.
Date signed:
V. Conclusions (To be completed by the Planning Director)
Place a check in the appropriate box.
[] Farther information is required.
It has been determined that the project will not have
significant environmental effects.
It has been determined that the project could have
significant environmental effects. An environmental
impact statement must be submitted by the/foilowing
fb/SRECTOR
(Or Representative)
Date Received:
515 8 1992-0460132
23-JUL-1992 11=55
Recording Requested By:
THE HILLSIDE PATIO
HOMES ASSOCIATION
When Recorded Mail To:
Jon H. Epsten, Esquire
EPSTEN & GRINNELL
555 West Beech St., Ste. 200
San Diego, California 92101
OFIClni RECORDS
SAH OIZGO CGUHTY RECORDS' S OFFICE
\ t AHHETTE EvASS. COiiHTY RECORDER
•/ Rf: 9.00 FZE3J
•|f ftp: 13.00
'l .- SF: 1.00
23.00
ADDENDUM TO
SECOND AMENDMENT TO AND RESTATEMENT OP
DECLARATION OP COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
FOR
LOTS 487 AND 488 OR
CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 72-20
LA COSTA VALE UNIT NO. 3
HILLSIDE PATIO HOMES, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
0024337.UP
516
This document is for the purpose of certifying the validity of
the SECOND AMENDMENT TO AND RESTATEMENT OF DECLARATION OF
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ("SECOND AMENDMENT") made
the 27th day of May, 1992, by THE HILLSIDE PATIO HOMES ASSOCIATION.
("ASSOCIATION").
1. The Second Amendment amends the original Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions recorded February 1, 1978,
as File/Page 78-042339, as amended by a first Amendment recorded
May 5, 1978 as File/Page 7JLrl83911, and as supplemented by the
first Supplementary Declaration recorded June 26, 1978 as File/Page
No. 78-265147, the second Supplementary Declaration recorded August
25, 1978 as File/Page No. 78-364408, and the third Supplementary
Declaration recorded October 6, 1978 as File/Page No. 78-427260.
2. The property to which the foregoing documents and this
Addendum apply is identified in Exhibit A attached to this
Addendum.
3. The Association had sought to adopt the Second Amendment
pursuant to the requirements of Article XVI, Section 5 of the
original Declaration which, inter alia, requires approval by three
quarters (75%) of the members of the Association. The Association
obtained the approval of more than one half, but less than three
quarters of the membership.
4. On February 25, 1992, the Association filed a Petition
pursuant to the authority of California Civil Code Section 1356.
The Petition was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego, North County Branch, as case
-2- 0024337.WP
517
number N 54748. The Petition sought a court order approving the
Second Amendment by virtue of the approval of members actually
obtained, as permitted by Civil Code Section 1356. The Court
signed an order on June 9, 1992 approving the Second Amendment, and
authorizing its recordation. A copy of the court's order is
attached to this Addendum as Exhibit B.
5. The President and Secretary have been authorized to
attest to, and do hereby attest to the foregoing facts, and have
been authoirzed to execute, acknowledge, and record the Second
Amendment and this Addendum to Second Amendment.
Executed on July 14 , 1992, at Carlsbad ,
California.
OFFICIAL SEAL
PAULTDUNPHY
Notary PubGc-CaRfomia
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
My Comm. Exp. Mar. 22,1993
State of California )
County of San Diego )
On this j£o* day _pf
before me, ^
appearedTjZ^LESS.
THE HILLSIDE PATIO HOMES
ASSOCIATION
By:X -
£in the year 19j
personally
ersonally known to me or proved to me
o be the person who executed
on behalf of the
on the basis of satisfactory
the within instrument as i
corporation therein named and acknowledged to me that the
corporation executed it.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public"in and forvsajrf State
-3- ^ 0024337.WP
518
State of California )
County of San Diego )
On this
before me,
appeared J2_on the basis of satisfactory evidence
the within instrument as -S>* c r
_, in the year ]
, personally
to~~me^gr proved to me
te the person who executed
on behalf of the
corporation therein named and acknowZedged to me that the
corporation executed it.
WITNESS my hand and official sea
OFFICIAL SEAL
ARLENEJAUSTRENQNotty PubfeCaJBomia
6ANOCEOO COUNTY
MyCeam.Exp.ihy17.1903
No
-4-0024337.UP
519
EXHIBIT -A" - LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots 487, 488, 489, 490, 491 and that portion of Lot 492,
Carlsbad Tract 72-20, La Costa Vale Unit Ho. 3, in the
City of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, State of
California, according to Hap thereof No. 7950, filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
June 3, 1974, described as follows:
Beginning at the most Southerly corner of Lot 492 as
shown on said Hap No. 7950? thence North 43»50'00" feet
to an Intersection with a 580.00 foot radius curve,
concave Northwesterly, ~s radial line to said curve bears
South 19«47'40" East; thence Northeasterly along the arc
of said curve through a Central angle of 28«42'20" a
distance of 290.58 feet; thence tangent to said curve
North 41«30'00" East, 124.50 feet; thence South 49»41'25"
East, 158.11 feet; thence South 61»40'05" East, 124.60
feet; thence South 45»10'00" West 462.85 feet to the
Point of Beginning.
EXHIBIT A
5JO
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ra i I i [f.If KENNETH £. MAflTOW Ui>
Ctert "* f" *:•""•• r""t
JUN 0 9 1992
By: S. SEEMATTER, Oeouty
SUPERIOR COURT OP THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
NORTH COUNTY BRANCH
In Re THE HILLSIDE PATIO HOMES
ASSOCIATION, a California Non-
profit Mutual Benefit
Corporation,
Petitioner.
CASE NO. N 54748
ORDER AFTER HEARING GRANTING
PETITION FOR ORDER REDUCING
PERCENTAGE OF VOTES NECESSARY
TO AHZND DECLARATION OF COMMON
INTEREST DEVELOPMENT (CIVIL
CODE SECTION 13S6)
TRIAL DATE: May 27, 1992
The Petition for Order Reducing Percentage of Votes Necessary
to Amend Declaration of Common Interest Development filed by THE
HILLSIDE PATIO HOMES ASSOCIATION came on regularly for hearing on
May 27, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. in Department M of the above entitled
court, the Honorable Thomas R. Murphy, Judge presiding.
Pursuant to San Diego Local Rule 4.2(a), no hearing was held in
open court, and no appearances vere made.
EXHIBIT -i-0023834.UP
521
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Court, having read and considered the evidence submitted
and the arguments presented, and proof having been made to the
satisfaction of the Court, the Court hereby finds that the six
conditions contained in California Civil Code Section 1356(c)
have been satisfied, and, therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Order Reducing
Percentage of Votes Necessary to Amend Declaration of Common
Interest Development filed by THE HILLSIDE PATIO" HOMES
ASSOCIATION is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amendment to Declaration is
confirmed to have been validly approved on the basis of the
affirmative votes actually received during the balloting period.
Dated:JUN 0 9 1992 THOMAS R. MURPHY
Judge of the Superior Court
EXHIBIT B
-2-0023836.UP
Recording Requested By:
THE HILLSIDE PATIO
HOMES ASSOCIATION
When Recorded Mail To:
Jon H. Epsten, Esq.
EPSTEN & GRINNELL
555 West Beech St., Ste. 200
San Diego, CA 92101
SECOND AMENDMENT TO AND RESTATEMENT OF
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
FOR
LOTS 487 AND 488 OF
CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 72-20
LA COSTA VALE UNIT NO. 3
HILLSIDE PATIO HOMES, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREAMBLE 1
ARTICLE I. DEFINITIONS 2
1.01 "Articles" 2
1.02 "Association" . . . 2
1.03 "Board" 3
1.04 "Bylaws" 3
1.05 "Common Area" 3
1.06 "Condominium" 3
1.07 "Condominium Plan" 3
1.08 "Declarant" 3
1.09 "Governing Documents" 3
1.10 "Member" 3
1.11 "Mortgage" 3
1.12 "Mortgagee" 4
1.13 "Mortgagor" 4
1.14 "Owner" 4
1.15 "Person" 4
1.16 "Project" 4
1.17 "Property" 4
1.18 "Restated Declaration" .' 4
1.19 "Rules and Regulations" 4
1.20 "Unit" 4
1.21 "Yard Area" 5
ARTICLE II. THE PROPERTY 5
2.01 Project Subject to Restated Declaration 5
2.02 Partition 5
2.03 Presumption Regarding Boundaries of Units 5
2.04 Prohibition Against Severance of Elements 6
ARTICLE III. ASSOCIATION 6
3.01 Organization of the Association 6
3.02 Membership 6
3.03 Voting Rights 6
3.04 Membership Meetings 7
3.05 General Powers and Authority 7
3.06 Duties of the Association 9
3.07 Board of Directors 11
3.08 Inspection of Books and Records 11
ARTICLE IV. ASSESSMENTS AND COLLECTION PROCEDURES .... 12
4.01 Covenant to Pay 12
4.02 Purpose of Assessments 12
4.03 Regular Assessments 12
4.04 Special Assessments 12
4.05 Lien For Monetary Penalty 13
4.06 Limitations on Assessments 13
HILLSIDK PATIO
DRAFT DATIt
DBCLARATIOH
18, 1990 0004582.HP
4.07 Late Charges 13
4.08 Enforcement of Assessments and Late Charges ... 14
4.09 Statement of Delinquent Assessment 14
ARTICLE V. USE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS 15
5.01 Common Area 15
5.02 General Restrictions on Use 16
5.03 Damage Liability 17
5.04 Equitable Servitude 17
ARTICLE VI. REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE 17
6.01 Unit 17
6.02 Yard Area 18
6.03 Common Area Fences 18
6.04 Public Utilities 18
ARTICLE VII. ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN CONTROL 19
7.01 Architectural and Design Approval 19
7.02 Architectural Control Committee 19
7.03 Architectural Guidelines 20
7.04 Board of Directors 20
ARTICLE VIII. INSURANCE 20
8.01 Fire and Casualty Insurance 20
8.02 General Liability Insurance 20
8.03 Other Association Insurance 20
8.04 Trustee for Policies 21
8.05 Insurance Premiums 21
ARTICLE IX. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION 21
9.01 Duty to Restore and Replace 21
9.02 Ordering Reconstruction or Repair 21
9.03 Minor Restoration and Repair Work 22
ARTICLE X. EMINENT DOMAIN 22
10.01 Definition of Taking 22
10.02 Sale to Condemning Authority 22
10.03 Total Sale or Taking 23
10.04 Partial Sale or Taking 23
ARTICLE XI. RIGHTS OF MORTGAGEES 24
11.01 Warranty 24
11.02 Subordination 24
11.03 Right to Furnish Mortgage Information ... 24
ARTICLE XII. AMENDMENTS 24
HILLfllDl PATIO AMEHDE) DECLARATION
DBAR DAIKtDwmtMT 18, 1990 ii 0004582.WP
ARTICLE XIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS 25
13.01 Term 25
13.02 Nonwaiver of Remedies 25
13.03 Severability 25
13.04 Binding 25
13.05 Interpretation 25
13.06 Limitation of Liability 25
13.07 Fair Housing 26
13.08 Number and Headings 26
13.09 Attorneys Fees 26
EXHIBIT "A" - LEGAL DESCRIPTION 28
EXHIBIT -B- - YARD AREA MAINTENANCE 29
HILMIOT PATIO AHBOID DEOJUttTIOM
DHA7T DATKiDWMBbar 1$, 1990 iii 0004582.W>
SECOND AMENDMENT TO AND RESTATEMENT OF
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
FOR
LOTS 487 AND 488 OF
CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 72-20
LA COSTA VALE UNIT NO. 3
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO AND RESTATEMENT OF DECLARATION OF
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS is made this day of
, 19 , by THE HILLSIDE PATIO HOMES
ASSOCIATION, a California non-profit corporation and through its
membership ("Declarant").
PREAMBLE
A. Declarant is a corporation whose Members are the Owners
of all the Units within that certain real property in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, more
particularly described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, hereinafter referred to as the
"Property."
B. The Property is currently subject to the covenants,
conditions, restrictions, rights, reservations, easements,
equitable servitudes, liens and charges set forth in the following:
1. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for
Lots 487 and 488 of Carlsbad Tract No. 72-20, La Costa
Vale Unit No. 3, recorded February 1, 1978, as File/Page
No. 78-042339;
2. Amendment to Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions for Lots 487 and 488 of Carlsbad Tract No.
72-20, La Costa Vale Unit No. 3, recorded May 5, 1978 as
File/Page No. 78-183911;
3. Supplementary Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions and Declaration of Annexation for Lot 489 of
Carlsbad Tract No. 72-20, La Costa Vale Unit No. 3,
recorded June 26, 1978 as File/Page No. 78-265147;
4. Supplementary Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions and Declaration of Annexation for Lot 490 of
Carlsbad Tract No. 72-20, La Costa Vale Unit No. 3,
recorded August 25, 1978 as File/Page No. 78-364408; and
5. Supplementary Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions and Declaration of Annexation for Lots 491
HILLSIDB PATIO AMEHDKD DECLARATION
DRAFT DftXItD«»bar 18, 1990 1 0004582.WP
and 492 of Carlsbad Tract No. 72-20, La Costa Vale Unit
No. 3, recorded October 6, 1978 as File/Page No. 78-
all of which are of Official Records of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, California, hereinafter referred to together as
"Declaration."
C. Declarant now desires to amend and restate the
Declaration including all amendments and supplements thereto and
replace it in its entirety with this Restated Declaration.
Declarant further desires that, upon recordation of this Restated
Declaration, the Property shall be subject to the covenants,
conditions, restrictions, rights, reservations, easements,
equitable servitudes, liens and charges contained herein.
D. The Property is additionally subject to the covenants,
conditions, restrictions contained in that certain Declaration and
Establishment of Protective Conditions and Restrictions, recorded
December 9, 1976 as File/Page No. 76-411224 and that certain
Amendment to Declaration and Establishment of Protective Conditions
and Restrictions, recorded February 23, 1977 as File/Page No.
77-064347, both of Official Records of the County Recorder of San
Diego County. Declarant does not desire or intend to amend,
restate or otherwise change the provisions of the documents
referred to in this Preamble D.
E. Declarant hereby declares that all of the Property is and
shall continue to be held, conveyed, hypothecated, encumbered,
leased, rented, used, occupied, and improved subject to the
declarations, limitations, covenants, conditions, restrictions,
reservations, rights, and easements set forth in this Restated
Declaration, and as may be amended from time to time, all of which
are declared and agreed to be in furtherance of a plan established
for the purpose of enhancing and perfecting the value,
desirability, and attractiveness of the Property. All provisions
of this Restated Declaration shall constitute covenants running
with the land and enforceable equitable servitudes upon the
Property, and shall be binding on and for the benefit of all of the
Property and all parties having or acquiring any right, title, or
interest in all or any part of the Property, including the heirs,
executors, administrators, and assigns of these parties and all
subsequent owners and lessees of all or any part of a Condominium.
ARTICLE I. DEFINITIONS
1.01 "Articles" means the Articles of Incorporation of THE
HILLSIDE PATIO HOMES ASSOCIATION and any amendments thereto that
are or shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of
the State of California.
HILLSIDE PATIO AMKHDID DECLARATION
DRAFT DAXE:D«c«atar 18, 1990 2 0004582.WP
1.02 "Association" means THE HILLSIDE PATIO HOMES ASSOCIATION,
a California non-profit mutual benefit corporation created for the
purpose of managing a common interest development.
1.03 "Board* means the Board of Directors of the Association.
1.04 "Bylaws" means the Bylaws of the Association and any
amendments thereto.
1.05 "Common Area" means the entire Property except all Units
as defined in this Restated Declaration or as shown on the
Condominium Plan.
1.06 "Condominium* means an estate in real property consisting
of a separate interest in a Unit, the boundaries of which are shown
and described on the Condominium Plan, a fractional undivided
interest as a tenant in common in the Common Area of the Project,
a Membership in the Association, and any exclusive easement in the
Yard Area appurtenant to each Unit as shown on the Condominium Plan
or deed of conveyance.
1.07 "Condominium Plan" means, collectively, the following
condominium plans covering the Property:
1. Amended Condominium Plan of Shady Hollow, recorded
December 14, 1977 as File/Page No. 77-516487;
2. Certificate Under California Civil Code Section 1351,
recorded March 1, 1978 as File/Page No. 78-082643;
3. Certificate Under California Civil Code Section, 1351,
recorded March 1, 1978 as File/Page No. 78-082644; and
4. Certificate Under California Civil Code Section 1351,
recorded March 1, 1978 as File/Page No. 78-082645.
1.08 "Declarant" means THE HILLSIDE PATIO HOMES ASSOCIATION,
its membership and its successors and assigns.
1.09 "Governing Documents * means this Restated Declaration and
any other documents such as the Articles, Bylaws, Rules and
Regulations or Architectural Guidelines which govern the operation
of the Association.
1.10 "Member" means every person or entity entitled to
membership in the Association as provided in this Restated Declara-
tion.
1.11 "Mortgage" means a mortgage or deed of trust encumbering
a Condominium or any other portion of the Project. "First
Mortgage" means a mortgage that has priority over all other
mortgages encumbering the same Condominium or other portions of the
Project.
BXLL8IDX PATIO AMKHDKD DBCLARATIOH
DRAFT DATB:D«c«Bb«r 18, 1990 3 0004582.WP
1.12 "Mortgagee" means a Person to whom a Mortgage is made
and includes the beneficiary of a deed of trust and any guarantor
or insurer of a mortgage. "Institutional Mortgagee" means a
mortgagee that is a financial intermediary or depository/ such as
a bank, savings and loan, or mortgage company, that is chartered
under federal or state law and that lends money on the security of
real property or invests in such loans, or any insurance company or
governmental agency or instrumentality, including the Federal
National Mortgage Association (FNMA), the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), and the Government National Mortgage
Association (GNMA). "First Mortgagee" means a mortgagee that has
priority over all other mortgages or holders of mortgages encumber-
ing the same Condominium or other portions of the Project. The
term "Beneficiary" shall be synonymous with the term "Mortgagee."
1.13 'Mortgagor* means a Person who mortgages his, her, or its
property to another (i.e., the maker of a mortgage), and shall
include the trustor of a deed of trust. The term "Trustor" shall
be synonymous with the term "Mortgagor."
1.14 "Owner" means the record holder or holders of record fee
title to a Condominium, including Declarant, and any contract
sellers under recorded contracts of sale. "Owner" shall not
include any persons or entities who hold an interest in a Con-
dominium merely as security for performance of an obligation.
1.15 "Person* means a natural individual, a corporation, or
any other entity with the legal right to hold title to real
property.
1.16 "Project" means the common interest development and is a
condominium project as described herein and on the Condominium Plan
including all improvements thereon.
1.17 "Property" means the real property described above.
1.18 "Restated Declaration" means this Amended and Restated
Declaration of Restrictions and any amendments thereto.
1.19 "Rules and Regulations" means any Rules and Regulations
for the Association regulating the use of the Common Area, the
Project and any facilities located thereon adopted by the Board
pursuant to Article III herein.
1.20 "Unit" means that portion of a Condominium that consists
of a separate interest. "Unit" does not include the other elements
of the Project. The boundaries of a Unit shall be the exterior
surfaces of the perimeter walls, doors and windows and the exterior
surfaces of the perimeter floors, ceilings and roofs (and their
horizontal plane projections), all as shown on the Condominium Plan
for the Project. The Unit includes the exterior of all surfaces so
described, the portions of the buildings in which the Unit is
located lying within said boundaries, and the airspace so
encompassed.
HILLSIDI PAXZO AMEBDKD DKCXJUUXIOR
DHMT DATBtD«c«Bb«r 18, 1990 4 0004587
1.21 'Yard Area" means an exclusive easement in the Common
Area for residential yard purposes and consists of the portion of
the Common Area which is adjacent to or surrounds each Unit in the
Project, respectively, as shown and described on the Condominium
Plan. The Yard Area shall consist of the contiguous surfaces of
any Common Area walls or fences. Each Owner of an easement in an
exclusive Yard Area shall have the""right to the use of tne grounJ
'Deiow to a depth of twenty (2U) feet and the airspace above the
"designated exclusive Yard Area.
ARTICLE II. THE PROPERTY
2.01 Project Subject to Restated Declaration. The entire
Project shall be subject to this Restated Declaration.
2.02 Partition. There shall be no judicial partition of the
Project or any part of it, nor shall Declarant or any person
acquiring an interest in the Project or any part of it seek any
judicial partition, except as follows:
(a) If two (2) or more persons own any Condominium as
tenants in common or as joint tenants, they may maintain a
partition action as to their cotenancy;
(b) The Owner of a Condominium may maintain a partition
action as to the entire Project, as if all of the Owners in the
Project were tenants in common in the same proportion as their
interests in the Common Area, and an appropriate court orders
partition by sale of the entire Project, upon a showing of any one
(1) of the following:
(1) More than three (3) years before the filing of
the action, the Project was damaged or destroyed, so that a
material part was rendered unfit for its prior use, and the Project
has not been rebuilt or repaired substantially to its state prior
to the damage or destruction;
(2) The Project has been in existence for more than
fifty (50) years and is obsolete and uneconomical, more than a
fifty percent (50%) of the membership oppose repair or restoration
of the Project;
(3) Three-fourths (3/4) or more of the Project is
destroyed or substantially damaged and more than fifty percent
(50%) of the membership oppose repair or restoration of the Project
subject to the provisions of Article IX herein and distribution
requirements set forth in Article IX herein; or
(4) The conditions of sale comply with the sale and
distribution requirements set forth in Article IX herein.
2.03 Presumption Regarding Boundaries of* Units. In inter-
preting deeds, declarations, plans, the existing physical boun-
HILLSIDB PATIO AMEBOID DSCLAHATIQH
DRAFT DATB:D«caabar 18, 1990 5 0004582.TO
daries of a Unit, including any Unit reconstructed in substantial
accordance with the Condominium Plan and the original construction
plans for the Project, shall be conclusively presumed to be its
boundaries, rather than the description expressed in the deed,
Condominium Plan, or this Restated Declaration. This presumption
applies regardless of settling or lateral movement of the Unit and
regardless of minor variances between boundaries, as shown on the
Condominium Plan or described in the deed and this Restated
Declaration, and the boundaries of the Unit as constructed or
reconstructed.
2.04 Prohibition Against Severance of Elements. Any
conveyance, judicial sale, or other voluntary or involuntary
transfer of a Unit shall include all interests and appurtenances as
shown in the original deed of conveyance. Any conveyance, judicial
sale, or other voluntary or involuntary transfer of the Owner's
entire estate shall also include the Owner's membership interest in
the Association, as provided in Article III herein. Any transfer
that attempts to sever those component interests shall be void.
ARTICLE III. ASSOCIATION
3.01 Organization of the Association. The Association is
incorporated as a non-profit corporation organized under the
California Non-profit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law. The
Association is created for the purpose of managing the Project and
is charged with the duties and invested with the powers prescribed
by law and set forth in the Governing Documents.
3.02 Membership. Every Owner, upon becoming an Owner, shall
automatically become a Member of the Association. Ownership of a
Condominium is the sole qualification for membership. Each Member
shall have the rights, duties, privileges, and obligations as set
forth in the Governing Documents. Membership shall automatically
cease when the Owner no longer holds an ownership interest in a
Condominium. All memberships shall be appurtenant to the Con-
dominium conveyed, and cannot be transferred, assigned, conveyed,
hypothecated, pledged, or alienated except as part of a transfer of
the Owner's entire ownership interest, and then only to the
transferee. Any transfer of the Owner's title to his or her
Condominium shall automatically transfer the appurtenant membership
to the transferee.
3.03 Voting Rights. All voting rights of the Owners shall be
subject to the following restrictions, limitations, and require-
ments :
(a) Except as provided in this Article, on each matter
submitted to a vote of the Owners, each Owner shall be entitled to
cast one (1) vote for each Condominium owned;
(b) Fractional votes shall not be allowed. When there
is more than one (1) record Owner of a condominium (co-owners),
HILLSIDB PATIO AMEBOID DECLARATION
DRAFT DATXtP«ealMr 18, 1990 6 0004582.WP
all of the co-owners shall be Members, but only one (1) of them
shall be entitled to cast the single vote attributable to the
Condominium. Co-owners should designate in writing one (1) of
their owners to vote. If no such designation is made or if it is
revoked, the co-owners shall decide among themselves, by majority
vote, how that Condominium's vote is to be cast. Unless the Board
receives a written objection in advance from a co-owner, it shall
be conclusively presumed that the voting co-owner is acting with
the consent of his or her co-owners. No vote shall be cast for the
Condominium on a particular matter if a majority of the co-owners
present in person or by proxy cannot agree on a vote;
(c) Except as provided in Article 3.05 of the Bylaws,
governing the removal of Directors, any provision of this Restated
Declaration, the Articles, or the Bylaws that requires the approval
of a specified percentage of the voting power of the Association
(rather than simply requiring the vote or written consent of a
majority of a quorum) shall require the approval of the specified
percentage of the voting power of the membership. Except as
provided in Article III of this Restated Declaration and
Article III of the Bylaws, any provision of this Restated Declara-
tion, the Articles, or the Bylaws that requires the approval of a
specified percentage of the voting power of the Association shall
require the vote or written consent of Owners representing the
specified percentage of the total voting power of the Association;
and
(d) The Board shall fix, in advance, a record date or
dates for the purpose of determining the Owners entitled to notice
of, and to vote at, any meeting of Owners. The record date for
notice of a meeting shall not be more than sixty (60) nor less than
ten (10) days before the date of the meeting. The record date for
voting shall not be more than sixty (60) days before the date of
the meeting or before the date on which the first written ballot is
mailed or solicited. The Board may also fix, in advance, a record
date for the purpose of determining the Owners entitled to exercise
any rights in connection with any other action. Any such date
shall not be more than sixty (60) days prior to the action.
3.04 Membership Meetings. Article II of the Bylaws governing
meetings of the Members is hereby incorporated by reference.
3.05 General Powers and Authority. The Association shall have
all the powers of a non-profit mutual benefit corporation organized
under the California Non-profit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law,
subject to any limitations set forth in this Restated Declaration
or in the Articles and Bylaws of the Association. It may perform
all acts that may be necessary for or incidental to the performance
of the obligations and duties imposed upon it by the Governing
Documents. Its powers shall include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(a) The Association shall have the power to establish,
fix, levy, collect, and enforce the payment of assessments against
HILLSIDE PATIO AHDDKD DBCLARATIOR
DRAFT DATKiDceaatMT 18, 1990 7 0004582.WP
the Owners in accordance with the procedures set out in Article IV
herein;
(b) The Association shall have the power to adopt
reasonable rules and regulations governing the use of the Common
Area and any Association owned property including private streets.
The rules and regulations may include, but are not limited to:
reasonable restrictions on use by the Owners and their families,
guests, employees, tenants, and invitees; rules of conduct; and the
setting of reasonable hearing procedures and monetary penalties and
fines in the event of a violation any provisions of the Governing
Documents. A copy of the current Rules and Regulations, if any,
shall be given to each Owner. If any provision of the Rules and
Regulations conflicts with any provision of this Restated
Declaration, the Articles, or the Bylaws, the Restated Declaration,
Articles, or Bylaws shall control to the extent of the inconsis-
tency;
(c) The Association shall have the right to institute,
defend, settle, or intervene in litigation, arbitration, mediation,
or administrative proceedings in its own name as the real party in
interest and without joining with it the Owners, in matters
pertaining to the following:
(1) Enforcement of the Governing Documents;
(2) Damage to the Common Area;
(3) Damage to property that the Association is
obligated to maintain or repair;
(4) Damage to the Units that arises out of, or is
integrally related to, damage to the Common Area or Units that the
Association is obligated to maintain or repair; and
(5) Enforcement of payment of assessments in
accordance with the provisions of Article 4.08 herein.
(d) In addition to the general power of enforcement
described above, the Association may discipline Owners for viola-
tion of any of the provisions of the Governing Documents by
suspending the violator's voting rights and/or by imposing monetary
penalties or fines, subject to the following limitations:
(1) The accused Owner shall be given notice and an
opportunity to be heard prior to the imposition of any monetary
penalty or fine with respect to the alleged violation in accordance
with the provisions of Section 7341 of the California Corporations
Code;
(2) Any monetary penalty shall be established from
time to time for each violation in an amount to be determined by
the Board; and
HILLSIDE FAZIO AMODXD DECLARATION
DRAFT DATEiDWMBtar IB, 1990 8 0004582.WP
(3) Except as provided in Article IV herein
relating to foreclosure for failure to pay assessments, or as a
result of the judgment of a court or a decision arising out of
arbitration, the Association shall in no way abridge the right of
any Owner to the full use and enjoyment of his or her Unit.
(e) The Association, acting through the Board, shall
have the power to delegate its authority, duties, and respon-
sibilities to its officers, employees, committees, or agents,
including a professional management agent. The term of any
agreement with a manager for the furnishing of maintenance, repair,
and related services shall not exceed one (1) year, renewable by
agreement of the parties for successive one (1) year periods. Such
an agreement shall be terminable by either party for cause on
thirty (30) days' written notice.
(f) The Association's agents or employees shall have the
right to enter any Unit or Yard Area when necessary in connection
with any maintenance, landscaping, or construction work for which
the Association is responsible. This entry shall be made only upon
reasonable notice to the Owner (except in the case of an emergency)
and with as little inconvenience to the Owner as is practicable and
any damage caused thereby shall be repaired by the Association.
3.06 Duties of the Association. In addition to the duties of
the Association, its agents and employees elsewhere in the
Governing Documents, the Association shall be responsible for the
following:
(a) The Association, acting through the Board, shall
operate, maintain, repair, and replace the Common Area and its
improvements and Association owned easements located within the
Project, or contract for the performance of that work, subject to
the provisions of Article IX herein relating to destruction of
improvements, Article X herein pertaining to eminent domain, and
Article V herein relating to damage caused by Owners. The
foregoing areas and improvements shall be kept in a clean,
sanitary, and attractive condition.
(b) The Association shall use the maintenance fund
described in Article IV herein to, among other things, acquire and
pay for the following:
(1) Necessary utility service for the Common Area
and, to the extent not separately metered and charged, for the
Units;
(2) The insurance policies described in Article VII
herein;
(3) The services of any personnel that the Board
determines are necessary or proper for the operation of the Common
Area; and
HILLSIDE PiTIO AMBBDXD DECLARATION
DRAFT DAXK:D«eaBMr 18, 1990 9 0004582.TO
(4) Legal and accounting services necessary or
proper in the operation of the Common Area or the enforcement of
this Restated Declaration.
(c) The Association shall prepare a pro forma operating
budget for each fiscal year, and shall distribute a copy of the
budget to each Owner not less than forty-five (45) and not more
than sixty (60) days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. In
lieu of the distribution of the financial statement, the Board may
elect to distribute a summary of the statement to each Owner with
a written notice that the statement is available at the business
office of the Association or designated location and that copies
will be provided upon written request and at the expense of the
Association. The Association shall provide the copy to the Owner
within five (5) working days of the receipt of the written request.
The budget shall contain at least the following:
(1) The estimated revenue and expenses on an
accrual basis;
(2) The identification of the total cash reserves
currently available for replacement or major repair of common
facilities and for contingencies; and
(3) Concerning any major components of the Common
Area and facilities for which the Association is responsible to
maintain, the following information: (i) an estimate of the
current replacement costs of; (ii) the estimated remaining useful
life of; (iii) the methods of funding used to defray the future
costs of repair, replacement, or additions; and (iv) a general
statement of procedures used to calculate and establish reserves
for the expenses set forth above.
(d) Within one hundred twenty (120) days after the close
of each fiscal year, the Association shall prepare and distribute
to the Owners an annual report consisting of the following:
(1) A balance sheet as of the end of the fiscal
year;
(2) An operating (income) statement for the fiscal
year;
(3) A statement of changes in financial position
for the fiscal year; and
(4) For any fiscal year in which the gross income
to the Association exceeds $75,000.00, a copy of the review of the
annual report prepared in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles by a licensee of the California State Board
of Accountancy. If this report is not prepared by an independent
accountant, it shall be accompanied by the certificate of an
authorized officer of the Association that the statement was
HILLSIDE PATIO AMKHDKD DBCLAHATIOH
DHAPT DAXE:D«C>Bb«r 18, 1990 10 0004582.WP
prepared without independent audit or review from the books and
records of the Association.
(e) Within sixty (60) days before the beginning of each
fiscal year, the Association shall prepare and distribute to the
Owners a statement describing the Association's policies and
practices in enforcing lien rights or other legal remedies for
default in payment of assessment against Owners.
(f) The Board shall review, on at least a quarterly
basis, the following:
(1) A current reconciliation of the Association's
operating accounts and reserve accounts;
(2) The current year's actual reserve revenues and
expenses compared to the current year's budget;
(3) An income and expense statement for the
Association's operating and reserve accounts; and
(4) The latest account statements prepared by the
financial institutions where the Association has its operating and
reserve accounts.
(g) The signatures of at least two (2) Directors or one
(1) Director and one (1) Officer who is not a Director shall be
required for the withdrawal of moneys from the Association's
reserve accounts.
(h) The Association shall provide any Owner with the
following documents within ten (10) days of the mailing or delivery
of a written request therefor:
(1) A copy of the Governing Documents;
(2) A copy of the most recent financial statement;
(3) A written statement from an authorized
representative of the Association specifying (i) the amount of any
assessments levied on the Owner's Unit that are unpaid on the date
of the statement; and (ii) the amount of late charges, interest,
and costs of collection that, as of the date of the statement, are
or may be made a lien on the Owner's Unit pursuant to Article 4.08
herein. The Association may charge the Owner a reasonable fee to
cover its costs to prepare and reproduce those requested items.
3.07 Board of Directors. The affairs of the Association shall
be managed and its duties and obligations performed by an elected
Board of Directors, as provided in Article III of the Bylaws, which
is hereby incorporated by reference.
3.08 Inspection of Books and Records. Article VI of the
Bylaws, governing the duty of the Association to maintain certain
HILLSIDE PATIO AMEHDBD DECLARATION
DRAFT DAXElD«0«ab«r 18, 1990 11 0004582.WP
books and records and the rights of Owners and Directors to obtain
and inspect those books and records, is hereby incorporated by
reference.
ARTICLE IV. ASSESSMENTS AND COLLECTION PROCEDURES
4.01 Covenant to Pay. Each Owner by acceptance of the deed to
the Owner's Condominium is deemed to covenant and agree to pay to
the Association the regular and special assessments levied pursuant
to the provisions of this Restated Declaration. A regular or
special assessment and any late charges, reasonable costs of
collection, and interest, as assessed in accordance with the
provisions of this Article, shall be a personal debt of the Owner
of the Condominium at the time the assessment or other sums are
levied. The Owner may not waive or otherwise escape liability for
these assessments by nonuse of the Common Area or abandonment of
the Owner's Condominium.
4.02 Purpose of Assessments. Except as provided herein, the
Association shall levy regular and special assessments sufficient
to perform its obligations. The assessments levied by the Associa-
tion shall be used exclusively to promote the recreation and
welfare of the Owners; for the operation, replacement, improvement,
and maintenance of the Project, and to discharge any other
obligations of the Association under this Restated Declaration.
All assessment payments shall be put into a maintenance fund to be
used for the foregoing purposes.
4.03 .Regular Assessments. Within forty-five (45) days prior
to the beginning of each fiscal year, the Board shall estimate the
net charges to be paid during that next fiscal year, including a
reasonable provision for contingencies and replacements, with
adjustments made for any expected income and surplus from the prior
year's fund. Failure of the Board to estimate the net charges
within the forty-five (45) day period stated herein shall not void
any assessment imposed by the Board. The estimated cash require-
ment shall be assessed to each Owner according to the ratio of the
number of Units owned by that Owner to the total number of Units in
the Project subject to assessment. Regular assessments for
fractions of any month shall be prorated. Each Owner is obligated
to pay assessments to the Association in equal monthly installments
on or before the first day of each month unless the Board adopts an
alternative method for payment.
4.04 Special Assessments. If the Board determines that the
amount to be collected from regular assessments will be inadequate
to defray the common expenses for the year due to the cost of any
construction, unexpected repairs or replacements of capital
improvements upon the Common Area, or any other reason, it shall
make a special assessment for the additional amount needed.
Special assessments shall be levied and collected in the same
manner as regular assessments.
HILLSIDE PATIO AMZHDBD DBCLARATIOH
DRAFT DATBlD«C«»b«r 18, 1990 12 00045B2.WP
4.05 Lien For Monetary Penalty. In the event the Board of
Directors Imposes a monetary penalty or fine pursuant to Article
3.05(b) herein against a Unit Owner, that fine may become a lien,
enforceable, pursuant to Article 4.08 herein.
4.06 Limitations on Assessments. Except in emergency
situations, the Board may not, without the approval of Owners
constituting a quorum of the Owners and casting a majority of the
votes at a meeting or election of the Association conducted in
accordance with Corporations Code Sections 7510 - 7527 and 7613,
impose a regular annual assessment per Unit that is more than
twenty percent (20%) greater than the regular annual assessment for
the preceding fiscal year, or levy special assessments that in the
aggregate exceed five percent (5%) of the budgeted gross expenses
of the Association for that fiscal year (or the maximum amounts
allowed by law). These limitations shall not apply to assessment
increases that are necessary for emergency situations. An emergen-
cy situation is an extraordinary expense that is:
(a) Required by a court order;
(b) Necessary to repair or maintain the Project or any
part of it for which the Association is responsible when a threat
to personal safety in the Project is discovered; or
(c) Necessary to repair or maintain the Project or any
part of it for which the Association is responsible that could not
have been reasonably foreseen by the Board in preparing and
distributing the pro forma operating budget.
Before the Board may impose or collect an assessment in
an emergency situation, it shall pass a resolution containing
written findings as to the necessity of the extraordinary expense
and why the expense was not or could not have been reasonably
foreseen in the budgeting process, and shall distribute the
resolution to the Owners with the notice of assessment.
4.07 Late Charges. Late charges may be levied by the
Association against an Owner for the delinquent payment of regular
and special assessments in accordance with California Civil Code
Section 1367, which provides that an assessment, including any
installment payment, is delinquent fifteen (15) days after its due
date. If an assessment is delinquent the Association may recover
all of the following from the Owner:
(a) Reasonable costs incurred in collecting the
delinquent assessment, including reasonable attorneys' fees;
(b) A late charge not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the
delinquent assessment or ten dollars ($10.00), or the maximum
amount allowed by law, whichever is greater;
HILLSIDE PATIO AMKHDED DECLARATION
DRAFT DATXsDWNMbar 18, 1990 13 0004582.WP
(c) Interest on the foregoing sums, at an annual
percentage rate of twelve percent (12%) commencing thirty (30) days
after the assessment becomes due.
No late charge may be imposed more than once for the
delinquency of the same payment. However, the imposition of a late
charge on any delinquent payment shall not eliminate or supersede
charges imposed on prior delinquent payments.
4.08 Enforcement of Assessments and Late Charges. A
delinquent regular or special assessment, fine, monetary penalty,
and any related late charges, reasonable costs of collection
(including attorneys' fees), penalties, and interest assessed in
accordance with Article 4.07 herein shall become a lien upon the
Condominium when a notice of delinquent assessment is duly recorded
as provided in Section 1367 of the California Civil Code. The
notice shall describe the amount of the delinquent assessment or
installment, the related charges authorized by this Declaration, a
description of the Condominium, the name of the purported Owner,
and, if the lien is to be enforced by power of sale under nonjudi-
cial foreclosure proceedings, the name and address of the trustee
authorized by the Association to enforce the lien by sale. The
notice shall be signed by any officer of the Association, or any
employee or agent of the Association authorized to do so by the
Board.
Unless the Board considers the immediate (without notice)
recording of the notice to be in the best interests of the
Association, the notice may not be recorded until fifteen (15)
calendar days after the Association has delivered a written demand
for payment. If the delinquent assessment or installment and
related charges are paid or otherwise satisfied, the Association
shall record a notice of satisfaction and release of lien.
Any such lien may be enforced in any manner permitted by
law, including judicial foreclosure or nonjudicial foreclosure.
Any nonjudicial foreclosure shall be conducted by the trustee named
in the notice of delinquent assessment or by a trustee substituted
pursuant to Section 2934(a) of the California Civil Code, in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 2924, 2924(b), and
2924(c) of the California Civil Code.
If the sums specified in the notice of delinquent
assessment are paid before the completion of any judicial or non-
judicial foreclosure, the Association shall record a notice of
satisfaction and release the lien. Upon receipt of a written
request by the Owner, the Association shall also record a notice of
rescission of any declaration of default and demand for sale.
4.09 Statement of Delinquent Assessment. The Association
shall provide any Owner, upon written request, with a statement
specifying the amounts of any delinquent assessments and related
late charges, interest, and costs levied against the Owner's
Condominium.
HILLSIDE PATIO AMHDBD DECLARATION
DRAFT DATB:D«CMUMr 18, 1990 14 0004582.HP
ARTICLE V. USE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS
5.01 Common Area. The following provisions govern the use and
enjoyment of the Common Area:
(a) The Association shall have an easement in, to, and
throughout the Common Area and its improvements thereon to perform
its duties and exercise its powers;
(b) Except as provided in this Restated Declaration,
there shall be no judicial partition of the Common Area, nor shall
Declarant or any person acquiring an interest in all or any part of
the Project seek any judicial partition;
(c) Subject to the provisions of this Restated
Declaration, each Owner has non-exclusive rights of ingress,
egress, and support through the Common Area including streets and
drives. These rights shall be appurtenant to such deed of
conveyance. However, these rights shall not interfere with, and
shall be subordinate to, any exclusive right to use a Yard Area;
(d) The Members' rights of use and enjoyment of the
Common Area shall be subject to the restrictions set forth in the
Governing Documents, including the right of the Association to:
(1) Adopt and enforce reasonable rules and
regulations for the use of the Common Area, including private
streets and the Project;
(2) Reasonably limit the number of guests and
tenants using the Common Area;
(3) Cause the construction of additional improve-
ments in the Common Area, or to cause the alteration or removal of
existing improvements on the Common Area;
(4) Grant, dedicate, consent to, or join in the
grant or conveyance of easements, licenses, or rights-of-way in,
on, or over the Common Area;
(5) Approve any proposed alteration of or
modification to the Common Area or any Unit.
(e) The Association may grant to third parties easements
in, on, and over the Common Area for the purpose of constructing,
installing, or maintaining necessary utilities and services, and
each Unit Owner, in accepting his or her deed to the Unit,
expressly consents to these easements. However, no such easement
can be granted if it would interfere with any exclusive easement,
or with any Owner's use, occupancy, or enjoyment of his or her Unit
or any Yard Area appurtenant to the Unit;
(f) An Owner who has sold his or her Condominium to a
contract purchaser or who has leased or rented the Condominium
HILLSIDE PATIO AMENDED DECLARATION
DRAFT DATIsD«CMb«r 18, 1990 15 0004582.WP
shall be deemed to have delegated his or her rights to use and
enjoy the Common Area to any contract purchaser or tenant who
resides in the Owner's Condominium, subject to reasonable regula-
tion by the Board.
5.02 General Restrictions on Ose. In exercising the right to
occupy or use a Unit or the Common Area and its improvements, the
Owner and the Owner's family, guests, employees, tenants, and
invitees shall not do any of the following:
(a) Attempt to further subdivide a Unit without
obtaining the prior approval of the Association;
(b) Occupy or use a Unit, or permit all or any part of
a Unit to be occupied or used, for any purpose other than as a
private residence. Nothing in this Restated Declaration shall
prevent an Owner from leasing or renting his or her Unit, provided
that it is not for transient or hotel purposes, is for a period of
at least thirty (30) days, and is subject to the Governing
Documents;
(c) Permit anything to obstruct the Common Area or store
anything on the Common Area or without the prior written consent of
the Board, except as otherwise provided in the Governing Documents;
(d) Perform any act or keep anything on or in any Unit,
Yard Area or in the Common Area that will increase the rate of
insurance on the Common Area without the Board's prior written
consent. Further, no Owner shall permit anything to be done or
kept in his or her Unit, on any Yard Area or in the Common Area
that would result in the cancellation of insurance on any Yard
Area, Common Area or on any facilities located on any part of the
Common Area or that would violate any law;
(e) Display any sign to the public view on or from any
Unit or the Common Area without the prior written consent of the
Board, except a sign advertising the property for sale, lease, or
exchange as provided in Section 712 of the California Civil Code;
(f) Raise, breed, or keep animals, livestock, or poultry
of any kind in a Unit, Yard Area or on the Common Area, except
dogs, cats, or other household pets, which may be kept in Units or
Yard Area, subject to the Rules and Regulations (if any);
(g) Engage in any illegal, noxious or offensive activity
in any part of the Project;
(h) Construct, alter or modify the exterior of any Unit
or improvements without first obtaining the written consent of the
Board and duly appointed Architectural Control Committee. The
foregoing restriction, however, shall not apply to the repair,
replacement or reconstruction of any Unit which has been damaged or
destroyed;
HILLSIDE PATIO AMBXDXD DECLARATIOH
DRAFT DAXBtDWMBtar 18, 1990 16 0004582.W
(i) Alter, attach, construct, or remove anything on or
from the Common Area, except upon the written consent of the Board;
(j) Park or store any recreation vehicle, boat, trailer
or commercial vehicle on the private streets except as authorized
by the Board. The Board, in its discretion, may adopt reasonable
rules governing the operation, maintenance and parking of any
vehicle on the Common Area. The City of Carlsbad, California shall
be allowed to impose and enforce all provisions of the applicable
California Vehicle Code Sections on all private streets;
(k) Plant or place any tree or other landscape material
or any structure in any Yard Area in such manner which may block
another Owner's view. Owners shall regularly trim all trees,
shrubs and other landscaping, including existing trees, shrubs and
other landscaping, so as not to block another Owner's view. View
blockage shall be determined by the Board of Directors, whose
decision shall be final and binding.
5.03 Damage Liability. Each Owner shall be liable to the
Association for any damage to the Common Area, Yard Area or to
Association owned property, to the extent that the damage is not
covered by insurance, if the damage is sustained because of the
negligence, willful misconduct, or unauthorized or improper
installment or maintenance of any improvement by the Owner or the
Owner's family, guests, tenants, contract purchasers, or invitees.
In the case of joint ownership of a Condominium, the liability of
the co-owners shall be joint and several, unless the co-owners and
the Association have agreed in writing to an alternative allocation
of liability.
5.04 Equitable Servitude. The covenants and restrictions set
forth in this Restated Declaration shall be enforceable equitable
servitudes and shall inure to the benefit of and bind all Owners.
These servitudes may be enforced by any Owner or by the Association
or by both.
ARTICLE VT. REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE
6.01 Unit. Each Owner shall be solely responsible for the
maintenance of the Unit, and shall maintain such Unit in a clean,
sanitary, safe and attractive condition making all structural
repairs as they may be required. Each Owner shall be required to
maintain all exterior portions of each Unit, including landscaping,
cleaning, painting, repair, reconstruction and replacement of all
or any exterior portion thereof, in order to preserve, protect and
maintain the attractive appearance thereof.
Each Owner shall be deemed to own the perimeter walls,
floors, slabs, ceilings and roofs surrounding the Unit which is a
part of the structure in which the Unit is located, as well as the
walls, partitions, decorations and improvements contained within.
HILL3IDE PATIO AMKHDKD DECLARATION
DRAFT DAXBiOacaabar IB, 1990 17 0004582.HP
Subject to the rights of other Owners as provided herein, and Owner
shall also be deemed to own pipes, wires, conduits or other public
utility lines running through the Unit, which are utilized for, or
serve more than one Unit and the same shall not be deemed part of
the Common Area. Each Owner shall be obligated to pay any and all
assessments for sewage, electrical and any other utility, taxes,
trash collection and other charges assessed individually against
each Unit.
Further, each Owner shall be responsible for the repair
to the Unit damaged by wood destroying pests or organisms.
6.02 Yard Area. Each Owner shall be solely responsible for
the maintenance of the Yard Area appurtenant to their respective
Unit. Each Owner shall have an easement for the purpose of
draining surface waters over the adjoining Yard Area.
The foregoing notwithstanding, due to the sloping
topography of portions of the Property, it was necessary for the
original developer to place certain common area fences at or near
the top of the slopes. For certain Units, these fences were placed
within the boundaries of their respective Yard Areas, thereby
enclosing only a portion of their Yard Areas and extending the Yard
Area for adjoining Units. Therefore, it shall be the
responsibility of those Units with the extended Yard Area to
maintain that extended area. Those Units with shorter Yard Areas
shall allow an easement for maintenance over those portions of
their Yard Area which are to be maintained by the adjoining Unit
Owners. The affected Units are listed on Exhibit "B," attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
6.03 Common Area Fences. The repair of any wall or fence
separating the Yard Area of neighboring Condominiums shall be the
joint responsibility of the Owners whose Condominiums are separated
by such wall or fence. Such adjoining Owners shall share the
expenses of such repair equally, but if one (1) such Owner refuses
to join in such repair, the other may undertake such repair and
shall receive contribution from the neighbor for the neighbor's
share of the cost thereof. In the event that such repair is
required because the acts or negligence of one (1) of such
adjoining Owners, such repair shall be accomplished by such Owner
at their sole cost and expense. Nothing contained in this Article
shall obligate any Owner to paint or maintain the surface of any
such wall or fence except as such surface forms a portion of the
boundary of the Yard Area. No fence or wall which separates the
Yard Area of two (2) Condominiums shall be materially changed
without the consent of both Owners.
Notwithstanding the above, all perimeter Common Area
fencing shall be stained, painted, repaired, maintained and
replaced by the Association regardless whether such fencing is a
portion of the boundary of the Yard Area.
HILLSIDE PATIO AMEHDKD DBCLAHATIOH
DRAFT DAXBiltacalMr 18, 1990 18 0004582 .HP
6.04 Public Utilities. Nothing contained herein shall require
or obligate the Association to maintain, replace or restore the
underground facilities which are located within easements in the
Common Area owned by such public utilities. However, the
Association shall take such steps as are necessary or convenient to
ensure that such facilities are properly maintained, replaced or
restored by such public utilities; provided, however, it shall be
the sole responsibility of each Owner and not the Association to
maintain, replace and repair all utility laterals within the
Project unless such utility laterals are maintained by the public
utilities.
ARTICLE VII. ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN CONTROL
7.01 Architectural and Design Approval. No alteration,
construction, building, addition to or modification of any wall,
fence, building exterior, landscaping or other exterior change or
alteration, including patio covers, shall be commenced, con-
structed, maintained, or permitted to remain on any Yard Area,
Unit, or on the Common Area without the approval of the Board.
The requesting owner shall, at their own expense, submit
complete plans and specifications of the proposed work to the duly
appointed Architectural Control Committee for initial review and
recommendation to the Board of Directors. Thereafter, the Board
shall approve or disapprove of such plans within thirty (30) days.
Such approval shall be conditioned upon the completion and approval
of appropriate city and/or county building permits.
Plans and specifications submitted shall include the nature,
kind, shape, height, materials and location of the proposed
improvements. The Committee shall review the plans and
specifications to determine whether they are compatible with the
standards of design, construction, and quality of the Project and,
if they are not, shall require that changes be made before
recommendation to the Board.
7.02 Architectural Control Committee. The Architectural
Control Committee shall consist of at least three (3) but not more
than five (5) members, formed as follows:
(a) The Board shall have the right to appoint all of the
members of the Committee.
(b) Members appointed to the Committee by the Board
shall be Members of the Association.
(c) Members shall serve two (2) year terms. Not-
withstanding the foregoing, all members of the Committee shall
serve at the will of the Board and may be removed by the Board at
any time with or without cause.
HILLSIDE PATIO AMEBDKD DBCLAHATION
DBATT DAXKlDacrater 18, 1990 19 0004582.WP
(d) The Committee shall meet as often as it deems
necessary to properly carry out the obligations imposed upon it,
unless otherwise directed by the Board.
7.03 Architectural Guidelines. The Architectural Committee,
subject to approval by the Board of Directors, may establish
Architectural Guidelines for any procedures for the approval,
conditional approval, denial, failure to approve and appeal of any
submittal to the Architectural Committee. Such Architectural
Guidelines, once duly approved by the Board and distributed to the
Members shall become fully enforceable by the provisions of this
Restated Declaration.
7.04 Board of Directors. All decisions of the Architectural
Control Committee are subject to review by the Board of Directors
and may be appealed to the Board. The Committee shall notify the
Board of all violations of this Article and of any non-compliance
with its rulings or with the plans and specifications submitted to
and approved by it. Thereafter, the Board shall take any actions
it deems necessary, in accordance with the provisions of this
Restated Declaration.
ARTICLE VIII. INSURANCE
8.01 Fire and Casualty Insurance. The Association shall
obtain and maintain a policy or policies of fire and casualty
insurance with an extended coverage endorsement for the full
insurable replacement value of the improvements in the Common Area.
The amount of coverage shall be determined by the Board. This
insurance shall be maintained for the benefit of the Association,
the Owners, and their Mortgagees, as their interests may appear as
named insured, subject, however, to any loss payment requirements
set forth in this Restated Declaration.
8.02 General Liability Insurance. The Association shall
obtain and maintain a policy or policies insuring the Association,
Manager, Owners, and the Owners' relatives, invitees, guests,
employees, and their agents against any liability for bodily
injury, death, and property damage arising from the activities of
the Association and its Members, with respect to the Common Area.
Limits of liability under the insurance shall not be less than One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) covering all claims for death,
personal injury, and property damage arising out of a single
occurrence.
The limits and coverage shall be reviewed at least
annually by the Board and increased or decreased in its discretion.
8.03 Other Association Insurance. The Association shall
purchase and maintain workers' compensation insurance to the extent
necessary to comply with any applicable laws. The Association may
also purchase and maintain fidelity bond coverage which names the
Association as an obligee, for any person or entity handling funds
HILLSIDE PATIO AMBKDKD DECLARATION
DMTF OAXXsDaoobar IB, 1990 20 0004582.WP
of the Association, whether or not such persons or entities are
compensated for their services. This coverage may be in an amount
that is at least equal to the estimated maximum of funds, including
reserve funds, in the custody of the Association or its Managing
Agent at any given time during the term of each bond. However, the
aggregate amount of these bonds may not be less than one hundred
fifty percent (150%) of each year's estimated annual operating
expenses and reserves. The Association also may purchase and
maintain a blanket policy of flood insurance, and demolition
insurance in an amount that is sufficient to cover any demolition
that occurs following the total or partial destruction of the
Project and a decision not to rebuild.
8.04 Trustee for Policies. The Association, acting through
its Board, is hereby appointed and shall be deemed trustee of the
interests of all named insureds under all insurance policies
purchased and maintained by the Association. All insurance
proceeds under any of those policies shall be paid to the Board as
trustee. The Board shall use the proceeds for the repair or
replacement of the property for which the insurance was carried or
for the purposes described in Article IX herein. The Board also is
authorized to negotiate loss settlements with the appropriate
insurance carriers, to compromise and settle any claim or enforce
any claim by any lawful action, and to execute loss claim forms and
release forms in connection with such settlements.
8.05 Insurance Premiums. Insurance premiums for any insurance
coverage obtained by the Association shall be included in the
regular or special assessments. That portion of the assessments
necessary for the required insurance premiums shall be used solely
for the payment of the premiums when due.
ARTICLE IX. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION
9.01 Duty to Restore and Replace. If any of the improvements
in the Common Area are destroyed or damaged, the Association shall
restore and replace the improvements, using the proceeds of
insurance maintained pursuant to Article VII herein, subject to the
provisions of this Article.
9.02 Ordering Reconstruction or Repair. If reconstruction or
repair work is to take place pursuant to this Article, the Board
shall take the following steps:
(a) Prepare the necessary documents, including an
executed and acknowledged certificate stating that damage has
occurred, describing it, identifying the improvement suffering the
damage, the name of any insurer against whom the claim is made, and
the name of any insurance trustee, stating (if applicable) that the
consent described above has been obtained, and reciting that the
certificate is mailed to all Owners;
HILLSIDE PATIO AMERDSD DBCLABATIOH
DRAFT DAXB:D*cab«r IB, 1990 21 0004582.WP
(b) Obtain firm bids (including the obligation to obtain
a performance bond) from two (2) or more responsible contractors to
rebuild the Project in accordance with its original plans and
specifications and, as soon as possible thereafter, call a special
meeting of the Owners to consider the bids. If the Board fails to
do so within ninety (90) days after the casualty occurs, any Owner
may obtain the bids and call and conduct the special meeting in the
manner required by this Article. At the meeting, Owners represent-
ing at least sixty-seven percent (67%) of the total voting power
may elect to reject all of the bids and thus not to rebuild, or
Owners representing at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the total
voting power may elect to reject all bids requiring amounts
exceeding the available insurance proceeds by more than Twenty
Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00). Failure to reject all bids shall
authorize the Board to accept the unrejected bid it considers most
favorable. Failure to call the special meeting or to repair the
casualty damage occurred shall be deemed for all purposes to be a
decision not to rebuild;
(c) If a bid is accepted, the Board shall let the
contract to the successful bidder and distribute the insurance
proceeds to the contractor as required by the contract; and
(d) Levy a special assessment to make up any deficiency
between the total insurance proceeds and the contract price for the
repair or rebuilding, with the assessment and all insurance
proceeds, whether or not subject to liens or mortgagees, to be used
solely for the rebuilding. This assessment shall be charged
equally to each Unit. If any owner fails to pay the special
assessment within fifteen (15) days after it is levied, the Board
shall enforce the assessment in the manner described in Article IV
herein.
9.03 Minor Restoration and Repair Work. The Association shall
order restoration or repair work without complying with the other
provisions of this Article whenever the estimated cost of the work
does not exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00). If insurance
proceeds are unavailable or insufficient, the Association shall
levy a special assessment for the cost of the work. The Assessment
shall be levied in the manner described in Article IV herein.
ARTICLE X. EMINENT DOMAIN
10.01 Definition of Taking. As used in this Article,
"taking" means condemnation by any governmental agency having the
power of eminent domain or by sale under threat of the exercise of
that power.
10.02 Sale to Condemning Authority. If a governmental
agency proposes to condemn all or a portion of the Project, the
Association may sell all or any portion of the Project to the
condemning authority if all Owners and institutional Mortgagees
consent in writing to the sale. Any such sale shall be made by the
HILLSIDE PATIO AMXHDBD DECLARATION
DRAFT DAXS:DK«Bter 18, 1990 22 0004582 .WP
Association in the capacity of attorney-in-fact for the Owners,
acting under an irrevocable power of attorney which each Owner
grants to the Board. The sales price shall be any amount deemed
reasonable by the Board.
10.03 Total Sale or TaJting. A total sale or taking occurs
when (a) there is a permanent taking or a sale to a condemning
authority by the Association of an interest in all or part of the
common area or of all or part of one or more units, which substan-
tially and adversely affects the ownership, operation, and use of
the Project in accordance with the provisions of this Restated
Declaration; and (b) one hundred twenty (120) days have passed
since the effective date of the taking and the Owners whose Units
remain habitable after the taking ("remaining Units") have not by
affirmative vote of a majority of their entire voting interest
approved the continuation of the Project and the repair, restora-
tion, and replacement to the extent feasible of the Common Area and
the remaining Units. Within sixty (60) days after the effective
date of any sale or taking which in the opinion of the Board would
constitute a total sale or taking, the Board shall call a special
meeting to determine whether or not the Owners of the remaining
units will continue the Project as provided in this Section. If
there is a total sale or taking, the Board shall distribute the
proceeds of the total sale or taking and the process of any sale
pursuant to a partition action, after deducting all incidental fees
and expenses related to the taking or partition, to all Owners and
their Mortgagees in accordance with the court judgment or the
agreement between the condemning authority and the Association, if
any such judgment or agreement exists. In all other cases, the
proceeds shall be distributed among the Owners and their respective
Mortgagees according to the relative values of the Condominiums
affected by the condemnation as determined by independent ap-
praisal. That appraisal shall be performed by an independent
appraiser who shall be selected by the Association and who shall be
a member of, and apply the standards of, a nationally recognized
appraiser organization.
10.04 Partial Sale or TaJting. A partial sale or taking
occurs if there is a sale or taking that is not a total sale or
taking as defined herein. The proceeds from any sale or taking
shall be disbursed in the following order or priority, which shall
be incorporated into any court judgment of condemnation or
agreement between a condemning authority and the Association:
(a) To the payment of related fees and expenses.
(b) To Owners of Condominiums that have been sold or
taken and their respective Mortgagees, as their interests may
appear, in an amount up to the fair market value of the Condominium
as that value is determined by the court in the condemnation
proceeding or, in the absence of such a determination, by an
appraiser selected in the manner described herein. Such a payment
shall immediately terminate the recipient's status as an Owner, and
the Board, acting as the attorney-in-fact of the remaining Owners,
HILLSIDE PATIO AMKVDKD DKCLAHATIOH
DRAFT DAZBiD«e«abar 18, 1990 23 0004382.WP
shall amend this Restated Declaration and any other documents, as
appropriate, to delete the sold or taken Condominiums from the
Project and to allocate the former Owner's undivided interest in
the Common Area to the remaining Owners, on the basis of their
relative ownership of the Common Area. Each Owner whose interest
is terminated pursuant to this Section shall, at the request of the
Board and expense of the Association, execute and acknowledge any
deed or other instrument that the Board deems necessary to evidence
the termination.
(c) To the payment of severance damages to First
Mortgagees of record of remaining units affected by the partial
sale or taking, to the extent that the Mortgagees can prove that
their security has been impaired by the taking.
(d) To the repair, restoration, and replacement of the
Common Area and any portions of the remaining Units that the Owners
are not obligated to restore, to the extent feasible.
ARTICLE XI. RIGHTS OF MORTGAGEES
11.01 Warranty. Declarant hereby warrants that Mortgagees
of Units in the Project shall be entitled to the rights guaranties
set forth in this Article. No amendment of this Article shall
affect the rights of the holder of any First Mortgage recorded
prior to the recordation of the amendment who does not join in the
execution of the amendment.
11.02 Subordination. Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Restated Declaration, liens created under Article IV herein
upon any Unit shall be subject and subordinate to, and shall not
affect the rights of the holder of, the indebtedness secured by any
recorded First Mortgagee upon such an interest made in good faith
and for value, provided that any transfer of a Unit as the result
of a foreclosure or exercise of a power of sale shall not relieve
the new Owner from liability for any assessments that become due
after the transfer. Such a transfer shall extinguish the lien of
assessments that were due and payable prior to the transfer of the
Unit. Such subordination in no way relieves a delinquent Mortgagor
of its personal obligation to pay assessments.
11.03 Right to Furnish Mortgage Information. Each Owner
hereby authorizes the First Mortgagee of a First Mortgage on the
Owner's Condominium to furnish information to the Board concerning
the status of the First Mortgage and the loan that it secures.
ARTICLE XII. AMENDMENTS
This Restated Declaration may be amended by the vote or
written consent of Owners representing not less than fifty-one
percent (51%) of the voting power of the Association.
Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section, the
HILLSIDE PATIO AMBXDBD DECLARATIOH
DRAFF DAXBlDccoOMT 18, 1990 24 0004582.WP
percentage of the voting power necessary to amend a specific clause
or provision of this Restated Declaration shall not be less than
the percentage of affirmative votes prescribed for action to be
taken under that clause or provision.
An amendment becomes effective after (a) the approval of
the required percentage of Owners has been given, (b) that fact has
been certified in the form of a written document executed and
acknowledged by an officer designated by the Association for that
purpose or, if no such designation is made, by the President of the
Association and (c) the document has been recorded in the county in
which this Project is located.
ARTICLE XIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS
13.01 Term. The provisions of this Restated Declaration
shall run with and bind the Property and the Project, and shall
inure to the benefit of and shall be enforceable by the Association
or the Owner of any Unit subject to this Declaration, their
respective legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns
until November 7, 2037, after which time said covenants, conditions
and restrictions shall automatically be extended for successive
periods of ten (10) years, unless an instrument, signed by a
majority of the Association has been recorded, agreeing to change
said covenants, conditions and restrictions in whole or in part.
13.02 Nonwaiver of Remedies. Each remedy provided for in
this Restated Declaration is separate, distinct, and nonexclusive.
Failure to exercise a particular remedy shall not be construed as
a waiver of the remedy.
13.03 Severability. The provisions of this Restated
Declaration shall be deemed independent and severable, and the
invalidity or partial invalidity or unenforceability of any one (1)
provision shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any
other provision.
13.04 Binding. This Restated Declaration, as well as any
amendment thereto and any valid action or directive made pursuant
to it, shall be binding and the Owners and their heirs, grantees,
tenants, successors, and assigns.
13.05 Interpretation. The provisions of this Restated
Declaration shall be liberally construed and interpreted to
effectuate its purpose of creating a uniform plan for the develop-
ment and operation of a condominium project. Failure to enforce
any provision of this Restated Declaration shall not constitute a
waiver of the right to enforce that provision or any other
provision of this Restated Declaration.
13.06 Limitation of Liability. The liability of any Owner
for performance of any of the provisions of this Restated Declara-
tion shall terminate upon sale, transfer, assignment, or other
HILLSIDE PATIO AMERCED DECLARATION
DRAFT ninTtn«n««h«r IS, 1990 25 0004582.W
divestment of the Owner's entire interest in his or her Unit with
respect to obligations arising from and after the date of the
divestment.
13.07 Fair Housing. Neither Association nor any Owner
shall, either directly or indirectly, forbid the conveyance,
encumbrance, renting, leasing, or occupancy of the Owner's Unit to
any person on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, ancestry, or
national origin.
13.08 Number and Headings. As used in this Restated
Declaration, the singular shall include the plural, unless the
context requires the contrary. The headings are not a part of this
Restated Declaration, and shall not affect the interpretation of
any provision.
13.09 Attorneys Fees. In the event an attorney is engaged
by the Board to enforce the Governing Documents, the Association
shall be entitled to recover from the adverse party to the
controversy its attorneys fees and costs so incurred. In the event
litigation is commenced to enforce the Governing Documents, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to its attorneys fees and costs.
Said costs and attorneys fees shall constitute a lien on the Unit
which is enforceable pursuant to Article IV herein.
HILLSIDE PATIO AMODBD DKCLARATIOH
DRAFT DAZBlDWMabar 18, 1990 26 0004582 .HP
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this instru-
ment this day of , 19_
DECLARANT:
THE HILLSIDE PATIO HOMES ASSOCIATION
a California nonprofit corporation
By:.
President
By:.Secretary
(Attach Proper Notary Certificate(s) of Acknowledgment)
HILLSIDE FAZIO AMKMDXD DBCLAMTIOH
DMVT DAXIlIMcartMr 18, 1990 27 0004582.WP
EXHIBIT "A" - LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots 487, 488, 489, 490, 491 and that portion of Lot 492,
Carlsbad Tract 72-20, La Costa Vale Unit No. 3, in the
City of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, State of
California, according to Hap thereof No. 7950, filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
June 3, 1974, described as follows:
Beginning at the most Southerly corner of Lot 492 as
shown on said Hap No. 7950; thence North 43°50'00" feet
to an Intersection with a 580.00 foot radius curve,
concave Northwesterly, a radial line to said curve bears
South 19<>47'40" East; thence Northeasterly along the arc
of said curve through a Central angle of 28*42'20" a
distance of 290.58 feet; thence tangent to said curve
North 41<>30'00" East, 124.50 feet; thence South 49<>41'25"
East, 168.11 feet; thence South 61°40'05" East, 124.60
feet; thence South 46<>10'00" West 462.86 feet to the
Point of Beginning.
BZLLSIDK PftXIO AKEBDBD DKCURKXIOH
DRAFT OKSSiOmctftmC 18, 1990 28 0004582.
EXHIBIT "B" - YARD AREA MAINTENANCE
Due to the sloping topography of portions of the Property, it was
necessary for the original developer to place certain common area
fences at or near the top of the slopes. For certain Units
(column "B"), these fences were placed within the boundaries of
their respective Yard Areas, thereby enclosing only a portion of
their Yard Areas and extending the Yard Area for adjoining Units
(column "A"). Therefore, it shall be the responsibility of those
Units with the extended Yard Area (column "A") to maintain that
extended area. Those Units with shorter Yard Areas (column "B")
shall allow an easement for maintenance over those portions of
their Yard Area which are to be maintained by the adjoining Unit
Owners.
Each Owner of a Unit in column "A" will maintain, in addition to
maintaining their own respective Yard Area, that portion of the
corresponding Yard Area of the Units in column "B" which is
enclosed within the fence surrounding the Yard Area appurtenant to
the Units in column "A."
COLUMN "A"
EXPANDED YARD AREAS
UNITS IN LOTS
7, 13 and 14 487
52-55, inclusive 489
56-62, inclusive 489
110-114, inclusive 491
COLUMN "B"
SMALLER YARD AREAS
UNITS MIOB
21-27, inclusive 488;
129-136, inclusive 491;
73-82, inclusive 490;
147-151, inclusive 492.
HILLSIDE PATIO AMKBDKD DBCUUtATIOH
DRAFT DlOXsDmemmbmr IB, 1990 29 0004582.TO
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR
LA COSTA VALE UNITS 2 THRU 4
Prepared for:
La Costa Land Company
Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, California
Prepared by:
Rick Engineering Company
509 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California
February 12, 19j
J-3917-E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No,
A. The Environmental Impact Of The Proposed
Action 1
1. Project Description 1
2. Environmental Setting Without The Project 4
3. Environmental Impacts 9
B. Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which
Cannot Be Avoided Should The Proposal Be
Implemented 14
C. Mitigation Measures Proposed To Minimize
The Impact 15
D. Alternatives To The Proposed Action 17
E. The Relationship Between Local Short-Term
Uses Of Man's Environment And The Mainten-
ance And Enhancement of Long-Term Environ-
mental Productivity 19
i
F. Any Irreversible Environmental Changes Which
Would Be Involved In The Proposed Action Should
It Be Implemented 20
G. The Growth Inducing Impacts Of The Proposed
Activity Upon The Neighborhood And/Or Community 21
H. The Boundaries Of The Area Which May Be Signi-
ficantly Affected By The Proposed Activity 22
I. Certification Of Accuracy And Qualifications Of
Individuals Preparing Draft Environmental Impact
Report 23
J. List Of All Agencies, Organizations, Or Individuals
Consulted 24
A. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed project, La Costa Vale Units 2 thru 4, is the sub-
division of 290 acres of undeveloped land. It is located north of the
intersection of La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Drive in the City
of Carlsbad. The developer, La Costa Land Company, is applying for
approval of a specific plan and tentative map covering all three units.
These three units will be discussed as one project in this report.
The project site, as well as the surrounding area, is part of the
La Costa Master Development Plan. The plan was approved by the City
of Carlsbad Planning Commission with Resolution No. 808 on July 25,
1972, and by the City Council with Resolution No. 2058 on August 15,
1972, and Ordinance No. 9322 on September 5, 1972.
1. -Project Description
The proposed project will involve the development of 247 residential
lots for future construction of both single family and multiple family resid-
ential units. The single family lots will be of two types: graded pads with
a minimum lot size of 7700 square feet and one-half acre lots with natural
vegetation retained. The one-half acre lots will only be graded where
necessary to allow construction of streets. The single family residential
lots will form the central core of the project and will be surrounded on the
south, east, and west sides by multiple family residential lots.
The multiple family residential condominium lots will consist of graded
pads for two allowable housing densities: 11 dwelling units per acre and 14
dwelling units per. acre. The higher density lots will be developed along
- 1 -
~~^—... • •tr%"« •—T~^!i *o /: • •> ' ' V \ ' v. -"^ " J,
J vfJ£.*'~" f ^^^^";>1 •1'X/'r'' %;^
^*l/- Wjx^^^"^^ I >/ ' *~\T~ '^C^ /'•' -'^'--
the proposed realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road, the eastern boundary
of the project. They will have access only from an interior street of the /"
project; dif&ct access to the lots from Rancho Santa Fe Road will be regiwCfed.
The lower density lots will be developed along the southern and western
portions of the project.
The project will also include two school sites and a natural lot. The
school sites are each 10 acres and will not be graded as a part of this project.
The natural lot is located at the western boundary of the project and contains
a tributary valley to San Marcos Creek. A 100-foot easement for the San
Diego Gas & Electric power lines traverses the center of the site from east
of west, and will temporarily be kept in its natural condition. This easement
will eventually be landscaped as lots contiguous to it are developed. Another
200-foot power line easement forms a portion of the northern boundary of the
project.
Access to the project will be from three streets along La Costa Avenue
and from one street along Rancho Santa Fe Road. A system of aesthetically
designed streets and cul-de-sacs will provide access to all the lots. A
portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road will be realigned as part of the project to
provide a straighter road with gradual grades. Although the roadbed for the
full 102-foot right-of-way will be graded at this time, only the half road
within the subdivision boundary will be paved. The remainder of the road
will be completed with development of the adjoining parcel of land.
Development of La Costa Vale Units 2 thru 4 will require grading of approx-
imately 90 percent of the project site. The remaining 10 percent of the site
- 3 -
will be retained in its natural, undisturbed condition. Cut and fill slopes
resulting from grading will be planted with ground cover to stabilize the
slopes and reduce erosion. An underground storm drain system will be
constructed.
Utility service will be provided to all lots. The sewer system for the
project will be connected to an existing sewer main in the La Costa Golf
Course. The remainder of the utilities (gas, electricity, telephone, and
water) are located contiguous to the site in La Costa Avenue. All utilities
within the subdivision, except the existing power lines within the San Diego
Gas & Electric easement, will be placed underground.
2. Environmental Setting Without The Project
The proposed project, La Costa Vale Units 2 thru 4, is located in the
southern portion of the City of Carlsbad near the intersection of La Costa
Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. The project site is a 290 acre, irregularly
shaped parcel of land. The topography of the site is characterized by broad
round-topped mountains and ridges separated by wide saddles. Deep narrow
canyons occasionally interrupt and divide the rolling mountains. The site
slopes and drains westerly into San Marcos Creek. Elevations vary from
530 feet on the mountain top in the northeast corner of the site to approxi-
mately 40 feet in a tributary stream to San Marcos Creek, the proposed nat-
ural lot, along the western boundary line.
There are a number of dirt roads on the project site. Most of these roads
are access roads to the S.D.G. & E. power lines which traverse the site.
The area has not been extensively used by off-road vehicles and large areas
- 4 -
are in a natural state. There is evidence that portions of the area have
been used for grazing in the past.
The project site is bounded on the south by La Costa Avenue. Beyond
La Costa AVenue is La Costa Vale Unit No. 1, a residential subdivision
predominately composed of single family lots (zoned R-l-7500). It also
contains 20 lots for condominiums (zoned R-2), a small commercial area
7<^T 'P?Ht*
(zoned C), and a school site. Grading of this development is currently in
progress.
The proposed realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road forms the eastern
boundary of the project site. The existing Rancho Santa Fe Road is 100
to 1000 to the east of the site. The land to the east of the project site is
currently undeveloped (zoned LC), but is planned for development as a re-
gional shopping center and a low-medium density residential area as part
of the La Costa development.
A portion of the northern boundary of the site is formed by a 200-foot
S.D.G. & E. power line easement. San Marcos Creek flows westerly and
then turns in a southerly direction as it forms the remainder of the northern
and the western boundaries of the project. Along this stretch, which ex-
tends upstream to Rancho Santa Fe Road, San Marcos Creek flows through
a .spectacular deep narrow canyon. The "V" shaped gorge is 200 to 300
feet deep and has canyon walls as steep as 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical)
and steeper.
The southern portion of the western boundary of the project site is
- 5 -
formed by La Costa South Unit No. 5. It is composed of multi-family
residential lots (zoned R-3). It has been completely graded, and all
streets and utilities have been constructed. The eastern end of the
La Costa Golf Course lies near the western boundary of the project.
The major vegetation assemblage on this site is a well-developed
coastal sage scrub community. Characteristic species in this community
are California sagebrush, California buckwheat, black sage, laurel sumac,
and lemonade berry. There are also small areas of chamise chaparral and
various mixed communities including well-developed toyon, laurel sumac,
and lemonade berry thickets, as well as scrub oak and coast live oak.
Two endemic plant species which occur on the site are the mission
manzanita and the California adolphia.
In addition to the brush communities there is a signigicant amount of
grassland within the site boundaries. While some of the grassland areas
may have resulted from brushing in the past, most of the grasslands resemble
natural meadow-like areas. These meadow-like grasslands, the various
brush communities, and the floral community in San Marcos Creek Canyon
constitute a diversified group of habitats, which in turn supports a variety
of wildlife species.
A number of mammals, or direct evidence of their activities was observed
on the site. These included jackrabbit, broad-footed mole, pocket gopher,
wood rat, bobcat, skunk, coyote, and mule deer. These mammals are
typical of wildlife .which would be expected to inhabit the site. Indirect
- 6 -
evidence and habitat availability suggest the presence of other small
mammals such as meadow vole, kangaroo rat, pocket mouse, ground
squirrel and grey fox.
Bird species observed on the site included the normal species to
be expected in the coastal sage scrub and chaparral communities at
this time of the year. These include Anna's hummingbird, brown towhee,
California thrasher, hermit thrush, red-tailed hawk, and assorted sparrows.
Additional observation near San Marcos Creek indicated the use of the area
by the Oregon juncos, yellow throat, and belted king fisher.
No reptiles were observed during the biological investigation of the
site, but several species would be expected during other seasons.
No endangered,species of plant life or wildlife were observed on
-the project site and none are known to be dependent upon the area.
The project site is underlain entirely by Mezoic Age crystalline bedrock.
These hard resistant rocks, known as the Santiago Peak metavolcanic rocks,
are well exposed over most of site except where they are on-lapped by
Eocene marine deposits along the southern boundary of the project site.
Varying thicknesses of Quaternary alluvium are present in the stream channels,
s
and topsoils form a thin veneer over most of the area.
The shallow surface soils, and the Eocene and Quaternary deposits, are
primarily clayey and sandy soils. No adverse effects will result from grading
of the site in accordance with accepted engineering practices.
There are no adverse geological conditions within the project area which
would preclude development of the project. No evidence of major subsidence
- 7 -
or mudflows was observed on the site and none are anticipated to occur
during development. The closest potentially active fault is the Rose
Canyon fault located approximately eight miles southwesterly off shore
under the Pacific Ocean.
The site records at the San Diego Museum of Man were examined to
see if any sites had ever been recorded on the project site. No sites were
ever recorded.
An archeological investigation of the project site revealed the presence
U^of a small archeological site about midway along the west m^pgln] of the
property. It is about 50 square feet in area and a test hole indicated the
site was only a fraction of an inch deep. Traces of soil discoloration and
r
broken shell were scattered over the area, but only a few stone flakes were
-found. This site is judged to be of no archeological significance.
A historic site was found straddling the San Diego Gas & Electric 100-
foot easement about 1200 feet in from the east boundary of the project. It
appears to have been a bunkhouse and kitchen or a homestead from the late
19th Century.
San .Diego Gas & Electric cut a dirt access road for their power lines
over the -site, exposing a glazed clay pipe which ran from a concrete water
tank on the south side of the site an unknown distance to the north. Flat
grassy areas stand out in the coastal sage scrub, marking old stock corrals
and line sheds. Wood, barbed wire, and metal scraps indicate these features
to be around 70 to 80 years old. A maze of low walls composed of loose stone
- 8 -
zig-zag through the brush. Close to the dirt access road was an accum-
ulation of sun-bleached glass, iron store fragements, chicken wire, con-
fectioner's glass, and metal bed parts. None of this material is older than
80 years or younger than 50 years. The site, therefore, was probably
occupied between 1840 and.1920.
There was no depth to the site and the artifacts are common on any
homestead of the 1890 to 1920 time period. The feature is typical of the
late American Period homestead for Southern California. It is of trivial im-
portance and is not worth salvage.
No other archeologic or historic material was found on the property.
3. Environmental Impacts
The proposed project, La Costa Vale Units 2 thru 4, will ultimatily allow
1988 families to move into a modern residential development which utilizes
the best principles of land use and design. The density of the proposed pro-
ject is consistent with the allowable densities indicated on the La Costa
Master Development Plan, which was approved by the City of Carlsbad.
Grading will change the natural land form of the project site from an un-
developed terrain into a residential community. Most of the site will be
graded to accomodate future construction of housing units. The visual impact
of the raw earth exposed by grading will remain only until housing units are
constructed and landscaping is completed. Cut and fill slopes will be planted
with ground cover to stabilize the slopes and reduce erosion. New species of
plants will be introduced into the area through landscaping of the project site.
- 9 -
Development of the project will require complete removal of all vegetation
from the graded portion of the site. Accompanying this loss of vegetation
will be the displacement of the present bird and mammal populations, which
use the site. This wildlife will be displaced either to the undeveloped areas
on the site, the Natural Lot or the half-acre residential lots, or to undeveloped
areas off the site. The two school lots and the 100-foot S.D.G. & E easement
will serve as temporary homes for the wildlife until they are graded or land-
scaped. The wildlife which migrates into the San Marcos Creek Canyon will
find a permanent refuge, as the Canyon will never be developed.
The loss of habitat and subsequent development will exclude the larger
predators (coyote, bobcat, and raptorial birds) from the site and result in a
reduction of their hunting territories. In the undeveloped areas in the vicinity
-of the project, the functions of the natural predators will be replaced to some
degree by the unfenced dogs and cats introduced by the development. This
competition for food sources will have the effect of expanding the influence
of the development and reducing even further the available habitat for the
larger mammals and birds. The devtelopmeptt5f this site may have an additional
impact on the surrounding undeveloped areas through accelerated habitat and
wildlife disruption resultingxfroni increased activities of unsuperv^ed children
and off-road vehicle users.
No endangered species of plants or animals will be affected by the proposed
project.
As the archeological resource on the project site is of insignificant value,
there will be no archeological impact as a result of the project. It has also
-10 -
been determined that the historical resource on the project site is of
trivial significance and is not worth salvage.
The drainage on the project site will change from overland sheet
flow and flow in natural channels to flow in street gutters and in an
underground storm drain system. Design of the storm drain system
for the project will be in accordance with current standards of the City
of Carlsbad. Since a concentrated discharge from a storm drain could
cause excessive erosion on the walls of San Marcos Creek Canyon,
the storm drain system will be designed to transport water to natural
drainage courses away from the canyon walls.
Runoff from the project site will increase with development. The
total drainage area of Batiquitos Lagoon is 52.3 square miles. The pro-
ject site represents only 0.9 percent of the drainage area, so the increased
runoff will have an insignificant effect on the lagoon system.
There will be a minimal decrease in water quality associated with the
runoff from the project site (fertilizer from lawns, hydrocarbons and metals
from streets, and others). This decrease is typical of runoff from urban
areas, and cannot be avoided.
Traffic in the La Costa area will increase as a result of the proposed
development. The project site is served by two major routes, La Costa
Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. La Costa Avenue is designated on the
Circulation Element of the San Diego County General Plan as a collector
road. This road will be 84 feet wide and will carry an estimated ultimate
- 11 -
traffic volume of 5,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day. Rancho Santa Fe
Road is designated as a major road or the Circulation Element with an
estimated ultimate traffic capacity of 30,000 to 35,000 vehicles per
day in a 102-foot wide road.
The circulation system of La Costa has been designed to accomodate
the anticipated traffic increase resulting from the proposed development.
The amount of traffic generated by La Costa Vale Units 2 thru 4 will be
dependent on the nature of the residents of the project. Residents will
be of several broad groups including retired, second-home owners, and
the single-home owner. Because of the various types of homeowners,
accurate traffic prediction would be difficult. The traffic studies may be
conducted to evaluate changing conditions as they arise.
The existing noise level in the area is low. Traffic on Rancho Santa
Fe Road is the predominant noise source for the project, but because of
its low traffic volume its noise impact on the proposed development will be
insignificant. Aircraft overflight noise will occur occasionally, but it is
not considered to be a significant factor. The development is outside nor-
mal departure and landing paths for any existing or planned airport.
Noise from the contractors equipment and other construction noises can-
not be eliminated. This noise will be of a temporary nature, lasting only
until the project is completed.
The increase in air pollution resulting from the project will be minimal.
The main source of air pollution created by the subdivision will be from
- 12 -
motor vehicles. The amount of pollution will be minimal because of
the small number of vehicles involved. The quantity of emissions from
vehicles cannot be controlled by the developer, but are regulated by
State and Federal standards. Pollution from the exhaust of the con-
tractors equipment will be within existing emission standards, and will
be of a temporary nature .
Utilities required by the project will be provided. All utilities will
be placed underground to eliminate their visual impact.
Sites for future construction of two elementary schools will be pro-
vided as part of the project. A junior high school site will be provided
elsewhere in the La Costa Development.
- 13 -
B. ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
SHOULD THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED
Unavoidable adverse environmental effects resulting from the develop-
ment of La Costa Vale Units 2 thru 4 will be:
1. To decrease the amount of natural, undeveloped land in the City
of Carlsbad by 280 acres, 43 acres of which will be retained as
natural one-half acre lots. -^ tSrvftj— \)t**\t- Oti^f*
2. To change the visual appearance of the project site from an open
undeveloped area to a residential development.
3. A minimal decrease in water quality associated with runoff from
urban areas (fertilizer from lawns, hydrocarbons and metals from
streets, and others). _
4. To increase traffic on La Costa Avenue, Rancho Santa Fe Road,
and other roads.
5. A minimal increase in air and noise pollution associated with the
increased traffic.
6. A temporary increase in noise associated with constructed of the
project.
7. A minimal increase in demand for public utilities and social services.
8. To decrease the available wildlife habitat in the area and to displace
wildlife from the graded portions of the project site.
- 14 -
C. MITIGATING MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT
Various measures will be taken to minimize the environmental
effects of the proposed development. The most significant measure
that will be taken will be to confine the proposed project to the area
to the south and east of San Marcos Creek Canyon. The La Costa
*Land Company intends to deed ownership of San Marcos Creek Canyon
'(about 150 acres) to an appropriate agency or organization so that it will
be preserved for future generations.
A peripherial road will be constructed along a portion of the rim of
San Marcos Creek Canyon to provide for public viewing of the canyon.
A lot will be set a side for public parking. The peripherial road and the
parking lot will be provided with a six-foot chain link fence to limit
access into the canyon area and to insure its preservation in a natural
state. A locked gate will be located at the parking lot to allow access
to people under the direction of the responsible agency.
Condominium lots will front on the canyon along the residential areas
where the projec^ site abuts on the canyon. A 40-foot open space easement
will be deeded to the City of Carlsbad along the rear of these lots. Building
construction within this easement will be prohibited.
Two techniques will be followed during grading of the site to prevent
rubble from falling into the canyon. In cut areas, a lip of undistrubed ground
will be retained at the intersection of the cut with natural ground. This lip
will be removed by dragging it away from the canyon as grading progresses.
In areas where necessary, a temporary fence will be constructed to catch
- 15 -
the rubble. This fence will be removed at the completion of grading.
Grading of the project site will be kept to a minimum. Lot pads
will be graded to slope away from the lips of fill slopes, or drainage
facilities will be constructed, to avoid damage to the slopes by storm
runoff. Cut and fill slopes will be planted as early as possible to
stabilize the slopes and reduce erosion. This will also reduce the
visual impact of the project until the individual lots can be landscaped
by their owners.
The natural vegetation of the area will be preserved in the natural
lot, and in the 43 natural residential lots. The retention of the San Diego
Gas & Electric easement as open space areas will provide a corridor for
access of wildlife through the development to San Marcos Creek. Also
included in the project will be sites for two elementary schools. These
sites will eventually provide schools for children from other subdivisions,
as well as from this project.
An investigation of the project site was conducted to determine the
existence of archeological or historical resources on the site. One arch-
eological site and one historical site were discovered, and their descriptions
are included in Part A of this report. Since they were judged to be of trivial
significance, no further mitigating measures are required.
All utilities, except the power lines in the San Diego Gas & Electric
easement, will be placed underground to eliminate their visual impact.
- 16 -
D. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Many alternatives are always available regarding land use decisions.
The determination of the density of dwelling units and their relationship
to transportation facilities, utilities, community services, and other land
uses involves an infinite number of variables. One alternative which is
always available is to leave the property under private ownership in its
undeveloped condition. The property was originally purchased with the
intent of developing the land. Additional funds were expended in the areas
of engineering, planning, and City fees and assessments. The developers,
unable to recover their investment from the property, would suffer financial
loss.
None of the environmental impacts discussed in this report would occur
if the "no-project" alternative is selected. However, other impacts would
occur to the site through human and vehicular activity on the site. This
activity would result in displacement of wildlife and disruption of the vege-
tative cover. Erosion of the site will increase with disruption of the vegetation.
A second alternative is public acquisition of the site to either, retain it
as an open space area or develop it as a park. The San Marcos Creek Canyon
located to the north of the project is unusually steep, rugged, and wild (part-
icularly for a feature located this close to the coast). The developer, recogni-
zing the uniqueness of San Marcos Creek Canyon, has designed the total La
Costa development to allow retention of the Canyon in its natural state.
No public agency, has expressed the desire to purchase the project site
- 17 -
for retention as open space or development as a park.
Any other form of residential development would have impacts
similar to the proposed project. Development at a higher density
would place a greater demand on utilities and public services, and
more traffic would be generated. Development at a lower density would
require less utilities and public services, and less traffic would be gen-
e'rated.
Commercial or industrial development of the project site would not be
•consistent with the planned land use of the City of Carlsbad, and the La
Costa Master Development Plan. i~-
- 18 -
E. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTIVITY
The basic long-term effect of the proposed project on the environ-
ment is the loss of 290 acres of natural, undeveloped land. This loss
is irreversible. Accompanying this loss would be the removal of a wild-
life habitat. There is nothing unique about the project site which would .
require its preservation in its natural state. The project will, however,
preserve in their natural state the 13 acre natural lot, ancl 43 acres of
single family one-half acre lots.
The boundaries of this project were established to prevent encroach-
ment into the San Marcos Creek Canyon. Because the San Marcos Creek
Canyon is unusually steep, rugged and wild (particularly for a feature lo-
cated this close to the coast), it will not be developed. The La Costa
Land Company intends to deed ownership of the canyon area (about 150
acres) to an appropriate agency or organization so that it will be preserved
for future generations.
The approval of this project is the commitment of the project site to
residential use. The project will permit 1988 families to move into a modern,
adequate housing development (if the lots are developed to the maximum den-
sity allowed by the tentative map). The predicted growth of the entire San
Diego County area requires further residential development. Until growth
of the population can be controlled, either expansion or congestion must
occur.
- 19 -
F. ANY IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE
INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
The direct environmental effect of the proposed project is the
commitment of 290 acres of natural, undeveloped land to urbanization.
The property will be altered to accomodate residential housing and in the
*
process its physical and biological characteristics will be changed.
The indirect effect of the project is the construction of housing
units and its resultant consumption of building materials and natural
resources. Public services and utilities will have greater demand placed
upon them.
- 20 -
G. THE GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY
UPON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND/OR COMMUNITY .
The development of La Costa Vale Units 2 thru 4 will have a very
limited growth inducing impact on the the surrounding area. The project
is part of the approved Master Development Plan for La Costa. As the
property surrounding the project site is already planned for development
as part of La Costa, the growth inducing impact of the proposed project
will be negligible.
- 21 -
H. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA WHICH MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY
The boundaries of the areas which are affected by the project are
dependent on the environmental effect being considered. The effects
of traffic generated by the project and its air and noise pollution pro-
blems are probably limited to a three mile rangev Beyond that limit, the
traffic is sufficiently disperced so that its effects would be negligible.
The effects of the project on the biological component of the environ-
ment will generally be limited to the immediate vicinity of the project site,
but may range as far as the Batiquitos Lagoon. The area effected by the
changed visual appearance of the project site will be limited by the ridges
one mile to the north, south , and east, but the project will be visible
from Interstate 5, three miles away. . •
- 22 -
I. CERTIFICATION OF ACCURACY AND QUALIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS
PREPARING DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The information contained within this analysis is certified to be
accurate and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and re-
flects the environmental impacts associated with La Costa Vale Units
2 thru 4.
This report was prepared by Jeffrey Roy Lundstrom, Registered Civil
Engineer, representative of Rick Engineering Company, consultant to the
applicant, La Costa Land Company.
- 23 -
J. LIST OF ALL AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, OR INDIVIDUALS
CONSULTED
David D. Smith and Associates, Environmental Consultants
Walter R. Odening, PH.D., Biologists
Ronald V. May, Archeologist
Rick Engineering Company, Planning Consultants and Civil
Engineers
Benton Engineering, Inc., Applied Soil Mechanics - Foundations
La Costa Land Company
San Diego Museum of Man
County of San Diego, Traffic Department
County of San Diego, Planning Department
- 24 -
\
t
REPORT
ON
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
OF THE
BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
OF
LA COSTA VALE
(UNITS 2-4)
Prepared for
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
509 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
By
DAVID D. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Box 929-E
San Diego, California 92109
DDS&A 72-309
January 13, 1973
DDS&A 72-309
Page 1
SECTION C
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT
GENERAL
The 290 acre project site is situated in Section 31, R. 3W. ,
T. 12 S. in northern San Diego County. It is an irregularly shaped
site bounded on the north by San Marcos Creek and a SDG&E
easement, and on the east and southeast by Rancho Santa Fe Road.
The southern and western boundaries are delineated by sites
either developed or undergoing development.
The land to the east of Rancho Santa Fe Road is undeveloped
as are large areas north of and adjacent 'to San Marcos Creek.
There are a number of dirt roads on the project site. Most of
these roads are access roads to the SDG&E power lines, with
some extensions by other users. The area has not been extensively
used by off-road vehicles and large areas are in a natural state.
There is evidence that the area (or portions thereof) has been used
for grazing in the past.
The site •was surveyed by the biological team in late December
1972, and by the archaeological team in late December 1972 and
early January 1973.
DDS&A 72-309
Page 2
BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
VEGETATION
The major vegetative assemblage on this site is a well-developed
coastal sage scrub community including many of the characteristic
species of this community type. For example: California sagebrush,
California buckwheat, black sage, laurel sumac, lemonade berry,
and others. Two endemic plant species also occur on the site,
namely, mission manzanita and California adolphia.
There are also small areas of chamise chaparral and various
mixed communities (see map) including well-developed toyon,
laurel sumac and lemonade berry thickets, as well as scrub oak
and coast live oak. Additional species are given in the Species List
at the end of this section.
In addition to the brush communities there is a significant
amount of grassland within the site boundaries. While some of the
grassland areas may have been brushed out in the past, most of the
grasslands present resemble natural meadow-like areas which are
a result of drainage and other edaphic differences. Individually
these grassland areas tend to be small and discontinuous in extent,
but they are significant in the continued maintenance of the entire
DDS&A 72-309-
VEGETATION MAP
LA COSTA VALE
(Units 2 thru 4)
Symbol
CC
CSS
MC/CSS
CLO
SO
G
Vegetation Types
- Chamise Chaparral
- Coastal Sage Scrub (green on map)
- Mixed Chaparral and Coastal Sage
Scrub
- Coast Live Oak with scrub oak,
toyon, and Lemonade berry
- Scrub Oak with toyon, Lemonade
berry, and laurel sumac
- Toyon, with Lemonade berry and
laurel sumac
- Grassland , .,
DDS&A 72-309
Page 3
ecosystem encompassed by the project site and the adjacent undeveloped
areas. These meadow-like grasslands together with the various brush
communities and the floral community in San Marcos Creek Canyon,
constitute a diversified group of habitats which in turn supports a
variety of faunal species.
FAUNA
A number of mammals (or direct evidence of their activity)
was observed on the site. These.included jackrabbit, broad-footed
mole, pocket gopher, wood rat, bobcat, skunk, coyote, and mule
deer. Indirect evidence and habitat availability suggested the presence
of other small mammals such as meadow vole, kangaroo rat, pocket
mouse, ground squirrel, grey fox and others (see Species List).
Bird species observed on the site included the normal species
to be expected in the coastal sage scrub and chaparral communities
at this time of year. These included: Anna's hummingbird, brown
towhee, California thrasher, hermit thrush, red-tailed hawk, and
assorted sparrows (see Species List). In addition observation near
San Marcos Creek indicated the use of the area by the Oregon juncos,
yellow throat, and belted kingfisher among others.
No reptiles were observed during the survey, but several species
would be expected at other seasons.
DDS&A 72-309
Page 4
It should be noted the list of plants and animals inhabiting the
site is not complete. To obtain such information would entail a
longer time period and more detailed sampling techniques.
Determination of predator-prey relationships and other information
such as population sizes of various animal species would also call
for longer and more detailed studies. Such detailed work is not
considered warranted at this time.
SPECIES LIST
PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE SITE
California sagebrush
California buckwheat
Black sage
Lemonade berry
Laurel sumac
Bladder pod
Toyon
Mission manzanita
California adolphia
Bushrue
Adder's tongue
Prickely pear
Chamise
Coast live oak
Scrub oak
Red berry
Live-forever
Spanish dagger
Fuschia flowering gooseberry
Chaparral flowering current
Monkey flower
Deer weed
Pepper tree
Unidentified annual and perennial grasses
Artemisia californica
Eriogonum fasciculatum
Sal via mellifera
Rhus integrifolia
Rhus laurina
Isomeris arborea
Heterameles arbutifolia
Xylococcus bicolor
Adolphia californica
Cneoridium. dumosum.
Ophioglossum californicum
Opuntia sp.
Adenostoma fasciculatum
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus dumqsa
Rhamnus crocea
Dudleya sp.
Yucca schidigera
Ribes specio sum
Ribes malvaceum
Mimulus puniceus
Lotus scoparium
Shinus molle
DDS&A 72-309
Page 5
ADDITIONAL, SPECIES NOTED IN SAN MARCOS CANYON
Zauschneria californicaCalifornia fuschia
Willow
Sycamore
Cotton wood
Poison oak
Cattail
Salix sp.
Platanus racemosa
Populus fremontii
Rhus _diue_s iloba
Typha sp.
MAMMALS OBSERVED (OR DIRECT EVIDENCE FOUND) ON THE SITE
Mule deer
Bobcat
Pocket gopher
Broad-footed mole
Spotted skunk
Wood rat
Jackrabbit
Brush rabbit and Cottontail
Coyote
Raccoon (near creek)
Odocoileus hemionus
Lynx rufus
Thomomys bottae
S cap anus latimanus
Spilogale putorius
Neotoma sp.
Lepus californicus
Sylvilagus sp.
Canis latrans
Procyon lotor
MAMMALS PROBABLY PRESENT AS INDICATED BY
(INDIRECT EVIDENCE AND HABITAT AVAILABILITY)
Meadow vole
Kangaroo rat
Pocket mouse
Field mouse
Ground squirrel
Striped skunk
Grey fox
Microtus sp.
Dipodomys sp.
Perpgnathus sp.
Peromyscus sp.
Otospermophilus sp.
Mephitis mephitis
Urocyon cineroargenteus
BIRDS OBSERVED ON THE SITE AND IN CANYON AREA
Brown towhee
Wren tit
Anna's hummingbird
Hermit thrush
California thrasher
Western meadowlark
Oregon junco
Audubon's warbler's
Yellow throat
Fox sparrow
Song sparrow
White crowned sparrow
Common bush tit
Pipilo fuscus
Chamaea fasciata
C alypte anna
Hylocichla guttata
Toxostoma redivivum
Sturnella neglecta
Junco oreganus
Dendroica audubon
Geothlypis trichas
Passerella iliaca
Melospiza melodia
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Psaltriparus minimus
DDS&A 72-309
Page 6
BIRDS (Continued)
Vireo Vireo sp.
Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Sparrow hawk Falco sparverius
Road runner Geococcyx californianus
DDS&A 72-309
Page 7
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BACKGROUND
Earliest man probably came to the San Diego County area
about 20, 000 years ago. This was the San Dieguito cultural
complex which lasted until about 7, 000 B. C. Archaeologists
have divided the complex into three phases, each with characteristic
artifacts. The San Dieguito culture was followed by a La Jollan
Complex (divided into four phases) which, among other
characteristics, produced mounds of waste shells at living
sites along the coastal margin of the county.
The gradual slopes "and relatively flat areas of the region
would have made good campgrounds for prehistoric people
hunting and gathering around the nearby lagoons. Seepage of
water in San Marcos Creek Canyon could have provided a year
round water source for prehistoric and later historic cultures
in the area. The bedrock is a highly fragmented volcanic material
which grades from medium to poor as a source for stone
implements.
SURVEY RESULTS
One small archaeologic site was located in lot 263 about
midway along the west margin of the property. It was not more
than fifty feet square in area and a test hole indicated the site was
only a fraction of an inch in depth. Traces of soil discoloration
DDS&A 72-309
Page 8
and broken shell were scattered over the area, only a few stone
flakes were found. This site is judged to be of no archaeological
significance.
An historic site was found straddling the San Diego Gas and
Electric Company 100 foot Easement about 800 feet in from the
east boundary of the property. This feature extends over parts
of lots 339, 340, and 360 of Unit 3 and lots 383, and 385 of Unit 4.
Basically, it appears to have been a bunkhouse and kitchen or
homestead from the late 19th Century.
The utility company cut a dirt road over the area, exposing
a glazed clay pipe which ran from a concrete water tank on the
south side to an unknown distance north. Grassy flat areas stand
out in the chaparral, marking old stock corrals and line sheds.
Wood, barbed wire, and metal scraps indicate these features to
be around 70 to 80 years old. A complex line and maze feature
of low walls of loose stone zig-zag through the brush. Apparently
this was fenced with barbed wire at one time. Close to the dirt
road, was an accumulation of sun-bleached glass, iron stove
fragments, chicken wire, confectioners' glass, and metal bed parts.
None of this material is older than 80 years or younger than 50.
Therefore, the site was probably occupied between 1840 and 1920.
DDS&A 72-309
Page 9
There was no depth to this site and the artifacts are common
on any homestead of the 1890 to 1920 time period. The feature
is a common late American Period homestead for Southern
California. It is of trivial importance and is not worth salvage.
No other archaeologic5 or historic material was found on the
property.
DDS&A 72-309
Page 10
SEC TION D
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
BACKGROUND
Generally speaking, any change in land use •will affect the
environment of a) the land in question, b) the adjacent lands, and
to some degree, c) the broader region surrounding such land. In
most cases the effect of the change will be significant on at least
some aspect of the environmental complex.
The most obvious impact is the disruption of both natural and
managed ecosystems. Such disruptions of natural systems take
many forms, some of which are:
Destruction of habitat
Removal of vegetation
Manipulation of landscape (including removal of
top soil and filling marshes)
Introduction of activities which remove an integral part of
the system (species or sub-system).
Introduction of alien species
These actions are themselves interrelated and (along with others)
are involved in the development of any project site, including those
with an agricultural history. At the very least, the development of
an area commonly means the irretrievable loss of basic soil-oriented
productivity (natural or agricultural) of the area developed.
DDS&A 72-309
Page 11
An additional important consideration is the possible reduction
in habitat below the threshold size for any particular species. In
this regard, the effects on rare or endangered species, and even
on the more widespread endemic species must be considered, as
well as the threshold size of the hunting territories of raptorial birds
and predatory mammals.
IMPACT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Any development of the magnitude of the proposed project will
have at least some detrimental effect on the natural environment.
This holds true for the area within the site boundaries, and to a
lesser extent for the surrounding developed and undeveloped lands
as well. More specifically, the entire biological character of the
project site will be changed. Development of the La Costa Vale
(Units 2-4) site will involve virtually complete removal of natural
vegetation from site except for the 13 acre natural lot (lot #272)
along the west boundary of the property, and lots 501, 502, and
503 near the center of the property. Further, the valley areas on
the property will be filled except for the lower third of the-intermittent
tributary to San Marcos Creek along the west boundary (which will
constitute the natural lot just cited).
As a result of habitat removal, the larger herbivores will be
excluded as well as predatory species. The hunting territory of the
DDS&A 72-309
Page 12
bobcat, coyote, and raptorial bird population will be reduced and their
function in the undeveloped areas in the vicinity of the project will be
taken over to some degree by the unfenced dogs and feral cats
introduced into the project area. The resulting competition .for food
resources between the natural and the introduced predators will have
—-y —
the effect of expanding the influence of the development and reducing '
even further the available habitat for the larger mammals and birds.
Further, development will remove the undeveloped area adjacent
to the San Marcos Creek Canyon which heretofore has served as a
buffer zone for the canyon's wild habitat. The wider ranging species,
which have maintained a balanced predator-prey relationship in and
out of the canyon area, will be cut off from the creek area by eventual
development on both sides of the canyon. Unless great care is taken
regarding the canyon, increased human activity will replace some
animal species, cause a deterioration of the vegetation, and a general
disruption of the habitat in the canyon.
Further, unless effective precautions are taken the development
of this site will cause accelerated habitat destruction and wildlife ( ^
disruption in the surrounding undeveloped areas from increased ' . \
activities of unsupervised children and undisciplined off-road vehicle ^>
*users. V\J
In addition to the above impacts there are possible biologically
significant effects of potential increased siltation, and changes in the
DDS&A 72-309
Page 13
chemical constituents of runoff into San Marcos Creek Canyon
and into Batiquitos Lagoon.
i
SIGNIFICANCE OF ADVERSE IMPACTS
The significance of an adverse impact can best be expressed
in terms of the importance or value of the resources effected.
Because the canyon of San Marcos Creek is unusually steep,
rugged, and wild (particularly, for a feature located this close to
the coast), it should be considered a major ecological and esthetic
resource. As such, it has the highest resource value in the area.
Accordingly, adverse impact on this canyon would be of considerable
significance. '
The vegetational communities and habitats (on the rolling upland
which comprises most of the project area) are valuable ecologic
resources, but of lesser value than the Canyon because there are
still relatively large areas of similar vegetation and habitat in the
undeveloped areas nearby.
Thus disruption of the upland habitat is probably an acceptable (
adverse impact but disruption of the canyon habitat is not.
DDS&A 72-309
Page 14
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
Because there are no archaeological or historic resources
of any significance on the property. The development of the site
will have no direct impact. Because of the large number of
people that will eventually live in this development, unless
mitigating measures are taken, there will probably be adverse
effects on the adobe remnants of the Mission Assistencia historic
site about a half mile to the southeast of the site.
DDS&A 72-309
Page 15
SECTION E
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACT
BIOLOGICAL
Development of the site will result in the loss of the plant
and animal habitat present on the property. If proper mitigation
measures are taken, however, the impact of the development on
the immediately adjacent San Marcos Canyon can be minimized.
Development will facilitate human access to and thus impose
pressure on the relatively undisturbed ecosystem in the nearby
undeveloped areas.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
None on the property itself. Probable defacement and possible
destruction of the adobe remnants of the nearby Mission Assistencia
unless appropriate mitigating measures are taken.
DDS&A 72-309
Page 16
SECTION F
MITIGATING MEASURES PROPOSED
BIOLOGICAL
It is understood that a) San Marcos Creek Canyon •will not be
developed, and b) the owner intends to deed ownership of the canyon
area (about 150 acres) to an appropriate agency or organization so
that it may be preserved.
To properly protect San Marcos Creek Canyon it is recommended
that the Canyon be considered a wild area with restricted access and
not a recreation area for the general public. A buffer zone should
be established along the southern rim of the canyon, and the native
vegetation in this buffer zone should be left undisturbed. This buffer
zone would require a set back of the lots which currently extend to
the lip of the canyon in La Costa Vale Unit 2, and a set back in the
peripheral road ("C" Street) in Unit 4. Ideally, the peripheral road
design of Unit 4 would be extended to the Unit 2 area, again with
and appropriate set back. These set backs should be as wide as
possible - from an ecological point of view twenty yards or more
would be highly desireable.
Further, to be effective, the buffer zone should be separated
from the development by high, heavy-duty chain link fence (which
would eventually extend along the north boundary of the canyon as
well). Access gates should be limited in number and of a type which
DDS&A 72-309
Page 17
would admit only pedestrians (such as the barred-turnstyle type gates
similar to those used in industrial plants). It is essential that trail
bikes and other off road vehicles be kept out of the area. A public
overlook could be established at a favorable scenic point along the
rim but even here access to the Canyon proper should be restricted.
In developing the property, the native vegetation should be preserved
wherever possible. Particular emphase should be focused on preserving
the thickets of scrub oak, toyon, and coast live oak shown on the
vegetation map. In addition, native plant species should be used when
landscaping open space areas and areas •which are not specifically
single family dwellings, i.e. , school grounds, commercial areas,
condominium and apartment complexes. This would preserve some
natural foraging areas for some native bird and small mammal species.
Care should be taken that biologically significant changes in
runoff patterns, siltation rates, and chemical constituents of
precipication runoff into San Marcos Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon
do not occur.
With regard to the undeveloped areas east of Rancho Santa Fe Road,
in order to minimize destruction of the vegetation and habitat in these
areas for as long as possible, a similar chain link fence with restrictive
access gates should be installed along an extensive stretch of Rancho
DDS&A 72-309
Page 18
Santa Fe Road. Further, the area should be posted to trail bikes
and off road vehicles, and local law officers should be encouraged
to enforce these restrictions.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
It is recommended that the adobe remnants at the Mission
Assistencia site be fenced off with a barb-wire topped, rugged
chain link fence and padlock gates until arrangements can be
made for a longer term solution.
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego ss.
- , says that she is the Principal Clerk
of The Carlsbad Journal, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, and State of California, and that the notice of which the
annexed is a true copy, was published _i. times in said newspaper, commencing on the.l:±t.l
day of ::..:;....:. .t! _ , A.D. 19 l.i_, namely on the following dates:
NOTICE OF PROPOSED
SPECIFIC PLAN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that the Planning Commission
of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a Public Hearing on Sep-
tember 26,1972, at 7:30 rP.M.
Ihe Northwesterly intersec-
fM£ oftliflpfoposed La Costa
Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe
Road, on the following des-
cribed property:
Portion of Section 31,
Township 12 South, Range
3 West, San Bernardino
Meridian-City of Carls-
bad, County of San Diego,
State of California, more
particularly described on
file in City Planning Of-
fice.
CARLSBAD CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
Pub: September 14,1972
>G.'to;::";.'3r 14 , 1972
Signed at Carlsbad, California this ....i.t-.tl
day of _.^.,±^ .-£ _ , 19 ^....
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Legal Decree No. 172342 Principal Clerk
STAFF REPORT/MEMORKriDUM Jeptember 26, 1972
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
MAP AND SPECIFIC PLAN ON 290 ACRES LOCATED NORTHERLY
OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD AND THE PROPOSED LA COSTA
AVENUE EXTENSION
LA COSTA LAND COMPANY
Report Submitted By:City Manager, Fire, Engineering, Building,
Parks & Recreation and Planning Departments
General Discussion:
The applicant requests approval of a Tentative Map and Specific Plan
to allow construction of 1,988 dwelling units on 269 lots, comprising
a total area of 290 acres, and located northerly of Rancho Santa Fe
Road and proposed La Costa Avenue extension. Property to the south
is zoned R-2 and property to the east is zoned P-C (Planned Com-
munity) with adopted Specific Plan.
The property is to be developed in the below listed manner:
Single Family Residential Acres No. of Units
7500 sq/ft lot
1/2 Acre Minimum lot
Multiple Family Residential
11 Dwelling Units/Acre
14 Dwelling Units/Acre
Parks
Schools
Easements
Totals
56.5
43
94.3
53.3
13
20
9.9
290
150
43
1045
750
0
0
0_
1988
Average density of the development is 14.5 dwelling units per acre.
The property is a portion of the La Costa Land Company Planned
Community. The proposed development is designed to implement one
portion of the Master Plan governing development of the entire La
Costa Land holdings. Proposed neighborhood park is as generally
shown on the approved La Costa Master Plan, though the northwesterly
eight (8) acres is of unusually steep topography and should not
count as any of the city's park dedication ordinance.
Development of the remaining five (5) acres of the proposed neighbor-
hood park (Lot 272) shall be in conformance with park development
criteria as approved during Master Plan consideration.
STAFF REPORT
LA COSTA LAND COMPLY
September 26, 1972
Recommendation:
It is the staff recommendation that this application be approved
for the following reasons and subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed development fulfills requirements of the subdi-
vision map act.
2. The proposed development will not adversely affect surrounding
properties .
Conditions of Approval:
?fv. Issuance of all permits shall be subject to formal annexation
to the City of Carlsbad.
?x The proposed development shall be subject to all applicable con-
ditions of the La Costa Master Development Plan, Ordinance No. 9322,
August 15, 1972.
That approval be subject to all conditions of P-C (Planned
Community) Ordinance No. 9218 (i.e. park dedication).
4. Improvement plans shall conform to the City of Carlsbad Engi-
neering Design Criteria and Standard Plans.
5. The applicant shall provide a fully actuated traffic signal at
the intersection of La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road.
"D" Street and "E" STreet west of "C" Street shall be standard
40 foot curb to curb within 60 foot right-of-way streets.
7. Improvements plans for water and sewer systems shall meet the
approval of the respective service districts.
Each hillside street shall be designed with a crown so that
'drainage water does not sheet flow across the pavement.
9. All cut and fill slopes shall be rounded and be approved by the
City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.
10. New Rancho Santa Fe Road shall be extended northward across the
200 foot San Diego Gas and Electric Easement and connect to the
Existing Rancho Santa Fe Road at the applicants expense.
A north-south connector street will be required to extend from
the end of existing Gibraltar Street to Alicante Road (or other
acceptable connection). This road shall be cnstructed at the expense
of the developer. This connector should be a four-lane road unless a
detailed traffic circulation study, acceptable'.: to the City Engineer
indicates that a two-lane road will be sufficient.
STAFF REPORTLA COSTA LAND COMPANY
September 26, 1972
12. Street lighting, at the applicants expense, on La Costa Avenue
(and all four-lane roads) shall be placed on both sides of the
street in a lighting pattern approved by the City Engineer.
13. Hillside lots with frontage on two streets shall relinquish
access right to one street as approved by the City Engineer.
14. Thirty-foot curb to curb streets as indicated on the typical
street section are not approved.
15. Raised medians shall be provided by applicant on 102 foot wide
streets as required by City Engineer.
DONALD A. AGATEP, V \
Acting Planning Director x
r r 4<— L, H V,.,, v
ADDENDUM TO STAFF IMPORT
LA COSTA VALE - LA COSTA LAND COMPANY
September 26, 1972
16. On site fire hydrants and fire protection appurtenances shall
be constructed in accordance with fire department requirements.