A
323.0
1 HP
i
i
l
RETAINING LOT 18
WALL
PAD 323.2
FF323.87
� j l
GF323.37
D
322.0 �'"� �5p
1 D
LP ool o 001
07 r LP
v
o
(n
a a
ac
a
a
°
��
1y
�
i
LP
- YARD DRAIN
(TYP.)
- RETAINING
WALL
HP
LP
- YARD DRAIN
(TYP.)
OUTLET PIPE
THROUGH
CURB
TYPICAL DRAINAGE DETAIL
SCALE.- 1 " = 20'
PROPERTY
LINE
I
I
PROPOSED HOME
REAR YARD
ACCESS
' PROPOSED FENCE
'C ® PROPERTY LINE
C -PROPOSED SWALE
LOT 13 PROPOSED----'
REAR YARD
ACCESS
Cat
V
SEWER NOTES:
1) SEE SEWER MANHOLE DATA
TABLE ON SHEET J.
2) ALL PR/VA TE STREETS WILL BE
DEDICATED TO THE BENEFIT OF
THE CITY OF VISTA AS PUBLIC
SEWER EASEMENTS (FULL WIDTH).
3) CONNECT/ON TO THE EXISTING
SEWER MAIN IN CAMINO LARGO
IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS &
CONDITIONS LISTED ON THE
RECORDED REIMBURSEMENT
AGREEMENT PER DOC. NO.
1986-162229, REC. 412511986
AGREEMENT TERMINA TED 10
YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE.
4) MAINTAIN MINIMUM OF 5 FOOT
SEPARATION BETWEEN SEWER
LATERALS AND OTHER
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.
5) RECONSTRUCT EXIST. SEWER
MANHOLES NO. 4, 7 & 9 PER
CURRENT STANDARDS.
PROPERTY
LINE
I
-PROPOSED HOME
' PROPOSED FENCE
® PROPERTY LINE
IENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
REAR YARD
ACCESS
_ RETAINING WALL LOT 12
PROPOSED
RETAINING WALL LOT 11
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - PROPOSED
EX/STING GROUND RETAINING WALL
TYPICAL LOT CROSS SECTION
SCALE. • 1" = 10'
MANHOLE DATA TABLE
DESCRIPTION I I� STATION I TR RIM ELEV. I 1E INVERT ELEV. 0 EXIST. SMH 11OV5.84A
1+00
(292.5)
(284.6)
TO BE REMOVED &
SEWER REALIGNED
TO MH #22 & 23
20 EXIST. SMH #OV5.843
1+36 E/0+00 N
293.8
(286.4)
30 NEW SMH #3
2+64
297.7
(291.8)
®
EXIST. SMH #0V5.081
4+80
307.6
(300.9)
50 NEW SMH #5
4+99
308.2
(JO1.1)
©
NEW SMH #6
7+47
316.0
(303.5)
07 EXIST. SMH #0V5.081A
8+30
314.9
(J04.3)
®
NEW SMH #8
9+ 73
312. 2
(J04. 9)
90 EXIST. SMH #OV5.079
11+66
310.3
(J05.6)
®
NEW SMH #10
11 +87
310. 3
(J05. 7)
0 NEW SMH #11
4+42 N
293.9
286.7
©
NEW SMH #12
1 +50 N
293.7
286.7
PROPERTY
LINE
I
PROPOSED HOME
PROPOSED FENCE
© PROPERTY LINE
- _LOT 10
MANHOLE DATA TABLE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
STATION
TR RIM ELEV.
1E INVERT ELEV.
©
EXIST. SMH #OV5.082
(TO BE ABANDONED &
REPLACED WITH SMH #12)
3+43 N
(295.0)
(287.2)
®
NEW SMH #14
3+46 (LOT D)
318.8
310.8
©
NEW SMH #15
2+54 (LOT E)
320.6
312.6
®
NEW SMH #16
4+00 (LOT E)
333.4
325.4
©
NEW SMH #17
2+66 (LOT F)
329.7
321.7
®
NEW SMH #18
4+37 (LOT F)
345.4
337.4
®
NEW SMH #19
3+ 34 (L 0 T G)
331.3
323.3
NEW SMH #20
2+41 (LOT H)
312.5
307.1
©
NEW SMH #21
3+ 03 (L 0 T H)
314.5
307.7
NEW SMH #22
1 +20
293.4
284.8
Q
NEW SMH #23
1 +26
293.7
288.0
CAMINO LARGO
zAMMERHEAD ' l
TURNAROUND FOR\ VISTA
SANI TA TiON MAINTENANCE
\VEHICLES
P21-0300
SHEET 3 OF 11 SHEETS
scuv�',cc l Ar'
Lp4SE FLOW THAT
D1F/CA TION
ANY ADVERSE
q,5 cr u -
5+ / rn _-7 - - ---------_
-- XISTING EDGE --------_
-----
'\' TING_PRta-rf �RAI>vAi -= ----- ----- ----------------- --- --- --
SROF-0S&9 ' ----- - EASE - _ 4 =1 $=05$_ --- ------------------------ -',P;, _-- RE6: ;O�f1$9& ;,- """ - ------------------------- � - 234
StMEAI' F" SE6GE t1NES AND
' 3 / w 5 8 = / EvG ,- APPURTENA�1l6E PTO
- ---- THE CITY OF VISTA, ------------------ -------
ENO ---REC �2-99�f2 AS HOC N0. 2012-0075727 -
2�'' PORT/ON OF EXISTIKG _ _----- --
�,,��, REC/PROCAL PRIVATE EXISTING 20' WIDE PRIVATE--
/A� �% - ROAD & UTILITY ROAD EASEMENT TO�fPN
'- �6Z L� RQP_050-;%; �� EASEMENT 159-240-05, 06, 13 & 14 ,-'RIVA-E,'S7T�EE'� TO BE QUITCLAIMED
_7h Tr-�,ircol Arco
EA$�40T' S/dlD,/ ,� ,,fiPN -
ASEMtN,'� fi01,8E 1,59-240 31
0�- - '; RANTED 10 1APN,'l
g,1
NSri
rid
st-
W G530
- 0 p,�ME H 40
N G P PSEMEN
WALL NOTE.•
30' 15' 0' 30' 60' 90'
SCALE: 1 " = 30'
bhA,incm
5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE "L"
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387
(760) 931-8700
ALL WALLS TO BE 4.9'
IN HEIGHT MAX.
K:\Civjl�p 6\6 t�G\TM\1154-TM-03.dwa, 10/25/2022 11:19:42 AM PH1 Page 1237 of 1307
DATA TABLE
NO.
LENGTH
BEARING -DEL TA
RADIUS
1 74.95'
4 `15'51 "
1007.05'
2 52.13'
2 5535"
1020.58'
3 133.05'
736'50"
7007.22'
4 19.00'
N23 4623"W
-
5 25.00'
N68 46'02 "E
-
6 25.28'
N66.1337"E
-
7 29.42'
N75 2534 "W
-
8 39.27'
90 00'00"
25.00'
9 39.17'
49 5233"
45. 00'
10 9.46'
1153'20"
45.59'
11 100.44'
127 53'20"
45. 00'
12 40.50'
51 3339 "
45. 00'
13 48.01 '
61 07'37"
45. 00'
14 1.30'
1 39'11 "
45. 00'
15 19.12'
24 20'26 "
45. 00'
16 39.27'
90 00'00"
25.00'
17 30.24'
N23 4623"W
-
18 7.51 '
N27 47'15 "E
-
19 39.27'
90 00'00"
25.00'
20 0.70'
0 53'16"
45. 00'
21 29.89'
38 03'17"
45. 00'
IENTATIVE S UBDI VISION MAP
CAMINO LARGO
APN
159-240-02
P21-0300
SHEET 4 OF 11 SHEETS
PROPOSED TURN
AROUND EASEMENT
SEWER NOTES. FOR VISTA SANITATION
66.24' N88 2546 "W 597.77'
1) SEE SEWER MANHOLE DATA ,� 148.27' z 142.44'
TABLE ON SHEET J. 01UI`101 SAGO' W 143.82'
2) ALL PRIVATE STREETS WILL BE R� / II 015E ENT �930, N � a, a, � 20' PUBLIC 99' DEDICATED TO THE BENEFIT OF v��P EPSc, 9/3/9 15PIMEp N_Nc,w� 9 �, 46 20 3 UTILITY EASEMENT THE CITY OF VISTA AS PUBLIC p �,, I E �� L rn_ 3 E E
SEWER EASEMENTS FULL WIDTH). tJ / O IR K 1g1 Q0ITC �' -- LQ� 05SIN LF GROSS/N ��^ o cv � ) APN �`��Sv° / � 6 o BE � OT 38 sIN�� - � S61 SF GR g,965 s 3) CONNECTION TO THE EXISTING g0 L RO // \ 1p '07 E
SEWER MAIN IN IS SUBJECT TO THE INO TERMS & 159-240-01 LARGO50 � -� / � II \ � 16 0S15F G � \ `�'�,, N N77*1
67.9251 Z LOT B
CONDITIONS LISTED ON THE / / �� 14,923 SF GROSS
RECORDED REIMBURSEMENT / sr�,, II \ LO� GSS(1`TE s �,+ ' b� 55 14,153 SFNET AGREEMENT PER DOC. NO. / Z� ET \ q SF GR II I ti6 T 45
AGREEMENT 9TERMlNA4TED5 �1986 LQ BOBBIN II II II 11,30 I 52 0 BOSS/NET 3.73' N YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE. /� 6645 sF G 1� II 2 32' 3 40 /I '3�'�E 96 9 $o 0 5147 S 84.2-0' I 40' PRIVATE N I 65 gA• �� 613 cV, p7 E N
4) MAINTAIN MINIMUM OF 5 FOOT // o I B 7"E /N6 Y C � N77'10 STREET & PUBLIC ao APN- SEPARATION BETWEEN SEWER / �; �p 0° �2 II .13 3 N cPPE WP h 1� UTILITY EASEMENT L 159 240 06 LATERALS AND OTHER �`'-�,'- 10 �6 9 O \I N66 "� ao 61q 85�� Qo , LPNp N�'PPRK 0 Z �� LQT 44 ET M o N UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. , �Z9 ET Z 11 a 6 ME ET O � OSS/N o N N 66'13 3 6 \\ `�� I LOG 0551N ''E 3� ET EPSE LO GR05SIN �1y. 516S,SF GDSCAPE 1.Y o W '- o 5) MANHOLES NO. RECONSTRUCT EXIST
& SEWER PER N O5 E o 3g F 13' L TR N \\ 9 5F 86 0 6 LA MEN / WA o z // 6 LQ� SIN II s 6. 3 O G OS51 b II 59 ° SE 7 PARK �: 3 CURRENT STANDARDS 15 NET Zs�.s� 09 SF GR �cs'- N6' �0 00 q 500 SF`�� �'� •13'3� E EET 8� 0 6= EA •10'07» E 79.71 o W w N �R05SIo DO , �o z u C 6'_ N66 �PtE STRESM� 46 N�7PUE3[ ENT o o N 06 // 11215 sF ; �1 g1 $5 5 ��, II LQf �lssrNvl 6.00 �5 oo. w �� W 50' PRc To A• S51NE� UTILITY EASEM 5 - `L 111.91
�. GR 1 36 E� �\ C� P0g RO co Z
Q� �SS�N �� r cs q 300 SF�c ENT ,3�''E tp'f osslN �'_ o cn ��_ cr qq SF G T o W 4R SS L APN ?4 66.13 SF GR II oo , P08L EPSE 6613 00 SF G Sco goo w+ "w� o ,�POBU EPSEMEN86 °° 0 5 505 SF T- 159-240-16 �56 O \ N $ q79 \� o 0-�U f'� N 0 ,�0 00 �,5 6, LPN EN-��PP �� o. 51110 13,3 E �0 00 4,755 Sr NEI' 1 9' 0p \`ro i ` d z 5\ 0 31 T EN5, op \\cs� o � car 066 OT �ROss 51 S4 / 6 o N E 0' S Q w \ L G T 52 53
1 E 1 9 2 ET '�,� Q SSIN 0 a 5F E
IN O� SIN T 9�' �Q� SIN oo, o GR0 1�6. 35 $T oo_ - A N_ A 131 6 sF - / B / 50 5.39' PROPOSED 5' WIDE PRI VA TE LO GROSS II N II L GR , 3� E 10 00 A", GRO N� N G rn_ s p0 SF p cP?E wP �„ 0 G 05s� N 0, 5, �g, 2/ >, , DRAINAGE EASEMENT OVER / z SF 71 s 13 0 SF IG E w �,+ o 4 3 N S P •K 3 E L R c E T 5 o / j N8 25 46 90. 97 LOTS 2, 3 14 & 15 w 6,651 11 q 9 N66 4 55, P�6L EPSEM rn � C� � oo_ 6' LP MENT� 613 Soo S POBLI EPSEM 25 of / ' - - - / II �TIUTY�\ N EPSE N 0� 10 �o d U pL1 25, -
°�' �- \1 N I �� NON 9$ 00 �6 0 0 0- 'r 32 INE� 0' �5 00 00. \ s / / EXISTING PRIVATE EXISTING 6' WIDE 'r 3 ��T 61.26 pro' �� 02 1 SSINET 1 Z3 E III o_ �� - \ LO GRp5sEE1 1j6 0 DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER UTILITY EASEMENT / L� BOSS °'E 1 66 3 \\ �, 27 SF GRo .13,37 E �0 C; LOGR05sP �� Y �+ �o 30p SI PIE EsM3 3�''E O,' 3R0S5 / 00 0/ 1TY j PROPOSED DOC. 1998-0562349, REC.
TO SDG&E 239 s 6.13' 3� " 6� LQTR S5li'� \ 5,35 �1G ME 1. N66 50 SF - RKw P \ o ' P C OIL N 61 00 63 sF G NET rn / OTIL 10 PRI VA TE 0910211998 / N6 G o 20 o UB SE N 5 6 LPN ENT�PP o_ POBL 6 �0 5,� 125� / / O5LIG NTEp / SF �' ' P EP o EM p0 4,5 P RP ROAD
9q9 \ o� 5 LILY OZp ,� s� EPS � � � $�. / .� � E G / / EASEMENT EXISTING 28' EASEMENT FOR SEWER APN 5g 3, 0� � EE 0 00 I o FREE TO B / / LINES AND APPURTENANCES TO THE 159-240-28 / 18 90' �` �S, 6� \moo r TE Y 19 '° 6. 3 /, S° �5 RIvP 0�L g $ $ I� o, 50 �Q'r GROSS �pj / RIvPT p,SEMEN3 % / PORTION OF EXISTING CITY OF VISTA, REC. 02/09/12 AS / O SIN 1 �' O P IG 1 N E 0 2 ET 25 5F ET / P E 6/ r DOC. NO. 2012-0075727 / 12 \ S GROS ''E �p Q� �� 5I� o. 5& P� MEN �Q GR05SI 6.13, 3� ,�0 0 LO �R0551N 5' oo_ A,S5229 S� N / OPOSE� SPIO 05, - RECIPROCAL PRIVATE / \ 4,590 66.13' 3� 6 sF G Ic ENS �' z �o E��� 5, 0 Sf�136 N6 5 5� 2 �' � / PR SEMEN �2�oi ROAD & U rill rY
EPSEM\b �, 0 35 50 II �, / 5 P 9/ TO EA SEMEN
BE QUITCLAIMED
O 0� 6 5 Ipj f`(, �\ N`��-+ o� ,�OZ 9 �� Op' .off o_ 37 / A�f % APN �6 sr 0 0 �` z G 1 Vf S 8 i / 159 240-3I
II OSGPPEPRKWPY 185 0 g 00 o\3c;n-
w� LROSSIN 1g /-If 11,r�11T ,`�� cn 5F . �'3� E �0 t n� u0ss RG PSLM� LU 055�i.r 3,3 / ,. �0 j_ �� �Ro�,�- o\��� 5 ��� c�P� WPC 66•� - -- • y- S� E GR 66.1 SF G PE Y w� cn cA o NpS P PRK N 5,135 5F N / F GR / / LQT oSS�ET �\ gg5 SF N Z00 NpSCP PPRKWP "'\`� w, oo. 6' LP MENT� 6j 440 6 / �I 09 S PRY /
\ / F GR �o oo T �' 6 SEMEN / �� �_ EPSE ,�02 0o i / C CA 20 500j / 11'944 s \� O r �g �E S �R YE 185 °°' g °o so o_ �'� ZD SS /61 p0/ LQ� U6pli0Nj ING 0 E Cl PR1v �TIL 6 NET oo. 50 LQ GROT / / 61.6$ 6°� i EXIST (0 ��Ep ��• "E 119 \\ d 50 P0BLENT L� ROSSI. '3�''E �0 0o T 10 NET �� 25, 6,2�9 5 Sv x' / "E 9 �006 / OF ENS cP .13' 3� `ro EPSEM 05o SF N6613 LO GR0551 25, \ o_ 5,3�5 pow 6613 3� 1031 g3 / POR GE EPSTO BE vP N66 1 8.82' moo\ N oo. 5, �00 SF 136 - N 13'3� / SPF �S�P LO ROS51N G 9
G p5' �'�LOT pSSIN�� 185'°°
s 6,409 • 33�'�E 12 6LIG EMENT w o �' 5 05o S� GR • 3' 3�''E 10 �0 QT 9 Oss r1661 5' PUTY EPS �� rn v � rn c0 gLIG SEMENN661 L SF GR�� j / / cAy SEWS NE UTILI F* �,� �, o. 5' P� �,( EP o� 0106 SF N _ / 06L1G PTERL 20. 0o EXIST•p OTIL 96 p0 q,1 / / W P WE °T
O o0 00, OF GP�E PE P� g /0' / G 20' 01015 P0511 EMEN 1 q° ,-900 � TI00 E vP SGN RKVJ � N OT oss /� 0 TIN T T 0cE ENS 8c R G00N�IE'( �� v\ o\\' POR IV g 6, NO EN � IPP ;, �_ 50 U, 9 SF NET / j / I �i EP EMEE � 0 ?00 06, 13 PE Pp 50 2�1�� s EPS �, A oSS \\ 25 5, 5 0g5 s / / X PSEM RIgP 0 Fop 39 '�� �r �_ Ep LO GR 25 0. /0 N / WIpE P Sg,2
N �o Q, R0P05 219 SFSF NET �� \ / $.� 0 / Ppo
R/W 16'15,460 / APN
o_ / I 159-240-33
56 D & I PRIv P ENS
EX►SREGIPR R0P0 ENT, XISIINE EPSEM
APN PRIvPr( EP�O 3" 0 & I PIPELIN
159-240-21 /�0/ / 0� LY $' GLPIME 40,
RQPpY Sp 7 / / ��0 Q01T p \V110PQIc I
G PONE GOK 1251 \ _ / / BR PLRvMEN� I
,015 TO PER 61926
5 SE N p1E 0/ I I 2 ME G �EF SPN REc. P j66
119 01,5 / APN
0 �4691301, ' 6 R�� / 159-240-32 I
P& gIC 12/06p / I
G g50 5
RE ' a ER
DATA TABLE
NO.
LENGTH
BEARING -DEL TA
RADIUS
22 24.70'
312644"
45. 00'
23 76.57'
972949"
45. 00'
24 76.57'
972949"
45. 00'
25 24.70'
312644"
45. 00'
26 29.89'
38 03'17"
45. 00'
27 0.70'
0 53'16"
45. 00'
28 39.27'
90.00'00"
25.00'
29 39.27'
90.00'00"
25.00'
30 6.55'
8 20'06"
45. 00'
31 24.04'
30 3627"
45. 00'
32 30.54'
38 53'05"
45. 00'
33 70.77'
90.01 '06"
45.05'
34 101.27'
128 56'33"
45. 00'
35 24.04'
30 3627"
45. 00'
36 6.55'
8 20'06"
45. 00'
37 39.27'
90.00'00"
25.00'
38 36.67'
S23 4623"E
-
39 39.27'
90.00,00"
25.00'
40 3.63'
4 3724 "
45. 00'
41 67.14'
85 29'06"
45.00'
42 114.87'
146.15'04 "
45.00'
DATA TABLE
NO.
LENGTH
BEARING -DEL TA
RADIUS
43 13.48'
17 09'33"
45. 00'
44 30.70'
39.05'31 "
45. 00'
45 39.27'
90 00'00"
25.00'
46 23.57'
N45 4844 "E
-
47 33.51 '
N54 01 '22 "E
-
48 36.15'
N60 4927 "E
-
49 40.05'
N134'14"E
-
50 43.17'
11.7 744 "
219. 00'
51 41.48'
10 51 '11 "
219.00'
52 12.21'
3°11'42"
219.00'
53 9.43'
S88 2546 "E
-
54 38.90'
N67 56'31 "W
-
55 3.59'
N16 5636"E
-
56 14.95'
10 50'34 "
79.00'
57 40. 00'
N7249'06"E
-
58 22.52'
10 50'34 "
119.00'
59 36.20'
S234623"E
-
60 21.90'
S23 4623"E
-
61 38.43'
S38 51 '26 "E
-
62 50.99'
S35 04'59 "E
-
63 50.99'
S35 04'59 "E
-
DATA TABLE
NO.
LENGTH
BEARING -DELTA
RADIUS
64 52.33'
S40 56'02 "E
-
65 50.21 '
S29 04'29 "E
-
66 19.92'
N23 4623"W
-
67 40.34'
S38 07'39 "E
-
68 50.99'
S35 04'59 "E
-
69 50.99'
S35 04'59 "E
-
70 50.99'
S35 04'59 "E
-
71 50.52'
S31 58'03 "E
-
72 17.35'
N23 4623"W
-
73 42.83'
S10`16'21 "E
-
74 50.99'
S1227'48"E
-
75 50.99'
S1227'48"E
-
76 50.99'
S1227'48"E
-
77 16.49'
S23 4623"E
-
78 46.94'
N12`15'23"W
-
79 53.02'
S13 09'41 "E
-
80 13.78'
N 17°10'54 "W
-
81 17.68'
N 17°10'54 "W
-
N0• I
I I REVISIONS
in
c. No. Description Approved by Date
hand p�anrr�sngurr�c�c�dng, surve /hg
40' 20' 0' 40' 80' 120'
/ I I 5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS
\, SCALE: 1" = 40' SUITE "L"
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387
(760) 931-8700
KACivjl�%&�G\TM\1154-TM-04.dwci, 10/25/2022 9:49:32 AM PH 1 Page 1238 of 1307
P21-0300
w�
w
U TURN DETAIL
SCALE.- 1 "=20'
20' 10' 0' 20' 40' 60'
SCALE: 1 " = 20'
IENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
CAMINO LARGO
RIGHT TURN STRIPING DETAIL
10' 5' 0' 10' 20' 30'
SCALE: 1 " = 10'
SCALE.- 1 "=10'
5R
FIRE TR UCK TURNING DETAIL
SCALE.- 1 "=10'
bhA,incl
5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE 1"
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387
(760) 931-8700
SHEET 5 OF 11 SHEETS
10' 50' 10' 20' 30'
SCALE: 1 " = 10'
K:\Cll�p 6\6 tG> G\TM\1154-TM-05.dwa, 10/24/2022 3:24:32 PM PH1 Page 1239 of 1307
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
SIGHT DISTANCE EXHIBIT NORTH SANTA FE AVE. C CAMINO LARGO �lj
-------------
Ly o
0 0 LO
r'
k
\\ Q I
OS STREE f I
PR TS I I
R Tm 1-0300 I
a °
159-2 0-32
\ II EP v \ I I I
APN
159-240-31
------------------
400' SI T� DI8TA ,,
tE-
EMOVE &ATION AS -___
' - I EXIST. RY TO PROVIDE
TRAILERT 45 PH;;pESIN\ED
\ \ I o I Ek�l`T.
— / I
---------------
k\\\\\\ o - ------------------------------- --_________--- - \,--------------------- --
\\\\ rlp
I
\ EXIST. 6"
TIST \ `\ P lr� ® CURB & GUTTER
40'
\ I
CPO
T.
EP DGE I EXIST. -
Of-- ----------
p' ---------- -------------
3 - ---___ -- __ _-_-_-_-----_-_-________ _____-_____________ r
1----------
i' N�----------
\�- /
---------------------------
-----------------------
' I TE DISTANCE
I II I
I ,
4 H DESIGN SPE
----------------
C�O
/ '
�� \ I I I
I I )1
00 c
r r
r
-' 30' 15' 0' 30' 60' 90'
SCALE: 1 " = 30'
P21-0300
SHEET 6 OF 11 SHEETS
1%1JA I r, ^ No.
5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE "L"
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387
(760) 931-8700
REVISIONS
Description I Approved by I Date
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1240 of 1307
o qn
31 30C
29C
27 1�nn
3+00
MEN
cR ossj
H: 1"
V: 1"
10 08
06 04
IENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
STORM DRAIN CROSSING
CAMINO LARGO
Y/ /Pl //LJ/Y L!L/ /.
rl�
777,
60' 30' 0' 60' 120' 180'
SCALE: 1 " = 60'
bhA,incl
5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE "L"
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387
(760) 931-8700
P21-0300
SHEET 7 OF 11 SHEETS
' THA T IS
A T/ON
iE
K:\Cll�p 6\6 tG> G\TM\1154-TM-07.dwa, 10/25/2022 9:54:06 AM PH1 Page 1241 of 1307
IENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
EXISTING CONDITIONS
CAMINO LARGO
Am —or AN
Val
raft
P21-0300
SHEET 8 OF 11 SHEETS
x 310.7
I \ \
' 7'71" /------- —________------_--- ----
31 ,_2--fJr _ - -- ---- ----- ---�`_--------__--__--_---__ _ _ - ____ 3ce_ 1 / I 11I 40„5'//'�=UDy>+�_ I/ % —---—_—
X ----------
-----------
---------------
%;lp% % I
1 I I // /
11, 1 I I I I ///
\ . \ � 4\I \
IAPN
O
159-240-06
1 31
SANG POLE
L
ipkJ\,
\ \I` Os`\
I x 308, 8 \\
bill APN ___-- 8Pf.
\
1 240-16
31 9 ---- ----- d /��=------
x31 � ��� � - D
P /
-
AIMED
-RF RE
----
------ -- --
------------
W------------
/ ' / APPUR7El1MCES_TA-- CITy OF VISTA,
------------ `-------- / // \201 REPLp Rpp p E G\TM\1154-TM-08.dwa, 10/25/2022 10:40:56AM PH1 Page 1242 of 1307
ft
3�w��Al-M M
MAINTENANCE INDICATORS AND ACTIONS FOR
BIOFILTRATION BMPS
TYPICAL MAINTENANCE INDICATORS
TYPICAL MAINTENANCE ACTIONS
ACCUMULATION OF SEDIMENT (OVER 2
REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF
INCHES DEEP OR COVERS VEGETATION),
ACCUMULATED MATERIALS WITHOUT
LITTER, OR DEBRIS
DAMAGE TO THE VEGETATION. CONFIRM
THAT SOIL IS NOT CLOGGING AND THAT THE
AREA DRAINS AFTER STORM EVENT. TILL OR
REPLACE SOIL AS NECESSARY.
POOR VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT
ENSURE VEGETATION IS HEALTHY AND
DENSE ENOUGH TO PROVIDE FILTERING AND
TO PROTECT SOILS FROM EROSION.
REPLENISH MULCH AS NECESSARY (IF LESS
THAN 3 INCHES DEEP), REMOVE FALLEN
LEAVES AND DEBRIS, PRUNE LARGE SHRUBS
OR TREES, AND MOW TURF AREAS.
OVERGROWN VEGETATION -WOODY
MOW OR TRIM AS APPROPRIATE, BUT NOT
VEGETATION NOT PART OF DESIGN IS
LESS THAN THE DESIGN HEIGHT OF THE
PRESENT AND GRASS EXCESSIVELY TALL
VEGETATION (TYPICALLY 4-6 INCHES FOR
(GREATER THAN 10 INCHES)
GRASS). CONFIRM THAT IRRIGATION IS
ADEQUATE AND NOT EXCESSIVE AND THAT
SPRAYS DO NOT DIRECTLY ENTER
OVERFLOW GRATES. REPLACE DEAD PLANTS
AND REMOVE NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE
WEEDS.
EROSION DUE TO CONCENTRATED
REPAIR/RE-SEED ERODED AREAS AND
IRRIGATION FLOW
ADJUST THE IRRIGATION.
EROSION DUE TO CONCENTRATED
REPAIR/RE-SEED ERODED AREAS AND MAKE
STORMWATER RUNOFF FLOW
APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE MEASURES SUCH
AS ADDING EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS,
ADDING STONE AT ENTRY POINTS, OR
RE -GRADING WHERE NECESSARY. REMOVE
OBSTRUCTIONS AND SEDIMENT
ACCUMULATIONS SO WATER DISPERSES.
STANDING WATER (BMP NOT DRAINING). IF
WHERE THERE IS AN UNDERDRAIN, SUCH AS
MOSQUITO LARVAE ARE PRESENT AND
IN PLANTER BOXES AND MANUFACTURED
PERSISTENT, CONTACT THE SAN DIEGO
BIOFILTERS, CHECK THE UNDERDRAIN PIPING
VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM AT (858)
TO MAKE SURE IT IS INTACT AND
694-2888. MOSQUITO LARVICIDES SHOULD
UNOBSTRUCTED. ABATE ANY POTENTIAL
BE APPLIED ONLY WHEN ABSOLUTELY
VECTORS BY FILLING HOLES IN THE GROUND
NECESSARY AND THEN ONLY BY A LICENSED
IN AND AROUND THE BIOFILTER FACILITY
INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTOR.
AND BY INSURING THAT THERE ARE NO
AREAS WHERE WATER STANDS LONGER
THAN 96 HOURS FOLLOWING A STORM.
OUTLET INLET OR OUTLET STRUCTURE
CLEAR OBSTRUCTIONS.
DAMAGE TO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS
REPAIR OR REPLACE AS APPLICABLE.
SUCH AS WEIRS, INLET, OR OUTLET
STRUCTURES
BEFORE THE WET SEASON AND AFTER RAIN
WHERE CISTERNS ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM
EVENTS: REMOVE SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS
FROM SCREENS AND OVERFLOW DRAINS
AND DOWNSPOUTS: ENSURE PUMPS ARE
FUNCTIONING, WHERE APPLICABLE; CHECK
INTEGRITY OF MOSQUITO SCREENS; AND;
CHECK THAT COVERS ARE PROPERLY SEALED
AND LOCKED.
SITE SPECIFIC DATA
PROJECT NUMBER
15086
PROJECT NAME
CAMINO LARGO
PROJECT LOCATION
VISTA, CA
STRUCTURE ID
----
TREATMENT REQUIRED
VOLUME BASED (CF)
FLOW BASED (CFS)
N/A
0.6 TREATMENT HGL AVAILABLE (FT)
N/K
PEAK BYPASS REQUIRED (CFS) —
IF APPLICABLE
OFFLINE
PIPE DATA
LE.
MATERIAL
DIAMETER
INLET PIPE 1
J05.45
PVC
12"
INLET PIPE 2
N/A
N/A
N/A
OUTLET PIPE
J04.58
RCP
18"
PRETREATMENT
BIORLIRA TION
DISCHARGE
RIM ELEVATION
J14.50
J14.50
J14.50
SURFACE LOAD
PEDESTRIAN
PEDESTRIAN
PEDESTRIAN
FRAME & COVER
JEA OJO"
JEA J6" X 60"
2EA OJO"
WETLANOMEDIA VOLUME (CY)
11.41 ORIFICE SIZE (DIA. INCHES)
02.58 EA
NOTES: PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UPSTREAM BYPASS TO BE SET AT JOZ 66.
INSTALLATION NOTES
PROPOSED OR EXISTING SURFACE
FLOW BASED
MODULAR
WETLAND SYSTEM
•
vQVQVQVQVQVQVQVQVQVQv
v Q v Q v Q v Q v Q v Q v Q v Q v Q v Q
.•
.
QvQvQvQvQvQvQvQvQvQv
vQvQvQvQvQvQvQvQvQvQ
v v v v v v v v v v
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
v v v v v v v v v v
ovovovovovovovovovov
vovovovovovovovovovo
Q v Q v Q v Q v Q v Q v Q v Q v Q v Q v
vQvQvQvQvQvQvQvQvQvQ
v v v v v v v v v v
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
v v v v v v v v v v
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
v v v v v v v v v v
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
vQvQvQvQvQvQvQvQvQvQ
QvQvQvQvQvQvQvQvQvQv
v v v v v v v v v v
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
ORIFICE BMP-1—""*'
DISCHARGE CHAMBER WETLAND CHAMBER PRE—TREATMENT CHAMBER — FLOW CONTROL —WETLAND MEDIA —INCLUDES PRE —FILTER
ORIFICE RISER SIZED UTILIZING PATENTED MEDIA CARTRIDGES
TO DRAIN DOWN IN HORIZONTAL PERIMETER
LESS THAN 36 HOURS FLOW BIORETENTION
►,►, , ► a a►
• �•v.?� -��LV{fir I I
"-IS£E NOTES \-PRE—FILTER `DRAIN
CARTRIDGE DOWN LINE
PLAN VIEW
FRAMES AND CO4/ERS SHIPPED LOOSE TO
BE GROUTED INTO PLACE BY CONTRACTOR. C/L
OUTLET PIPE
SEE NOTES
W OF
.1
4 6"
CURB INLET/BYPASS STRUCTURE
OPENING
100—YR HGL
WATER QUALITY
FLOW KA N
N
L
12" OUTFLOW
PIPE
0.50'
1447CH I A4WHOE f
1. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND P INCIDENTALS REQUIRED TO OFFLOAD AND INSTALL THE SYSTEM AND 70TOULT 01,
APPURTENANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DRAWING AND THE VA
MANUFACTURERS' SPECIFICATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN MANUFACTURER'S CONTRACT.
2. UNIT MUST BE INSTALLED ON LEVEL BASE. MANUFACTURER ]RGA1MOVT W RECOMMENDS A MINIMUM 6" LEVEL ROCK BASE UNLESS SPECIFIED BY UP5TRE& BYPASS THE PROJECT ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING FLOW PROJECT ENGINEERS RECOMMENDED BASE SPECIFICATIONS. CONTROL '
4. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL ALL EXTERNAL CONNECTING /RSE►q PIPES. ALL PIPES MUST BE FLUSH WITH INSIDE SURFACE OF
CONCRETE (PIPES CANNOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH). INVERT OF OUTFLOW PIPE MUST BE FLUSH WITH DISCHARGE CHAMBER FLOOR. IE IN ALL PIPES SHALL BE SEALED WATERTIGHT PER MANUFACTURERS i o o STANDARD CONNECTION DETAIL.
IE OUT N
5. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL PIPES, RISERS, MANHOLES, AND HATCHES. CONTRACTOR TO USE GROUT AND/OR s" 24'—O" 6" BRICKS TO MATCH COVERS WITH FINISHED SURFACE UNLESS SPECIFIED 25'—O" OTHERWISE.
6. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING BIO CLEAN FOR ELEVATION VIEW 8'4' 160
9 =O"
LEFT END VIEW
AANHOLE CA HATCH
I
RIGHT END VIEW
i
' o
ACTIVATION OF UNIT MANUFACTURERS WARRANTY IS VOID WITHOUT
TREATMENT FLOW (CFS)
0.611
PROPER ACTIVATION BY A BIO CLEAN REPRESENTATIVE.
OPERATING HEAD (FT)
J.0
PRETREATMENT LOADING RATE (GPM/SF)
1.8 GENERAL NOTES
WETLAND MEDIA LOADING RATE (GPM/SF)
1.0 1. MANUFACTURER TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL:
► ►►
MWS-L-8-24-5 -14 -V-UG
2. ALL DIMENSIONS, ELEVATIONS, SPECIFICATIONS AND CAPACITIES ARE SUBJECT TO M ° TLXW THE INFOwwN cONTAINED IN THrs DOCUMENT Is THE sort BiowClear STORM WA TER B10F1 L TRA TION SYSTEM
CHANGE. FOR PROJECT SPECIFIC DRAWINGS DETAILING EXACT DIMENSIONS, WEIGHTS „� PAV= MY � � � a� � ,,� � PROPERTY OF FTHEREOA AND 1B USO, lE� THIS DOCUMENT
NOR ANY PART THEREOF, MAY BE USED, REPRODUCED OR MODIAED AND ACCESSORIES PLEASE CONTACT BIO CLEAN.
111E fb,�,F„,T T4 14
a hn v rrrMs av IN ANY MANNER WITH OUT THE WRITTEN CONSEM OF FORTERRA. AFortwm Cam
STANDARD DETAIL
18" OUTFLOW
PIPE
0.50'
VAULT SYSTEM
100—YR HGL
N
TYPE G-2 CATCH BASIN
PER D-8
12" OUTFLOW
PIPE
DEEP ROUTED, DENSE,
DROUGHT TOLERANT
PLANTING SUITABLE FOR
WELL DRAINED SOIL
P21-0300
SHEET 10 OF 11 SHEETS
LEGEND
=III— III;
?' 2 7 oQF- —
—j 10 FREEBOARD = 12.00 (CONJUNCTIVE USE FACILITY)
4 FCV�
N I I_
_ HC — O2 BASIN HEIGHT HMAx = 30.00"
O3 6 PC 3" MULCH — —1 �
— — — I — I , O PONDING DEPTH = 6.00"
' I — 18" AMENDED SOIL MIN. INFILTRATION RATE 5"/HR — ' ' I I O RISER INVERT HTOP = 18.00" _ _ 4 PEA GRAVEL
I *EMERGENCY WEIR INVERT = 18.00"
O O U O O 7" GRAVEL LAYER 0 *LOWER SLOT INVERT = 6.00"
FOR V2 STORAGE 11 »
OUTFLOW 1— 5 HIGH X 34 LONG OPENING
—
70 *UPPER SLOT INVERT = 7.00"
THREE (3) 12" RCP I _ I I 6" PERFORATED PVC PIPE 1 — 4" HIGH X 10" LONG OPENING OUTLET PIPES _ CONFORMING TO ASTM D POLLUTANT CONTROL WSEL = 6.00" 30 ML I ILk�
- _i I I i 3034 OR EQUIVALENT
IMPERMEABLE 3" DEAD STORAGE HC HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL WSEL = 14.52" LINER* EXIST. GROUND RESTRICTER CAP TO LIMIT FLOW
OUT OF V2 STORAGE AREALID BELOW UNDERDRAIN
,
DRAIN DOWN HOLE, d = 4.00"
BIOFILTRATION BASIN DETAIL, BMP 1
NOT TO SCALE
*30 MIL LINER NOTE: 30—MIL IMPERMEABLE LINER FOR BIORETENTION CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS: SPECIFIC GRAVITY (ASTM D792): 1.2 (G/CC, MIN.); TENSILE (ASTM D882): 73 (LB/IN—WIDTH, MIN); ELONGATION AT BREAK (ASTM D882): 380 (%, MIN); MODULUS (ASTM D882):
30 (LB/IN—WIDTH, MIN.); AND TEAR STRENGTH (ASTM D1004): 8 (LB/IN, MIN); SEAM SHEAR STRENGTH (ASTM D882) 58.4 (LB/IN, MIN); SEAM PEEL STRENGTH (ASTM D882) 15 (LB/IN, IN).
SEE COLORADO LINING INTERNATIONAL PVC 30
HTTP: //WWW.COLORADOLINING.COM/PRODUCTS/PVC.PDF) OR APPROVED EQUAL.
MALE NATIONAL PIPE THREAD
PVC ADAPTER CAST
IN SIDE OF RISER WALL
/— RISER WALL
a a d BRA VEL STORAGE LA YER
UNDERDRAIN ORIFICE ° �a
THREADED FEMALE NATIONAL
PIPE THREAD PVC CAPA __2( )� D( =
WITH DRILLED ORIFICE 6" FRENCH DRAIN,
PERFORATED PVC PIPE
=III III III III-1I1=III
BOTTOM OF BASIN
d d
a °
a
d ° Q ° d
° d d
°
d ° °
6" PERFORA TED PVC PIPE ° °
°
UNDERDRAIN ORIFICE
THREADED FEMALE NATIONAL
PIPE THREAD PVC CAP a °°
WITH DRILLED ORIFICE a 4 ° °
°
RESTRICTOR CAP DETAIL BMP 1
NOT TO SCALE
FC FLOOD CONTROL WSEL = 18.00"
*ELEVATION MEASURED FROM BASIN SURFACE
_�ohxinclllll
land planning, civil engineering, surveying
5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE "L"
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387
(760) 931-8700
K:\Cililf\6��bg'� G\SWMP\BMP_TSM.dwg, 10/24/2022 3:50:50 PM PH 1 Page 1244 of 1307
P21-03001
STRUCTURAL DESIGN LOADING CRITERIA
LIVE LOADING: AASHTO HS-20 HIGHWAY LOADING
GROUND WATER TABLE: BELOW INVERT OF SYSTEM
SOIL BEARING PRESSURE:3000PSF
SOIL DENSITY: 120 PCF
EQUIVALENT UNSATURATED
LATERAL ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE:35 PSF / FT.
EQUIVALENT SATURATED
LATERAL ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE:80 PSF/FT. (IF WATER TABLE PRESENT) APPLICABLE CODES:ASTM C057
ACI-318
BACKFILL TYPE: SEE SHEET 4.0 FOR BACKFILL OPTIONS
STORMTRAP SYSTEM INFORMATION SITE SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA WATER STORAGE PROV: 16,513.28 CUBIC FEET 1. STORMTRAP UNITS SHALL BE MANUFACTURED AND INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SHOP DRAWINGS APPROVED BY UNIT HEADROOM: 3'-6" SINGLETRAP THE INSTALLING CONTRACTOR AND ENGINEER OF RECORD. THE SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL INDICATE SIZE AND
LOCATION OF ROOF OPENINGS AND INLET/ OUTLET PIPE TYPES, SIZES, INVERT ELEVATIONS AND SIZE OF OPENINGS.
2. COVER RANGE: MIN. 0.70' MAX. 2.20' CONSULT STORMTRAP FOR ADDITIONAL COVER OPTIONS.
3. ALL DIMENSIONS AND SOIL CONDITIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO GROUNDWATER AND SOIL BEARING CAPACITY ARE REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD BY OTHERS PRIOR TO STORMTRAP INSTALLATION.
4. FOR STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS THE GROUND WATER TABLE IS ASSUMED TO BE BELOW INVERT OF SYSTEM IF WATER TABLE IS DIFFERENT THAN ASSUMED, CONTACT STORMTRAP.
5. SYSTEM DESIGN MAY ALLOW FOR INCIDENTAL LEAKAGE AND WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO LEAKAGE TESTING.
SEE SHEET 4.0
FOR BACKFILL
-----------
SPECIFICATIONS ------------------'
0.70' -_ _ --- _ --- - -
i�
=I' -Om MIN. OVERHANG
REINFORCED CONCRETE FOUNDATION
FOR STORMTRAP SYSTEM - BY OTHERS.
(SEE SHEET 2.1 FOR
3'-6" SINGLETRAP
OPERATION AND MAINTENACE FOR MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM (MWS) INSTALLATION NOTES
2.20'
MAX GRADE = 311.00
MIN GRADE = 309.50
= 308.30
3'-1 SINGLETRAP
-SYSTEM INVERT = 304.80
EE SHEET 2.1
FOR DETAILS
EVERY INSTALLED MWS-LINEAR UNIT IS TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE SUPPLIER, OR A SUPPLIER APPROVED CONTRACTOR FOR AT
1. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND INCIDENTALS LEAST THE FIRST YEAR. THE COST OF THIS SERVICE VARIES AMONG OUTSIDE SERVICE PROVIDERS. THE MWS-LINEAR IS A
REQUIREDTO OFFLOAD AND INSTALL THE SYSTEM AND APPURTENANCES IN MULTI -STAGE SELF-CONTAINED TREATMENT TRAIN FOR STORMWATER TREATMENT. EACH STAGE IS DESIGNED AND INTENDED
ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DRAWING AND THE MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS, TO PROTECT SUBSEQUENT STAGES FROM CLOGGINGS. STAGES INCLUDE SCREENING, SEPARATION, CARTRIDGE MEDIA UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN MANUFACTURERS CONTRACT.
FILTRATION, AND BIOFILTRATION. THE BIOFILTRATION STAGE CAN CONTAIN VARIOUS TYPES OF VEGETATION OR PLANTINGS.
ANNUAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED TO EVALUATE PLANT HEALTH AND TRIM EXCESS VEGETATION. THE MAINTENANCE
2. UNIT MUST BE INSTALLED ON LEVEL BASE. MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS A PROCEDURES ARE DESCRIBED BELOW.
MINIMUM 6" LEVEL ROCK BASE UNLESS SPECIFIED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER.
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY PROJECT ENGINEERS RECOMMENDED BASE CLEAN CATCH BASIN FILTER - SCREENING IS PROVIDED BY A CATCH BASIN FILTER. THE FILTER WILL CONTAIN COARSE SEDIMENT, SPECIFICATIONS.
TRASH, AND OTHER FLOATABLES. SEDIMENT CAPACITY IS REACHED AT 2 CUBIC FEET FOR THE CURB STYLE INLET AND 4 CUBIC FEET FOR THE DROP OR GRATED INLET CONFIGURATION (VARIES WITH SMALLER AND LARGER MODELS). THE FILTER REMOVES
3. ALL PIPES MUST BE FLUSH WITH INSIDE SURFACE OF CONCRETE. (PIPES CANNOT GROSS SOLIDS, INCLUDING LITTER, AND SEDIMENT GREATER THAN 200 MICRONS. THE CLEANING PROCEDURE IS EASILY DONE BY INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH). INVERT OF OUTFLOW PIPE MUST BE FLUSH WITH DISCHARGE �n HAND OR WITH A SMALL INDUSTRIAL VACUUM DEVICE. THIS FILTER IS LOCATED DIRECTLY UNDER THE MANHOLE COVER OR CHAMBER FLOOR. ALL GAPS AROUND PIPES SHALL BE SEALED WATER TIGHT WITH A CRATE FOR EASY ACCESS.
NON -SHRINK GROUT PER MANUFACTURERS STANDARD CONNECTION DETAIL AND SHALL MEET OR EXCEED REGIONAL PIPE CONNECTION STANDARDS.
1. CLEAN PRE-TREATMENT CHAMBER - SEPARATION OCCURS IN THE PRE-TREATMENT CHAMBER'S SETTLING AREA LOCATED DIRECTLY UNDER THE CURB OR GRATED INLET. THIS CHAMBER HAS A CAPACITY OF APPROXIMATELY 21 CUBIC FEET FOR
4. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL ALL EXTERNAL CONNECTING PIPES.
TRASH, DEBRIS, AND SEDIMENTS FOR MOST MODEL SIZES (VARIES WITH SMALLER AND LARGER MODELS). THE CHAMBER
5. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL RISERS, MANHOLES, AND TARGET TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND PARTICULATE METALS AND NUTRIENTS. CLEANING THE SETTLING AREA CAN BE HATCHED. CONTRACTOR TO GROUT ALL MANHOLES AND HATCHES TO MATCH PERFORMED WITH A STANDARD VACUUM TRUCK OR HAND HELD INDUSTRIAL SHOP VACUUM. THIS CHAMBER IS LOCATED FINISHED SURFACE UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE.
DIRECTLY UNDER THE MANHOLE OR GRATE ACCESS COVER FOR EASY ACCESS INTO THE CHAMBER.
6. DRIP OR SPRAY IRRIGATION REQUIRED ON ALL UNITS WITH VEGETATION.
2. REPLACE PRE -FILTER CARTRIDGE MEDIA (BIOMEDIAGREEN') - INITIAL FILTRATION IS PROVIDED BY A HORIZONTAL FLOW CARTRIDGE FILTER UTILIZING BIOMEDIAGREEN MEDIA. MEDIA LIFE DEPENDS ON LOCAL SEDIMENT LOADING CONDITIONS
GENERAL NOTES
AND CAN EASILY BE REPLACED AND DISPOSED OF WITHOUT ANY EQUIPMENT. THE BIOMEDIAGREEN MEDIA IS HELD WITHIN THE MEDIA CARTRIDGE PRE -FILTERS THAT ARE HOUSED IN THE PRE-TREATMENT CHAMBER. ENTRY INTO THE
1. MANUFACTURER TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
PRE-TREATMENT CHAMBER IS REQUIRED TO REPLACE THE BIOMEDIAGREEN MEDIA. THE LID OF THE MEDIA CARTRIDGE PRE -FILTER IS REMOVED BY LOOSENING TWO BOLTS. ONCE REMOVED MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL HAVE UNIMPEDED
2. ALL DIMENSIONS, ELEVATIONS, SPECIFICATIONS AND CAPACITIES ARE SUBJECT TO
ACCESS TO EACH MEDIA CAGE HOUSING THE BIOMEDIAGREEN WHICH CAN BE QUICKLY REMOVED BY HAND OR WITH A CHANGE. FOR PROJECT SPECIFIC DRAWINGS DETAILING EXACT DIMENSIONS, WEIGHTS VACUUM TRUCK. ONCE OLD BIOMEDIAGREEN IS REMOVED NEW MATERIAL, PROVIDED IS PRE -WEIGHED BAGS, IS AND ACCESSORIES PLEASE CONTACT MANUFACTURER.
DROPPED INTO THE MEDIA CAGE HOUSINGS. ONCE COMPLETED, THE CARTRIDGE LID IS REPLACED AND BOLTS TIGHTENED ON THE LID OF THE MEDIA CARTRIDGE PRE -FILTER.
3. REPLACE DRAIN DOWN FILTER MEDIA (BIOMEDIAGREENNTM) - AN OPTIONAL DRAIN DOWN FILTER, SIMILAR IN FUNCTION TO THE MEDIA CARTRIDGE PRE -FILTER IS LOCATED IN THE DISCHARGE CHAMBER. THIS FILTER ALLOWS ANY STANDING
WATER FROM THE PRE-TREATMENT CHAMBER TO DRAIN FROM UNDER THE PERVIOUS PAVERS THROUGH THE SMALL FILTRATION CARTRIDGE LOCATED IN THE DISCHARGE CHAMBER. THE DRAIN DOWN DEVICE ADDRESSES ANY VECTOR ISSUES, BY ELIMINATING ALL STANDING WATER WITHIN THE MWS-LINEAR. REPLACEMENT OF MEDIA CAN BE PERFORMED BY HAND.
4. TRIM VEGETATION - THE MWS-LINEAR UTILIZES MULTIPLE PLANTS IN THE WETLAND CHAMBER TO ENHANCE POLLUTANT REMOVAL. THE VEGETATION WILL NEED TO BE MAINTAINED (TRIMMED) AS NEEDED AND IS DONE AS PART OF REGULAR SITE LANDSCAPING OR SYSTEM MAINTENANCE. MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEMS, INC. RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANTINGS ARE NEVER GIVEN ANY FERTILIZER TO PROMOTE PLANT GROWTH OR HEALTH.
5. EVALUATE FLOW HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY - THE SYSTEMS FLOW CHARACTERISTICS CAN BE ASSESSED FROM THE DISCHARGE CHAMBER. THIS INSPECTION FOR ADEQUATE FLOW CAPACITY SHOULD BE DONE DURING A RAIN EVENT. BY
INSPECTION AND VIEWING THE DISCHARGE CHAMBER, THE FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM CAN BE EASILY OBSERVED OR MEASURE. IF FLOW OUT OF THE ORIFICE IS TOO LOW, IT COULD INDICATE MEDIA CARTRIDGE PRE -FILTER FOULING AND MAINTENANCE MAY NEED TO BE PROVIDED TO THE BIOMEDIAGREEN AS DESCRIBED ABOVE.
6. WETLANDMEDIA MAINTENANCE - BIOFILTRATION IS PROVIDED BY AN ADVANCED HORIZONTAL FLOW VEGETATED WETLAND CHAMBER. THIS BIOFILTRATION CONTAINS A MIX OF SORPTIVE MEDIA, KNOWN AS WETLANDMEDIA, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO SUPPORTS ABUNDANT PLANT AND BIOLOGICAL LIFE. THE LIFE OF THIS MEDIA CAN BE UP TO 20 YEARS WHEN PROPERLY MAINTAINED. THE PERIPHERAL VOID AREA SURROUNDING THE PERIMETER OF THE WETLANDMEDIA CAN BE ACCESSED TO REMOVE ANY SURFACE CLOGGING. THE VERTICAL RISERS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WETLANDMEDIA CAN ALSO BE ACCESSED AND WATER INJECTED TO BACKWASH THE WETLANDMEDIA. THESE FEATURES ALLOW FULL FLOW CAPACITY CANNOT BE RESTORED BY THESE STEPS, THE WETLANDMEDIA CAN BE REPLACED.
7. WETLANDMEDIA REPLACEMENT - REMOVAL OF SPENT WETLANDMEDIA CAN BE DONE WITH A SHOVEL NOSE OF ANY VACUUM TRUCK. REPLACEMENT OF THE WETLANDMEDIA, ALTHOUGH NOT ANTICIPATED FOR 20 YEARS, IS DONE BY
ADDING NEW WETLANDMEDIA FROM A NUMBER OF VENDOR SUPPLIED SUPERSACS AND ADDED TO FILL THE WETLAND CHAMBER TO RECOMMENDED LEVELS.
i I W:iP✓/IIDYIMP.D�V1
1287 VMNDII PAIR( AY
RMECMLLE, IL 60446
P.i4549 / F:331-318-5347
ENGINEER INFORMATION:
BHA ENGINEERS
5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE L
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
760.931.8700
PROJECT INFORMATION:
CAMINO LARGO
VISTA, CA
CURRENT ISSUE DATE:
3/29/2022
ISSUED FOR:
PRELIMINARY
:==a
■_-m
■_-m
■_-m
■_-m
■_-m
■_-m
Immm=©
SCALE:
NTS
SHEET TITLE:
SINGLETRAP
DESIGN
CRITERIA
SHEET NUMBER:
160
BILL OF MATERIALS
QTY.
UNIT TYPE
DESCRIPTION
WEIGHT
0 I
3'-6" SINGLETRAP
0 23
II
3'-6" SINGLETRAP
15844
0 III
3'-6" SINGLETRAP
0 21
IV
3'-6" SINGLETRAP
14146
0 VII
3'-6" SINGLETRAP
0 3
SPIV
3'-6" SINGLETRAP
VARIES
0 T2 PANEL
6" THICK PANEL
0 5
T4 PANEL
6" THICK PANEL
1988
0 T7 PANEL
6" THICK PANEL
0 9
JOINTWRAP
150' PER ROLL
32 JOINTTAPE
14.5' PER ROLL
TOTAL PIECES = 47
TOTAL PANELS = 5
HEAVIEST PICK WEIGHT = 15844
38 LOADING DISCLAIMER: DESIGN ERIMAX (GRADE = 311.00 SHEET 11 OF 11 SHEETS STORMTRAP IS NOT DESIGNED TO ACCEPT ANY ADDITIONAL LOADINGS FROM NEARBY STRUCTURES NEXT TO OR OVER THE TOP OF ALLOWABLE MIN GRADE = 309.50 m��w■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ �■� STORMTRAP. IF ADDITIONAL LOADING CONSIDERATIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF STORMTRAP, PLEASE CONTACT INSIDE HEIGHT ELEVATION = 308.30 STORMTRAP IMMEDIATELY. SYSTEM INVERT=304.80 eawlsIAlkDFFAA/�. Wwwl] TREE LOADING DISCLAIMER: NOTES: 1297 VANDI-IAM PAIiMY
1. DIMENSIONING OF STORMTRAP SYSTEM SHOWN BELOW ALLOW FOR A 3/4" ROMEDALLF, IL 60446 THE STORMTRAP SYSTEM HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNED TO SUPPORT THE ADDITIONAL WEIGHT OF ANY TREES. FURTHERMORE, THE GAP BETWEEN EACH MODULE. P.815-941-4.549 / F:331-318-&W ROOTS OF THE TREES MUST BE CONTAINED TO PREVENT FUTURE DAMAGE TO THE STORMTRAP SYSTEM. STORMTRAP ACCEPTS NO 2. ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD BY OTHERS.
LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY TREES OR OTHER VEGETATION PLACE AROUND OR ON TOP OF THE SYSTEM. ENGINEER INFORMATION:
3. SEE SHEET 3.0 FOR INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS.
SEDIMENT/SAND FILTER DISCLAIMER: 4. SP - INDICATES A MODULE WITH MODIFICATIONS. BHA ENGINEERS FOR SYSTEMS CONTAINING SEDIMENT AND SAND FILTER MODULES; IF REQUIRED TO BE SEALED TO PREVENT SAND AND/OR 5. P - INDICATES A MODULE WITH A PANEL ATTACHMENT. 5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS
PRE-TREATED WATER FROM MIGRATING INTO ADJOINING MODULES, IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INSTALLING CONTRACTOR SUITE L TO ENSURE THAT THOSE MODULES ARE SEALED. 6. CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY/ACCURACY TO CARLSBAD CA 92008 FINAL ENGINEER OF RECORD PLAN SET.
7. IF A WATERTIGHT SOLUTION IS REQUIRED FOR AN OUTLET CONTROL 1 760.931.8700 AND BASE 'MO ULES,ALL EB10ETWEEN TOP OLD JOINTS,
(NCLUDING BASE OF ADJOINING SYMONBETWEEN S°P PROJECT INFORMATION:
WALLS, AND JOINTS BETWEEN MODULE AND ADJACENT END PANELS WILL
BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INSTALLING CONTRACTOR TO
PROVIDE AND INSTALL THE WATERTIGHT APPLICATION PER THE EOR'S SPECIFICATION.
IV
IV
N
IV
N
IV
SPIV
8'-I
II
II
II
II
II
IV
IV
IV
IV
-9"
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
SPIV
IV
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
IV
30'-
SPI
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
LOUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE, SEE NOTE 7 J
�18" HDPE OUTLET. CONNECT 18" HDPE OUTLET. CONNECT I 12" HDPE OUTLET.
TO UNDERGROUND VAULT. TO UNDERGROUND VAULT. CONNECT TO MODULAR 12' _ _ I I 14 WETLAND SYSTEM
...
11' CURB OPENING
PLAN VIEW
11' CURB OPENING
18" OUTLET 12" OUTLET
SECTIONA A
'E OUTLET.
T TO MOD.
CURB INLET
ASS WEIR FOR
LARGO
in
12" HDPE INL
CONNECT TO MOD. -
TYPE B CURB INLET
W/ BYPASS WEIR FOR
DRIVEWAY "H"
5'
TOP OF 8"
CURB
J. 5' d
r P. I�
4'
2' 2'
a
tY
N 1�'
0 d -4
d
305.45 IE 305.45 IE
18" OUTLET 12" OUTLET
SECTIONB-B
MODIFIED TYPE B CURB INLET WITH BYPASS WEIR
13' CURB OPENING
13' CURB OPENING
i"
N
12" INLET 18" OUTLET 12" OUTLET
DRl VEWA Y "H"
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE: MODIFIED CURB INLETS WITH BYPASS
WEIR ARE HYDRAULICALLY CONNECTED
TO THE MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM.
CAMINO LARGO
VISTA, CA
CURRENT ISSUE DATE:
3/29/2022
ISSUED FOR:
PRELIMINARY
REV,
DATE:
ISSUED FOR.
DWN
1�
3/29/22
PRELIMINARY
KW
SCALE:
NTS
SHEET TITLE:
SINGLETRAP
SYSTEM LAYOUT
SHEET NUMBER:
200
5'
SECTIONB-B
MODIFIED TYPE B CURB INLET WITH BYPASS WEIR
,Inc.
5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE "L"
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387
(760) 931-8700
K:\Cililf\6)�b� G\SWMP\BMP_TSM.dwg, 10/24/2022 3:52:57 PM PH1 Page 1245 of 1307
LEGEND:
----------�
(s)
(s)
(s)
(s)
(s)
(s)
(W)
(W)
(W)
(W)
(W)
(W)
800
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(T)
(T)
(T)
(T)
(T)
(T)
— (OH)
(OH)
(OH)
(OH)
(OH) —
(OH)
— (FO)
(FO)
(FO)
(FO)
(FO) —
(FO)
EXISTING
FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING
SO
EXISTING
SEWER
EXISTING
WATER LINE
EXISTING
EASEMENT
EXISTING
CONTOURS
EXISTING
ELECTRIC LINE
EXISTING
OVERHEAD TELEPHONE LINE
EXISTING
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE
EXISTING
FIBER OPTIC LINE
Q11Qniiiicinni Qr)IlAlr)APV
PROPOSED
STREET EASEMENT
EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY
PROPOSED
FIRE H YDRA N T
s s s s s s
PROPOSED
SEWER
S
PROPOSED
SEWER LA TERAL
— s s s0— s s s—
PROPOSED
SEWER MANHOLE
PROPOSED
DETENTION AREA
9 PROPOSED
L 0 T NUMBER
500 PAD
10,000 SF
PROPOSED
PAD ELEVATION
PROP FILL
SLOPE
(2: 1 MAX)
PROP CUT
SLOPE
y
y
(2: 1 MAX)
w w w w
PROPOSED
DAY LITE
w w w w w w
PROPOSED
WATER LINE
Soo
PROPOSED
CONTOURS
F
C
PROPOSED
CUT / FILL LINE
=> �i �i
PROPOSED
CONCRETE SWALE
PROPOSED
STREET LIGHT
PROPOSED
RETAINING WALL
°
PROPOSED
CURB & GUTTER
-----------------------------------------
PROPOSED
STORM DRAIN
®
PROPOSED
CATCH BASIN
PROPOSED
FIRE HYDRANT
w w w—
PER V. L D. STANDARDS
SITE
(�7'�
7,0"71
LOCATION MAP
NO SCALE
J
� SITS
CP GO
Z ER
J
�z
TAYLOR ST.
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
FUTURE
RW
10'
2• � 2�
5' SIDEWALK PER
SDRSD G— 7 (FUTURE)
EXISTING
RW VARIES
50'
32'
IN LIEU FEE TO BE PAID
FOR CENTER MEDIAN
4%
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CAMINO LARGO
SCALE: 1 " = 100' 1 /� RETAINING WALL
i
PROPOSED EXISTING
Rey RW PORTION OF EXISTING RW TO
100' BE VA CA TED AND SEWER
CENTERLINE PER RELOCATED TO RW
CL DWG. NO. J813 8
50' PORTION OF ESMT.
8' 8' 32' 10 TO BE QUITCLAIMED 4
VARIES
Z'1 PROPOSED PUBLIC
�2q 4% UTILITY EASEMENT —
5'
PROPOSED 5' SIDEWALK
PER SDRSD G— 7
6" CURB PER EXISTING
SDRSD G-1 PA VEMEN T
(FU TURE)
NOR TH SANTA FE
r OTH
TYPICAL LOT DETAIL
a
P21-0300
SHEET 1 OF 3 SHEETS
OWNER:
KYUN TA KIM
FRANK SOHAEI, TRUSTEE OF THE FALOR FAMILY TRUST
2359 PIO PICO DRI VE
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
(760) 420-1267
DEVELOPER:
CALIFORNIA WEST COMMUNITIES
5927 PRIESTLY DRIVE, SUITE 110
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
760-918-6768
ENGINEER OF WORK:
bhA,inc.
Dand p0annhg, dA enghaafung, surnueyhg
5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE "L"
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387
(760) 931-8700
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.•
THA T POR T/ON OF THE EA S T 112 OF SEC T/ON 12, TO WNSH/P 11 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARD/NO MERIDIAN, BEING WITHIN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
LAND AREA:
9.3 ACRES GROSS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PROPOSED 46 DWELLING UNIT PROJECT
GENERAL PLAN:
EX/STING GENERAL PLAN: RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL 1 DU/AC (CITY OF VISTA) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 10 DU/AC (CITY OF VISTA) PROPOSED USE:
SIGNAL FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY•
AERIAL TOPOGRAPHY SUPPLIED BY- ANALYTICAL PHOTOGRAMMENTR/C SURVEYS, INC., 647 MAIN STREET, SUITE 1A, RIVERS/DE CA. 92501,
AS JOB# 03-134, FLOWN ON 9-08-2003.
PROPER TYADDRESS:
NORTH SANTA FE. / CAMINO LARGO
DENSITY
.-
5 DU/AC (PROPOSED)
PUBLICAGENCIES:
FIRE: CITY OF VISTA
SCHOOLS: VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SEWER: CITY OF VISTA
WA TER: VISTA IRRIGATION DISTR/CT
GAS. SDG&E
ELECTRIC: SDG&E
SHEET INDEX.•
PORTION OF ESMT. 1 TITLE SHEET
TO BE QUITCLAIMED 2 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
3 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ZONING:
2: 1 , 1 2y_ 2� 2� EXISTING ZONING: A-1 SINGLE F/MIL Y RESIDENTIAL/1 AC M/N. A-1 ZONE PROPOSED 6" CURB MAX. I . PROPOSED ZONING: R-1—B (SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT) PER SDRSD 6-1 — — — —
5" AC OVER 8" CLASS 2 BASE MIN. PER CITY OF VISTA 5' SIDEWALK PER 4'8 EXISTING GROUND STANDARD. IMPROVE TO CL AS RECOMMENDED PER SOILS SDRSD G-7 ENGINEER AND AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF VISTA. 6" CURB & GUTTER \ 77=8.5 PER SDRSD G-2 i \
(UL T/MA TE IMPROVEMENT)
(PUBLIC)
EASEMENTS NOT TO SCALE
0 AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, RECORDED: DECEMBER 6, 1926, IN BOOK 1251, PAGE 469 OF DEEDS. 0 AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, RECORDED: DECEMBER 6, 1926, IN BOOK 1301, PAGE 119 OF DEEDS 03 AN EASEMENT FOR POLE LINES & UNDERGROUND CONDUITS TO SAN DIEGO CONSOLIDATED GAS RA& ELECTRIC CO., RECORDED: SEPTEMBER 3, 19JO , IN BOOK 1814, PAGE 157 OF DEEDS. LANDSCAPE ® AN EASEMENT FOR POLE LINES & UNDERGROUND CONDUI TS TO SAN DIEGO CONSOLIDA TED GAS & ELECTRIC PARKWAY 6' CO., RECORDED: MARCH 6, 195J , IN BOOK 4774, PAGE 1 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS (NON—PLOTTABLE) 5' 5' 05 A 56 FOOT WIDE GRANT OF RECIPROCAL EASEMENT TO LINDAGREEN LLC, & KYUN TAE KIM, FRANK SOHAEI, TRUSTEE OF THE FALOR FAMILY TRUST, RECORDED: JUL Y 8, 2013, AS F/P # 2013-0426168
OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
NOT TO SCALE
SUBDI VISION
BOUNDARY
EXISTING 56' PRI VA TE ROAD & UTILITY EASEMENT
PROPOSED 40' PRI VA TE ROAD & UTILITY EASEMENT
20'
EXIST SEWER EASEMENT
—PROPOSED LOT LINE TO VISTA & WATER
19' EASEMENT TO OCEANSIDE
1 ' 28' MIN. — VARIES (29'-36)
514' VARIES (15'-22)
AC PAVEMENT OVER
CLASS 2 BASE
EXISTING
FENCE
PORTION OF EXISTING PA VEMENT TO BE ANAL YZED —
PROPOSED PUBLIC _, SHALL MEET STRUCTURAL SECTION REQUIREMENTS 8" WATERLINE EXISTING 12" SEWER 4" AC OVER 8" CLASS 2 BASE MIN. PER SOILS ENGINEER (VID) (VISTA) EXISTING 42" WATERLINE AND AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF VISTA. (OCEANSIDE) CAMINO LARGO
1 60' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
50' PRIVATE STREET EASEMENT
40' CURB TO CURB
20' 1 20'
RA
LANDSCAPE
6 PARKWA Y
5' 5'
© A 20.00 FOOT EASEMENT FOR PIPELINE PURPOSES TO THE CITY OF VISTA, RECORDED:
2 1
MAX.
2% 2q ?�
-- --
I 2: 1
MAX.
JUNE 26, 1986, AS F/P # 86-260189 OF O.R.
0 A 20.00 FOOT EASEMENT FOR WATERL/NE PURPOSES TO THE CITY OF OCEANSIOE, 5' SIDEWALK PER
5' SIDEWALK PER
RECORDED: NO VEMBER 14, 1990, AS F/P # 90— 615897 OF 0. R.
SDRSD G— 7
A C VEMEN T 0 VER
SDRSD G— 7
CLASS 2 BASE
S
® A 20.00 FOOT WIDE PRI VA TE ROAD EA SEMEN T TO GREGOR Y REVOCABLE TRUST DA TED MAY 21, 200J PER 6 " CURB & GU TIER
6 " CURB & GU TIER
DOC. NO. 2018-0166997, REC. 4-26-2018(APN 159-240-14), JACOBS FAM/L Y TRUST DATED APR/L 23, PER SDRSD G-2
pR OPOSED PRIVATE STREETS
PER SDRSD G-2
2010 PER DOC. NO. 2010-0205254, REC. 4-26-2010(APN 159-240-05), R/CHARD WENORUCK PER DOC.
NO. 2017-0426408, REC. 9-18-2017(APN 159-240-06) & WINONA CHALISON PER DOC. NO. (PRI VA TE)
2018-0411102, REC. 10-03-2018(APN 159-240-13).
NOT TO SCALE
(PRI VA TE — NO PARKING)
NOT TO SCALE
A].]
K:\Cll�p 6\6 t�1 G\SDP\1154-SDP 01.dwq, 10/25/2022 9:17:03 AM PH1 Page 1246 of 1307
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CAMINO LARGO
� - .�1 ice.. �,•
�� , i 1'
6 t"m eNW-71
Emu
al
NF-I«�f ��� �� ����� mil/ i�---� ► . 1 ► �� „� ► , , �! • • � \ � ( �r� �- •• � � sec /!�. � �� �. ■. . '� �\�' 7 ��■ ► , � _ 1 , \ I ► � , . �.. � �L� 1li�j II �� �� ► � MORE
Will
I V-4 Awl I—T-- — 6
Ell WE
J � � � � �� fit!-� •. .�� � \ I ►-I ►. � �
,fir'
MI
0 NOR
M�k IRA
��i�i� �j- � � � �� 9� ���o ■Sill A���� � �� , 11 � ��Hod Will
ON " MIN 1//►
�� ��r.�■�������«�-��,. �I I,� I�1.• I D `t�'�i► !� '- �I, � ���� I���\ iT�: � ► � � II� � ������ ���1► .� 1 ■
�• . �_ . � •► � ,. � �, , 11.E ►►.����� 7fl r
Yam■ -�.�Yi ����� . ���G�11�\ � .� e_��� -- �IIYr�������.► ►►\\►�-- '� ��� �� Erl
-- _ fir_ _ �� - -- - -- - -- - - -- - - _ _ _■ �_._ - - -- -- - ������1►11`► � ���,_�►��- - - -- ��� - IME
MI W-12
`' I� v In
.• ♦ 00aEVIL
1 I • �h%. Nh664
i— \ i r C11i , ,��� _� , ► sI ■ice p ` ��
Offil
F ,� ♦�► ���►,�♦ .�� ♦♦ 1■�� _ter%., ►� �, . .��._� �lo�i \ �.� ♦� ♦ �� ♦ �I
a ♦ ♦ ►� ♦ ���►���� i���Yt���,������1� �Ir �r.���11� �l��1�i� - � -- _ -
�� �� ♦ �Ma♦ ♦C�►�.'♦.� d III ry, I ,�11�.��� •�� , I;d 1 �%� I �t 1// ♦.�♦ �♦ 1 ��� 0 �. - 0
09 11 �� MINIMUM
1 /%//'.%I•♦�-,c�""��� ����.� `���\�� , P../►_ � �� _` ��i/A�/��.� � _��~i���Y� �_, \ ��`��lii—�— -��.,G�I�� �lrl\ �_��= jMq
111
is —
.,,..,/���■�. - �,�. a - _ sae rh'- ��
.�i , ���:_� �' �1 .ems -' �
010
I�,.. _•.�__ ��3ILI �-.-.y- �r I I � / _ ,,� � / � +/ ...' Ll/�)1� " � / �/`� � I-'�_ya!���il��lt��__ _
I Elm,v . • _�\.� _ �� 419_1_Mono
. o I , • / Del ■
I
NMI
In
0 ■ I !_ \u� e
� . I \ • � - j�:� �`���� '�. � - — � I•nd .I•nnin• civil �n•inc�rin• s rv� in• ■ _- P21-0300
SHEET 2 OF 3 SHEETS
r7�
777,
30' 15' 0' 30' 60' g0'
SCALE: 1 " = 30'
K:\Cll�p 6\6 tGj G\SDP\1154-SDP 02.dwci, 10/25/2022 10:06:48 AM PH1 Page 1247 of 1307
P21-0300
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CAMINO LARGO
Kt -71- MUUAL ll I.VA IL
ROAD & UTILtrY
EASEMENT
TORE QUITCLAIMED ,
,
�iD"-------------
PRfOPOSED
PRtVA-TE,STREE T
& PUBLI6,UTILITY
EASEMENT ' SAID
EASEMENT TO BE
RANTED TO APN
1 9-240-05,06,13&14
30' 15' 0' 30, 60' 90'
SCALE: 1 " = 30'
SHEET 3 OF 3 SHEETS
SE FLOW THAT
VRWODIFICA TION
�69DEffi/ATT
------------- --- ------
----------------
X 7?NG AR/VATE DRAINAGE
----_- _ "______-EASEMENT PER DOC. 1998-0562349,
------- REC. 0910211998 -----
EXISTING 28' EASEMENT -FOR SEWER LINES AND
APPURTENANCE -TO' THE CITY OF VISTA,
REC. 02109112 AS DOC. NO. 2012-0075727
,Inc.
hand p�annhg, c� A
�nginc�ring, surveying
5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE "L"
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387
(760) 931-8700
A3.3
K:\Cll�p 6\6 tGj G\SDP\l154-SDP 03.dwq, 10/25/2022 10:11:25 AM PH1 Page 1248 of 1307
HOME OWNER SLOPES, HOA AREAS AND STREET TREES
TREES
STREET TREES SHALL BE 24" BOX MINIMUM ALL OTHER TREES SHALL BE 15 GALLON MINIMUM
NAME COMMON NAME
WULCOLS
RHUS LANCEA AFRICAN SUMAC
LOW
PBOTANICAL
ARBUTUS UNEDO 'MARINA' STRAWBERRY TREE
LOW
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK
LOW
LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOX
MEDIUM
JACARANDA MIMOSIFOLIA JACARANDA MEDIUM
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA CRAPE MYRTLE MEDIUM
HOME OWNER SLOPES AND HOA LANDCAPE AREAS
SHRUBS
BOTANICAL NAME
COMMON NAME
SPACING
WULCOLS
AGAVE SP.
AGAVE
24"
O.C.
LOW
+ +
+
BOUGAINVILLEA'LA JOLLA'
BOUGAINVILLEA
48"
O.C.
LOW
LANTANA SP.
LANTANA
36"
O.C.
LOW
ALOE SP.
ALOE
24"
O.C.
LOW
CISTUS 'SUNSET'
ROCKROSE
30"
O.C.
LOW
+ +
DIETES BICOLOR
FORTNIGHT LILY
30"
O.C.
LOW
+ +
FESTUCA MAIREI
MAIRE'S FESCUE
30"
O.C.
LOW
+ +
SALVIA'SANTA BARBARA'
SAGE
30"
O.C.
LOW
BOUTELAUA GRACILIS.
BLONDE AMBITION
24"
O.C.
LOW
ACACIA SP.
ACACIA
8' O.C.
LOW
CALLISTEMON'LITTLE JOHN'
BOTTLEBRUSH
36"
O.C.
LOW
CISTUS SALVIIFOLIUS
ROCKROSE
36"
O.C.
LOW
RHAPHIOLEPIS SP.
INDIAN HAWTHORN
42"
O.C.
LOW
VINES (100% 1 GALLON) LOCATED ON WALL WITHIN HOA AREAS
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
--A— r ii, u 3 r u ivuj ti
CREEPING FIG
MINIMUM PLANTING REQUIREMENTS
SLOPES (AREAS WITH GRADES 4:1 OR STEEPER):
SLOPES UP TO EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING QUANTITY OF LANDSCAPING:
1. ONE 15 GALLON TREE PER 500 SQUARE FEET
2. ONE 1 GALLON SHRUB PER 100 SQUARE FEET AND ONE 5 GALLON SHRUB PER 200 SQUARE FEET
3. GROUNDCOVER SHALL BE PLANTED FROM LINERS OR FLATS AT 12 INCHES ON —CENTER OR 1 GALLONS AT 18" O.C.
4. INSTALL REINFORCED STRAW MATS (SC 150 MANUFACTURED BY NORTH AMERICAN GREEN 1-800-473-1965 OR CITY APPROVED EQUAL) TO ALL SLOPE AREAS INCLUDING BIO—BASIN SIDES.
SLOPES GREATER THAN EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING QUANTITY OF LANDSCAPING:
I . ONE 15 GALLON TREE PER 500 SQUARE FEET AND ONE 5 GALLON TREE PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET
2. ONE 1 GALLON SHRUB PER 100 SQUARE FEET AND ONE 5 GALLON SHRUB PER 200 SQUARE FEET
3. GROUNDCOVER SHALL BE PLANTED FROM LINERS OR FLATS AT 12 INCHES ON —CENTER OR 1 GALLON AT 18" O.C.
4. INSTALL REINFORCED STRAW MATS (SC 150 MANUFACTURED BY NOR AMERICAN GREEN 1-800-473-1965 OR CITY APPROVED EQUAL) w
MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
HOMEOWNER MAINTAINED
HOA MAINTAINED BASIN
0 "I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE AND
IRRIGATION PLANS CONTAINED IN THE CITY OF VISTA'S LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS. I HAVE
PREPARED THIS PLAN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE REGULATIONS AND THE
LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS WHEN SUBMIT ING CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. I CERTIFY THAT THE PLAN IMPLEMENT OS GULATIONS TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER." 12-6-21
ARK LL 405 DATE
PICNIC TABLE
LpT 46
RETENTION
• ♦ ♦ i �i►!C'• s- SOA' i O:O'O,i.�
� � � �GALLON)• rMAINTAINED frl��♦I!`♦' � � `. s.� �rfl�� �OAp��A. ♦ � pO.j1 �..,��'. ! IQ�IF, •♦ ®,� d.�� �I
BOTANICAL
•. . • • SPACING
• f^liL`o� i�ed�R/a O�:��®.%d�Aj., : O�IA�li!,��1✓ as, +. d��' \!�� �OO:O r���— ,SS ,1,p,. C O S G S 00 S O WRAP
3 ROUND HE ROOT
—
,,,,,,
..
....................... , ,
+ /
„ „ „
, ,
,
,
3 w
,
a
,
o "
w ,
,
8312 1262 33022
TENTATIVE MAP/
SHEET
�• oil �f�i ;-j%,\ GRAPHIC SCALE
1 landscape architecture CAMINO LARGO
40' 0 40' 12 OF
�\ land planning
_0 /
IIIIII
lill,�ll�' o�\ � � www.sjainc.com RESIDENTIAL 3
I(MJ�I/ SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1249 of 1307
ETIMATED TOTAL WATER USE (ETWU) WORKSHEET
The project's Estimated Total Water Use is calculated using the following formula:
Fx
ETWU = (E7`r�)( .62 IE
ETWU = Estimated total water use per year (gallons per year) ETo = Evapotranspiration rate (inches per year)
PF = Plant Factor (see requirements in chart)
HA= Hydrozone Area (squarefeet): Define hydrozones by water use: very low, low, moderate and high SLA Special Landscape Area (square feet): Edible plants, irrigated with recycled water, &turf used for active play
0.62 = Conversion Factor (to gallons per square foot)
IE= Irrigation Efficiency (see requirements in chart)
CITY OF VISTA ESIMATED TOTAL WATER USE (ETUA) WORKSHEET Hydrozone Number (1- 4 Below— use as many tables as
Line
necessary to complete all hydrozones)
1 SLOPES
2 BASINS
3 TREES AND
4 LAWN
SLA
VINES
Evapotranspiration Rate (ETo)*
1 51.1
51.1 for Vista area
Conversion Factor -.62
2 0.62
(Line 1x Line 2)
3 31.682
Plant Factor (PF)**
4 0.3
0.6 0.6
0.8 Hydrozone Area (HA) - in square
5 101,585
6,500
6,132
5,800
feet
(Line 4 x Line 5)
6 30,476
3,900
3,679
4,640
Irrigation Efficiency (IE)***
7 0.75
0.75 0.75
0.75 (Line 6- Line 7)
8 40,634
i 5,200
4,906
6,187
TOTAL aII Line 8s+SLA)
9 56,926
Line 3x Line 9 Estimated Total
Water Use - ETWU (gallons per
10 1,803,538
year) Total shall not exceed
MAWA below
*ETo= Eva potra ns pi rati on rate = 51.1
**PF-PIantFactor(WaterUse) —
***IE—Irrigation
for Vista,
from WUCOLS
Efficiency
CA Average calculated from values in
Select based on type of plants in
Spray=.55
State Model Water Efficiency
hydrozone:
MP rotators = .75
LandscapeOrdinance(MWELO)-
0.1=VLW-Very Low WaterUse
Rotor=.70
AppendixA
Plants
Bubbler=.75
0.3=LW- Low WaterUse Plants
Drip&Micro-spray =.81
0.6= MW - Moderate Water Use
MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER APPLICATION (MAWA) calculation:
31.682 [(ETAF x ) + (1-ETAF) x MAWA = 2,091,308
Total Landscape Area Total SLA
ETAF = Evapotranspiration adjustment €actor (use .55 residential, .45 non-residential) " X
4 �--- ,♦♦ LOT 46 >
---
f
e.
°. °o
°
3g
,♦ I LOT
♦♦♦♦♦♦ III LOT 2g p C 39
I,I �
Lo f 45
.�
0/
I
LOT 2� w ,V I� `; w '\ � • ,. � � � � �
♦ III ,s � \ �\ � 1 '� � � � � ��
o
� `� \ slll � • i ,
s 1•
I o I
�� o LOT 29 � ¢
3 �
°.
ia o
T¢¢ s' �
♦,� � a s < \ III � • 0� 31 LO
♦� 1,0"96 i�. L ua\ O
♦♦♦� LOT 30 I i ° I
♦.♦♦`� ' .. 5 w • pII 3 • - LOT 4
L A
♦- s LOT3 s i
4 s I—
\ 0 \
54 36
'. /o 0
� _ • ° - _I to \ ° — — �
-
♦27 s '' f 31g
°
°
°
a
♦ f 16
♦♦ L w•: - it ... \ � \ "' ''��-' /" ���" /�_ /; %%-;' --�//� r - - -� - -- -- \-/ - - - -
° o
/5/♦,-r -
� LOZ 3 \ 23 -
e
rrF
°
/
;:
a �,
- I#/ /
L
. w
.n
• ..,��� yam_-_ o • .• � 3
•
-
`r
w
e
a
s 9 OT
0, „ 1 j 2
--
� LOT
<w .
° w /
o.
\ B LO
\ iIL01,
3 9 w Is,/ / '
\ 11
0"11
g s
o HYDROZONE LEGEND
s o .,='� POTABLE, COMMON AREA
6 NO L � j - i-
�o \''-° -'
;\ ;\ L0,00 POTALBE HOMEOWNER LOT
10 / s'
Vim/
s, s
/ e -
3 r
°
8-31-21, 12-6-21, 3-30-22
(D ),
r;4- - 7, \1
0 TENTATIVE MAP/
HEFT
S J R
HYDROZONE MAP AND WATER CALL GRAPHIC SCALE 2
40' 0 40' 120' CAMINO LARGO
landscape architecture OF
j land planning
- - SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
RESIDENTIAL 3
�� --- - www.s�atnc.com
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1250 of 1307
WALL AND FENCE LEGEND
5' VINYL FENCE
5' TUBULAR STEEL (BLACK)
5' BLOCK WALL (SLUMP)
111 \ \
Ie
\ I I LOT 46 • � N
-
�-
I
L011
I 28
I 1101,
LOT 45 B
Iov
I
i os
OT s
,1 44
11011 3� 1 L I e I I
�� o
s I
/ 1
/ 30 V I
/ 11011
\ Oy ,u� II
/ T I � • ;\ i / \ I I I
j LO 36
. o e
°
3 \
E 1101C
LO �' 16 ��— ✓— m — >
\ OT 7%1 \ �� v
OT14 10 ` �� 1OT3 ;\ .- �w i" j i,\% / T - r — — — _ -- � — _ ;\ \`� — — — —�—_ -
°
�--� — — — — — —I —
/ y o
32 -
'0 = -r
T � \ a \ LOT
0 °
,o
•a �
1 -
LOT 13 \ �w ; %= ---
s pC 3
a—_ s pTA \\ 9 L0�18 TZZIiI s /, /ts, jii\ / \ ;
j
\
pf 12
\/,vim % '/' i -
------------
\ ,r 5
\
�0-
1101,
A
`�` `•off \ T10 � a\ /w�/ ,�,�`s j,,
\ Lo
3 /
L-3
• \ ,' = , yam-% i" �� �` %;='
• ,_ • o w s
8-31-21 12-6-21 3-30-22
TENTATIVE MAP/
SHEET
GRAPHIC SCALE WALL AND FENCE PLAN
;s;- ; 40' 0 40' 120' AMINO LARGO
'IIIIII ;%\ j landscape architecture C OF
[and planning = RESIDENTIAL
� www.sjaine.com
i o \ SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" 3
`Il
IMIII \, \�
ro
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1251 of 1307
CAMINO LARGO - LIGHTING CONCEPTUAL PLAN
CaliforniaWestl
SCHEDULE AND SUMMARIES
Luminaire
Schedule
Type
Symbol
Qty
Label
Arrangement
Description
Lum. Lumens
Lum. Watts
Total Watts
LLF
SL1
17 Eaton Streetworks Vision Small - T3
Single
0.920
LUMINAIRE: AVS-E01-LED-E-U-SL2-7030 @ 20FT
2790
25 450
POLE: SSS-4-A-20-S-T-F-1-X-G
5 Eaton Streetworks Vision Small - T4
Single
0.920
ARM: SA1071-GM
LUMINAIRE: AVS-E01-LED-E-U-SL4-7030 @ 20FT
2698
25 150
SL2
POLE: SSS-4-A-20-S-T-F-1-X-G
Eaton Streetworks Vision Small - Double
Single
0.920
ARM: SA1071-GM
LUMINAIRE:
5488
50 SL3
1 50
0 O O
(1) AVS-E01-LED-E-U-SL3-7030 @ 20FT
(1) AVS-E01-LED-E-U-SL3-7030 @ 20FT
POLE: SSS-4-A-20-S-T-F-1-X-G
ARM: SA1071-GM
Calculation Summary
Label
Dog Park
Vehicle Hardscape
Vehicle Hardscape (ALL)
CalcType
Illuminance
Illuminance
Illuminance
Units
Fc
Avg
0.32 0.45
0.43 Max
1.9 1.4
1.3 Min
0.0 0.0
0.1 Avg/Min
N.A.
N.A.
4.30 Max/Min
N.A.
N.A.
13.00 Fc
Fc
LOT C - CAMINO LARGO
Illuminance
Fc
0.41 0.8
0.0 N.A.
N.A.
LOT D - PRIVATE STREET
Illuminance
Fc
0.45 1.2
0.1 4.50
12.00 LOT E - PRIVATE STREET
Illuminance
Fc
0.40 1.3
0.1 4.00
13.00 LOT F - PRIVATE STREET
Illuminance
Fc
0.37 1.2
0.1 3.70
12.00 LOT G - PRIVATE STREET
Illuminance
Fc
0.45 1.3
0.1 4.50
13.00 LOT H - PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
Illuminance
Fc
0.55 1.9
0.0 N.A.
N.A.
SHEET INDEX
1 SUMMARIES & SCHEDULES
2 ELECTRICAL LIGHTING PLAN 1
3 ELECTRICAL LIGHTING PLAN 2
4 SPEC SHEET 1
MAKE: COOPER-EATON STREETWORKS
MODEL: VISION SITE LED 'AVS'
QTY: 24
WATTAGE: 25 @ 3000K
SPEC: SHEET 04
SITE MAP
PROJECT SITE
GPM�GOr� iJ����
TAYLoR sr.
N.T.S.
FESS/pN�
A.
� E22246
w r^
cr_ 31_2
01 of 04
PaM a v31 7 i 32022
7 0 2 2
9 11 /15/2022
PH1
CAMINO LARGO -LIGHTING CONCEPTUAL PLAN
LIGHTING PLAN 1
I
Ull CAMINO LARGO
z
I'
�I
I �I
MAKE: COOPER-EATON STREETWORKS
MODEL: VISION SITE LED 'AVS'
QTY: 24
WATTAGE: 25 @ 3000K
SPEC: SHEET 04
D
0 r_
z
m
I
V)
m
m
W
m
w
/Q�OFESS/pN\
C.D E22246 m
w m
CX)*-, 31.2 -40
NOTE:
ANY CHANGE OR DEVIATION FROM THE LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS ON PLAN SHALL INVALIDATE THIS PHOTOMETRIC ANALYSIS.
11 /15/2022
PH1
30 15 0 (IN FEET) 30 60
I Ww']
1 INCH = 30 FEET
02 of 04
Pa' a 1�2'541 , 307 0 2 2
9 CAMINO LARGO -LIGHTING CONCEPTUAL PLAN
LIGHTING PLAN 2
D
n
r_
z
m
V)
m
m
U)
m
N
■
MAKE: COOPER-EATON STREETWORKS
MODEL: VISION SITE LED 'AVS'
QTY: 24
WATTAGE: 25 @ 3000K
SPEC: SHEET 04
CaliforniaWest
-1
/Q�OFESS/pN\
�\i3 A. pF F2
Z3 E22246 m
w m
C)*-, 31.2 -40
NOTE:
ANY CHANGE OR DEVIATION FROM THE LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS ON PLAN SHALL INVALIDATE THIS PHOTOMETRIC ANALYSIS.
11 /15/2022
PH1
30 15 0 (IN FEET) 30 60
1 INCH = 30 FEET
03 of 04
Pa'e1av517�307022
9 CAMINO LARGO -LIGHTING CONCEPTUAL PLAN
r'aliforniaWest
SPECIFICATION: PRIVATE STREET LIGHT
DESCRIPTION
The classic lines and sophisticated construction of Vision Site LED luminaire makes it an ideal complement to site design. Offering LED technology across the AVS and AVM, the Vision Site luminaire provides true family scaling in both physical form and lumen capability for architectural site lighting applications. UL/cUL listed for use in wet locations.
SPECIFICATION FEATURES
Construction
HOUSING: Heavy -wall one-piece,
die-cast aluminum housing has
precise tolerance control and
repeatability in manufacturing.
Housing features a partition wall
that isolates driver components
for cooler operation. Integral
aluminum heat sink provides
superior thermal heat transfer
in +40°C ambient environments.
DOOR: One-piece, die-cast
aluminum construction with tool -
less release latch. Door swings
down and is retained on two catch
hinges. GASKET: Continuous
gasket provided to seal housing to
optic tray. LENS: Downlight lens is
LED board integrated acrylic over -
optics, each individually sealed for
IP66 rating. HARDWARE: Tool -less
release door latch is stainless steel/
aluminum construction, painted to
match housing and allows access
to internal housing and electrical
components.
Optics
Choice of twelve patented, high -
efficiency AccuLED Optics'"
distributions. Optics are precisely
designed to shape the light
output, maximizing efficient and
p 9 Y
application spacing. AccuLED
Optics technology creates
consistent distributions with the
scalability to meet customized
application requirements. Offered
Standard in 4000K (+/- 275K) CCT
and minimum 70 CRI. Optional
3000K CCT, 5000K CCT and 5700K
DIMENSIONS
CCT. For the ultimate level of spill
light control, an optional house -
side shield accessory can be field
or factory installed. The house -side
shield is designed to seamlessly
integrate with the SL2, SL3 or SL4
optics.
Electrical
LED drivers mount to die-cast
aluminum back housing for
optimal heat sinking, operation
efficacy, and prolonged life.
Standard drivers feature electronic
universal voltage (120-277V
50/60Hz), 347V 60Hz or 480V 60Hz
operation. 480V is compatible for
use with 480V Wye systems only.
Greater than 0.9 power factor, less
than 20% harmonic distortion, and
is suitable for operation in -40'C
to 40°C ambient environments.
All fixtures are shipped standard
with 10kV/10kA common -
and differential - mode surge
protection. LightBARs feature
and IP66 enclosure rating and
maintain greater than 95% lumen
maintenance at 60,000 hours per
IESNA TM-21. Occupancy sensor
and dimming options available.
Mounting
ARM: One-piece extruded
aluminum arm available in
standard 5" lengths (AVS) and
6" and 10" (AVM). Internal bolts
guides allow easy positioning of
fixture during installation to pole
or wall surface. STRUCTURAL
MOUNT: Die-cast aluminum cleat
factory mounted to luminaire
and finished in luminaire color.
Stainless steel structural rod
measures 1/2" in diameter and
is provided in luminaire finish
color or optional natural finish.
Product works in conjunction with
dedicated accessory arms (order
separately). Poles are provided
pre -drilled when structural mount
option drill pattern is specified.
Additional mounting accessories
available.
Finish
Housing is finished in five -stage
super premium TGIC polyester
powder coat paint, 2.5 mil nominal
thickness for superior protection
against fade and wear. LightBAR
cover plates are standard white
and may be specified to match
finish of luminaire housing.
Standard colors include black,
bronze, grey, white, dark platinum
and graphite metallic. RAIL and
custom color matches available.
Consult Outdoor Architectural
Colors brochure for a complete
selection.
Warranty
Five-year warranty.
Y Y
AS
6" [152mm]
AVM
7" [178mm] z Iq
I�
AVS 13-1/2" [343mm]J I AVS 23" [584mm]
AVM 17" [432mm] AVM 28" [724mm] AVS
5" [127mm]
AVM
6" or 10" 1152mm or 254mm]
E:T•N
Powering Business Worldwide
'www. desig n I i g hts.org
Streetworks
AVS/AVM
VISION SITE LED
1 - 6 LightBARS
Solid State LED
AREA/SITE LUMINAIRE
CERTIFICATION DATA
UL/CUL Listed
ISO 9001
IP66 LightBARs
LM79 / LM80 Compliant
1.5 G Vibration Tested
DesignLights ConsortiumT" Qualified*
ENERGY DATA
Electronic LED Driver
>0.9 Power Factor
www.designlights.org Qualified Products List under Family Models for details.
3. Arm not included. Order separately.
4. Standard 4000K CCT and greater than 70 CRI.
5. 21 LED LightBAR powered at 350mA, 7 LED LightBAR powered at 1A.
S. Available on AVM only.
7. Only for use with 480V Wye systems. Per NEC, not for use with ungrounded systems, impedance grounded systems or corner grounded systems (commonly known asThree Phase Three Wire Delta,Three Phase High Leg Delta and Three Phase Corner Grounded Delta systems).
8. Custom and RAL color matching avialable upon request. Consult your customer service representative for more information.
9. Add as suffix in the order shown.
,a. Compatible with 5" SA1071 (AVS) or 10" SA1051 (AVM) arm only.
11. Compatible with 5" SA1074 (AVS) or 10" SA1053 (AVM) arm only.
12. Wall mount structural options do not include arm assembly (See accessories). Compatible with 5" SA1071 (AVS) or SA1231 (AVM) arm only.
13. Low-level output varies by bar count. Consult factory. Requires two or more light bars.
14. Extended lead times apply. See website for IES files. 15 Available with E01-E02 and F01-F02 configurations only (AVS) or E01-E04 and F01-F04 configurations only (AVM). Specify 120V or 277V. LED cold weather integral battery pack is rated for minimum operating temperature -4'F (-200
C). Operates one light bar for 90-minutes. Not available in all configurations, consult factory. Rated for use in 250C ambient.
16. Sensor mounted to the luminaire. Available in E01-E04 and F01-F04 configurations (AVS) or E01-E06 and F01-1`06 configurations (AVM). Replace XX with mounting height in feet for proper lens selection (e.g., MS-1_25).
Consult factory for more information.
17. Sensor mounted to the luminaire. Available in E02-E04 and F02-F04 configurations (AVS) or E01-E06 and F01-F06 configurations (AVM). Replace X with number of light bars operating at low output mode and replace XX with mounting height in feet for proper lens selection (e.g., MS/3-1_25). Maximum four light bars in low output mode. Consult factory for more information.
18. LumaWatt wireless sensors are factory installed only requiring network components RF-EM1, RF-GW1 and RF-ROUT1 in appropriate quantities. See www.eaton.wm/lighting for LumaWatt application information.
19. Only for use with SL2, SL3 and SL4 distributions. Not available with L90 or R90 options.
20. Replace XX with color designation.
21. One required for each light bars. Not available with L90 or R90 options.
22. For use in downlighting applications only.
23. Use when mounting fixture heads at 9W increments.
24. Includes arm only. Must specify CPW or CSW in fixture ordering logic. Downlighting applications only.
Eaton
1121 Highway 74 South
s and
E �T• N Pe7770-486-4800 A 30269 dimens nlsSpecificatonsubject to Powering Business Worldwide www.eaton.com/lighting change without notice.
TD500002EN
2015-12-21 13:42:28
SSS SQUARE
STRAIGHT STEEL
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Steel Poles
FEATURES
• ASTM Grade steel base plate with ASTM A366 base cover • Hand hole assembly 3" x 5" on 5" and 6" pole; and 2" x 4" on 4" pole • 10'-39' mounting heights
• Drilled or tenon (specify)
Wind induced vibrations resulting from steady, unidirectional winds and other aerodynamic forces, as well as vibration and coefficient of height factors for non -grounded mounted installations (e.g., installations on bridges or buildings) are not included in this document. The information contained herein is for general guidance only and is not a replacment for professional judgement.
Consult with a professional, and local and federal standards, before ordering to ensure product is appropriate for the intended purpose and installation location. Also, please review Eaton's Light Pole White Paper for risk factors and design considerations. Learn more.
Specifications and dimensions subject to change without notice. Consult your lighting representative at Eaton or visit www.eaton.com/lighting for available options, accessories and ordering information.
ORDERING INFORMATION
SAMPLE NUMBER: SSS5A20SFM1XG
SSS=Square 4=4" A=0.120" 10=10' S=Squar F=Dark Bronze 2=2-3/8" O.D.Tenon (4" Long) 1=Sin le X=None A=1/2"Tapped Hubs Strai ht 5=5" M=0.188" 15=15' Steel G=Galvanized Steel 3=3-1/2" O.D.TenonIS" Long) 2=2 at180° 6=3/4"Tapped Hubs tee 6=6" X=0.250" 20=20' Base J=Summit White 4=4" O.D.Tenon (6" Long) 3=Triplet C=Convenience 25=25' K=Carbon Bronze 9=3" O.D.Tenon (4" Long) 4=4 at 90° Outlet' 30=30' L=Dark Platinum 6=2-3/8" O.D.Tenon (6" Long) 5=2 at 90° E=GFCI Convenience 35=35' R=Hartford Green 7=4" O.D.Tenon(10" Long) X=None Outlet4 39=39' S=Silver A=TypeA Drilling G=Ground Lu
T=Gra hite Metallic C=Type C Drilling H=Additional Hand V=Grey E=Tvve E Drillinq Holes
W=White I F=Type F Drilling V=Vibration
X=Custom Color G=Type G Drilling Dampener
Y=Black J=Type J Drilling
K=Type K Drilling
M=Type M Drilling
N=Type N Drilling
R=Type R Drilling
Z=Type Z Drilling
NOTES: 1. All shaft sizes nominal. 2. Square poles are 3 at 90°, round poles are 3 at 120°. 3.Tapped Hub is located 5' below the pole top and on the same side of pole as hand hole, unless specified otherwise. 4. Outlet is located 4' above base and on same side of pole as hand hole, unless specified otherwise. Receptacle not included, provision only. 5. Additional hand hole is located 12" below pole top and 90° from standard hand hole location, unless otherwise specified.
DIMENSIONS
BC
�I I
D
0 Hand Hole
12-5/16"
IP
LBJ
Base View
F o 0
Base ❑
Size
(S)
O O
See technical information.
E:T•N
Powering Business Worldwide
TD513013EN
January 31, 2018 1:34 PM
F=2.
L.:. c1 _ `I-1NF=_ 1N .
\o A. pF2
r m
� E22246
w m
Cr_ 31-2 :_,C1
11 /15/2022
PH1
04 of 04
PaMax6 of 17i307 022
9 11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1257 of 1307
5 0 . 0 0 '
6 5
.
0 0
'
5'-0"40'-0"5'-0"
18 '
-
0 "
37 '
-
0 "
10 '
-
0 "
GARAGE
20 2 20 4X
ENTRY
PORCH
KITCHEN
BA. 3
DINING
13 4 13 8X
BEDROOM 4
10 5 10 4X
UP
17 R
GREAT
ROOM
18 9 15 0X
10 '
-
0 "
19 '
-
6 "
OPT. CAB. / OPT.
HOME MANAGEMENT
PA
N
T
R
Y
STORAGE
MINIMUM 160 CUBIC FEET OF OVER HEAD STORAGE
18 L.F.
MASTER
BATH
LAU.OPEN TO
BELOW
DN
17 R
OPT.
SINK
MASTER
BEDROOM
15 8 15 0X
BEDROOM 3
11 0 11 4X
BA. 2
BEDROOM 2
11 0 12 0X
LINEN
LINEN
OPT. UPPER CAB.
OPT. OBSCURE GLASS
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION PORCH 44 SQ. FT.
2 - CAR GARAGE 429 SQ. FT.
TOTAL 2,129 SQ. FT.
2ND FLOOR 1,137 SQ. FT.
1ST FLOOR 992 SQ. FT.
FLOOR AREA TABLE
2 - CAR GARAGE
4 BEDROOMS / 3 BATHS
TARGET: 2,000 SQ. FT.
2,129 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1
TYPICAL GARAGE SECTION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
V i s t a , C a l i f o r n i a
C A M I N O L A R G O 1 2 . 1 6 . 2 1
J:
\
G
R
O
U
P
2 1
\
5 4
9 2
1 2
8 9
\
1 2
8 9
F
L
R
1 A
.
D
W
G
Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100
tel. +1 949 553 9100
fax +1 949 553 0548 5 4 9 . 2 1 2 8 9
Newport Beach, CA USA 92660
0 2 4 8
P L A N 1
R e f l e c t s S a n t a B a r b a r a E l e v a t i o n 11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1258 of 1307
11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1259 of 1307
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION PORCH
2 - CAR GARAGE 429 SQ. FT.
TOTAL 2,129 SQ. FT.
2ND FLOOR 1,137 SQ. FT.
1ST FLOOR 992 SQ. FT.
FLOOR AREA TABLE
2 - CAR GARAGE
4 BEDROOMS / 3 BATHS
TARGET: 2,000 SQ. FT.
2,129 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1
59 SQ. FT.
GARAGE
20 2 20 4X
ENTRY
KITCHEN
BA. 3
DINING
13 4 13 8X
BEDROOM 4
10 5 10 4X
UP
17 R
GREAT
ROOM
18 9 15 0X
OPT. CAB. / OPT.
HOME MANAGEMENT
PA
N
T
R
Y
STORAGE
MINIMUM 160 CUBIC FEET OF OVER HEAD STORAGE
5 0 . 0 0 '
6 5
.
0 0
'
5'-0"40'-0"5'-0"
18 '
-
0 "
37 '
-
0 "
10 '
-
0 "
10 '
-
0 "
19 '
-
6 "
PORCH
18 L.F.
MASTER
BATH
LAU.OPEN TO
BELOW
DN
17 R
OPT.
SINK
MASTER
BEDROOM
15 8 15 0X
BA. 2
BEDROOM 2
11 0 12 0X
LINEN
LINEN
OPT. OBSCURE GLASS
BEDROOM 3
11 0 11 8X
OPT.
SINK
OPT. UPPER
CAB.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION PORCH
2 - CAR GARAGE 429 SQ. FT.
TOTAL 2,129 SQ. FT.
2ND FLOOR 1,137 SQ. FT.
1ST FLOOR 992 SQ. FT.
FLOOR AREA TABLE
2 - CAR GARAGE
4 BEDROOMS / 3 BATHS
TARGET: 2,000 SQ. FT.
2,129 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1
59 SQ. FT.
TYPICAL GARAGE SECTION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
V i s t a , C a l i f o r n i a
C A M I N O L A R G O 1 2 . 1 6 . 2 1
J:
\
G
R
O
U
P
2 1
\
5 4
9 2
1 2
8 9
\
1 2
8 9
F
L
R
1 B
.
D
W
G
Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100
tel. +1 949 553 9100
fax +1 949 553 0548 5 4 9 . 2 1 2 8 9
Newport Beach, CA USA 92660
0 2 4 8
P L A N 1
R e f l e c t s F a r m h o u s e E l e v a t i o n 11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1260 of 1307
11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1261 of 1307
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION PORCH 44 SQ. FT.
2 - CAR GARAGE 429 SQ. FT.
TOTAL 2,129 SQ. FT.
2ND FLOOR 1,137 SQ. FT.
1ST FLOOR 992 SQ. FT.
FLOOR AREA TABLE
2 - CAR GARAGE
4 BEDROOMS / 3 BATHS
TARGET: 2,000 SQ. FT.
2,129 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1
5 0 . 0 0 '
6 5
.
0 0
'
5'-0"40'-0"5'-0"
18 '
-
0 "
37 '
-
0 "
10 '
-
0 "
10 '
-
0 "
19 '
-
6 "
GARAGE
20 2 20 4X
ENTRY
KITCHEN
BA. 3
DINING
13 4 13 8X
BEDROOM 4
10 5 10 4X
UP
17 R
GREAT
ROOM
18 9 15 0X
OPT. CAB. / OPT.
HOME MANAGEMENT
PA
N
T
R
Y
STORAGE
MINIMUM 160 CUBIC FEET OF OVER HEAD STORAGE
PORCH
18 L.F.
MASTER
BATH
LAU.OPEN TO
BELOW
DN
17 R
OPT.
SINK
MASTER
BEDROOM
15 8 15 0X
BA. 2
BEDROOM 2
11 0 12 0X
LINEN
LINEN
OPT. UPPER CAB.
OPT. OBSCURE GLASS
BEDROOM 3
11 0 11 8X
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION PORCH 44 SQ. FT.
2 - CAR GARAGE 429 SQ. FT.
TOTAL 2,129 SQ. FT.
2ND FLOOR 1,137 SQ. FT.
1ST FLOOR 992 SQ. FT.
FLOOR AREA TABLE
2 - CAR GARAGE
4 BEDROOMS / 3 BATHS
TARGET: 2,000 SQ. FT.
2,129 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1
TYPICAL GARAGE SECTION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
V i s t a , C a l i f o r n i a
C A M I N O L A R G O 1 2 . 1 6 . 2 1
J:
\
G
R
O
U
P
2 1
\
5 4
9 2
1 2
8 9
\
1 2
8 9
F
L
R
1 C
.
D
W
G
Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100
tel. +1 949 553 9100
fax +1 949 553 0548 5 4 9 . 2 1 2 8 9
Newport Beach, CA USA 92660
0 2 4 8
P L A N 1
R e f l e c t s S p a n i s h R a n c h E l e v a t i o n 11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1262 of 1307
11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1263 of 1307
11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1264 of 1307
5 0 . 0 0 '
6 5
.
0 0
'
5'-0"37'-0"
35 '
-
0 "
12 '
-
0 "
18 '
-
0 "
10 '
-
0 "
DINING
13 6 10 0X
KITCHEN
GREAT
ROOM
17 6 13 8X
UP
17 R
GARAGE
20 2 20 4XENTRY
PORCH
BA. 3
BEDROOM 4
10 6 10 0X
LINEN
STORAGE
8'-0"
3'-0"
PANTRY
OPT.
CAB.
MINIMUM 160 CUBIC FEET OF OVER HEAD STORAGE
LOFT /
OPT. BEDROOM 5
14 5 11 0X
MASTER
BEDROOM
16 0 14 8X
MASTER
BATH
BA. 2LAU.
BEDROOM 2
10 2 11 0X
BEDROOM 3
10 6 11 0X
DN
17 R
22 L.F.
OPT.
SINK
OPT.
UPPER CAB.
LINEN
OPT. OBSCURE GLASS
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION PORCH 69 SQ. FT.
2 - CAR GARAGE 428 SQ. FT.
TOTAL 2,236 SQ. FT.
2ND FLOOR 1,215 SQ. FT.
1ST FLOOR 1,021 SQ. FT.
FLOOR AREA TABLE
2 - CAR GARAGE
4 BEDROOMS / 3 BATHS / LOFT /
OPT. BEDROOM 5
TARGET: 2,150 SQ. FT.
2,236 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2
DN
17 R
BEDROOM 5
13 8 11 0X
OPT. BEDROOM 5
IN LIEU OF LOFT
TYPICAL GARAGE SECTION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
V i s t a , C a l i f o r n i a
C A M I N O L A R G O 1 2 . 1 6 . 2 1
J:
\
G
R
O
U
P
2 1
\
5 4
9 2
1 2
8 9
\
1 2
8 9
F
L
R
2 A
.
D
W
G
Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100
tel. +1 949 553 9100
fax +1 949 553 0548 5 4 9 . 2 1 2 8 9
Newport Beach, CA USA 92660
0 2 4 8
P L A N 2
R e f l e c t s S a n t a B a r b a r a E l e v a t i o n 11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1265 of 1307
11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1266 of 1307
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION PORCH 69 SQ. FT.
2 - CAR GARAGE 428 SQ. FT.
TOTAL 2,236 SQ. FT.
2ND FLOOR 1,215 SQ. FT.
1ST FLOOR 1,021 SQ. FT.
FLOOR AREA TABLE
2 - CAR GARAGE
4 BEDROOMS / 3 BATHS / LOFT /
OPT. BEDROOM 5
TARGET: 2,150 SQ. FT.
2,236 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2
DINING
13 6 10 0X
KITCHEN
GREAT
ROOM
17 6 13 8X
UP
17 R
GARAGE
20 2 20 4XENTRY
PORCH
BA. 3
BEDROOM 4
10 6 10 0X
LINEN
STORAGE
PANTRY
OPT.
CAB.
MINIMUM 160 CUBIC FEET OF OVER HEAD STORAGE
5 0 . 0 0 '
6 5
.
0 0
'
5'-0"37'-0"
35 '
-
0 "
12 '
-
0 "
18 '
-
0 "
8'-0"
10 '
-
0 "
LOFT /
OPT. BEDROOM 5
14 5 11 0X
MASTER
BEDROOM
16 0 14 8X
MASTER
BATH
BA. 2LAU.
BEDROOM 2
10 2 11 0X
BEDROOM
10 6 11 0X
DN
17 R
22 L.F.
OPT.
SINK
OPT.
UPPER CAB.
LINEN
OPT. OBSCURE GLASS
TYPICAL GARAGE SECTION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
V i s t a , C a l i f o r n i a
C A M I N O L A R G O 1 2 . 1 6 . 2 1
J:
\
G
R
O
U
P
2 1
\
5 4
9 2
1 2
8 9
\
1 2
8 9
F
L
R
2 B
.
D
W
G
Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100
tel. +1 949 553 9100
fax +1 949 553 0548 5 4 9 . 2 1 2 8 9
Newport Beach, CA USA 92660
0 2 4 8
P L A N 2
R e f l e c t s F a r m h o u s e E l e v a t i o n 11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1267 of 1307
11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1268 of 1307
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION PORCH
2 - CAR GARAGE 428 SQ. FT.
TOTAL 2,236 SQ. FT.
2ND FLOOR 1,215 SQ. FT.
1ST FLOOR 1,021 SQ. FT.
FLOOR AREA TABLE
2 - CAR GARAGE
4 BEDROOMS / 3 BATHS / LOFT /
OPT. BEDROOM 5
TARGET: 2,150 SQ. FT.
2,236 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2
58 SQ. FT.
DINING
13 6 10 0X
KITCHEN
GREAT
ROOM
17 6 13 8X
UP
17 R
GARAGE
20 2 20 4XENTRY
BA. 3
BEDROOM 4
10 6 10 0X
LINEN
STORAGE
PANTRY
OPT.
CAB.
MINIMUM 160 CUBIC FEET OF OVER HEAD STORAGE
5 0 . 0 0 '
6 5
.
0 0
'
5'-0"37'-0"
35 '
-
0 "
12 '
-
0 "
18 '
-
0 "
8'-0"
10 '
-
0 "
LOFT /
OPT. BEDROOM 5
14 5 11 0X
MASTER
BEDROOM
16 0 14 8X
MASTER
BATH
BA. 2LAU.
BEDROOM 2
10 2 11 0X
BEDROOM
10 6 11 0X
DN
17 R
22 L.F.
OPT.
SINK
OPT.
UPPER CAB.
LINEN
OPT. OBSCURE GLASS
TYPICAL GARAGE SECTION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
V i s t a , C a l i f o r n i a
C A M I N O L A R G O 1 2 . 1 6 . 2 1
J:
\
G
R
O
U
P
2 1
\
5 4
9 2
1 2
8 9
\
1 2
8 9
F
L
R
2 C
.
D
W
G
Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100
tel. +1 949 553 9100
fax +1 949 553 0548 5 4 9 . 2 1 2 8 9
Newport Beach, CA USA 92660
0 2 4 8
P L A N 2
R e f l e c t s S p a n i s h R a n c h E l e v a t i o n 11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1269 of 1307
11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1270 of 1307
11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1271 of 1307
5 0 . 0 0 '
6 5
.
0 0
'
5'-0"40'-0"5'-0"
18 '
-
0 "
37 '
-
0 "
10 '
-
0 "
UP
17 R
10 '
-
0 "
GARAGE
20 4 20 6X
ENTRY
PORCH
KITCHEN
STORAGE
BA. 3
DINING
10 8 13 6X
GREAT
ROOM
18 9 15 9X
BEDROOM 4 /
OPT. OFFICE
10 8 10 0X
15 '
-
0 "
PANTRY
MINIMUM 160 CUBIC FEET OF OVER HEAD STORAGE
LINEN
BA. 2
28 L.F.MASTER
BATH
LAU.
OPEN TO
BELOW
BEDROOM 2
10 0 12 4X
BEDROOM 3
10 0 10 5X
DN
17 R
LOFT /
OPT. BEDROOM 5
W/ BA 4
13 0 15 4X
MASTER
BEDROOM
17 0 16 0X
OPT.
SINK
OP
T
.
U
P
P
E
R
CA
B
.
OPT. OBSCURE GLASS
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION PORCH 48 SQ. FT.
2 - CAR GARAGE 429 SQ. FT.
TOTAL 2,374 SQ. FT.
2ND FLOOR 1,310 SQ. FT.
1ST FLOOR 1,064 SQ. FT.
FLOOR AREA TABLE
2 - CAR GARAGE
4 BEDROOMS / 3 BATHS / LOFT /
OPT. BEDROOM 5 W/ BA. 4
TARGET: 2,350 SQ. FT.
2,374 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3
OPEN TO
BELOW
DN
17 R
OPT. BEDROOM 5 w/ BATH 4
IN LIEU OF LOFT
BEDROOM 5
10 6 10 0X
BA. 4
TYPICAL GARAGE SECTION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
V i s t a , C a l i f o r n i a
C A M I N O L A R G O 1 2 . 1 6 . 2 1
J:
\
G
R
O
U
P
2 1
\
5 4
9 2
1 2
8 9
\
1 2
8 9
F
L
R
3 A
.
D
W
G
Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100
tel. +1 949 553 9100
fax +1 949 553 0548 5 4 9 . 2 1 2 8 9
Newport Beach, CA USA 92660
0 2 4 8
P L A N 3
R e f l e c t s S a n t a B a r b a r a E l e v a t i o n 11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1272 of 1307
11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1273 of 1307
UP
17 R
GARAGE
20 4 20 6X
ENTRY
KITCHEN
STORAGE
BA. 3
DINING
10 8 13 6X
GREAT
ROOM
18 9 15 9X
BEDROOM 4 /
OPT. OFFICE
10 8 10 0X
PANTRY
MINIMUM 160 CUBIC FEET OF OVER HEAD STORAGE
5 0 . 0 0 '
6 5
.
0 0
'
5'-0"40'-0"5'-0"
18 '
-
0 "
37 '
-
0 "
10 '
-
0 "
10 '
-
0 "
15 '
-
0 "
LINEN
BA. 2
28 L.F.MASTER
BATH
LAU.
OPEN TO
BELOW
BEDROOM 2
10 0 12 4X
BEDROOM 3
10 0 10 5X
DN
17 R
LOFT /
OPT. BEDROOM 5
W/ BA 4
13 0 15 4X
MASTER
BEDROOM
17 0 16 0X
OPT.
SINK
OP
T
.
U
P
P
E
R
CA
B
.
OPT. OBSCURE GLASS
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION PORCH
2 - CAR GARAGE 429 SQ. FT.
TOTAL 2,374 SQ. FT.
2ND FLOOR 1,310 SQ. FT.
1ST FLOOR 1,064 SQ. FT.
FLOOR AREA TABLE
2 - CAR GARAGE
4 BEDROOMS / 3 BATHS / LOFT /
OPT. BEDROOM 5 W/ BA. 4
TARGET: 2,350 SQ. FT.
2,374 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3
35 SQ. FT.
TYPICAL GARAGE SECTION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
V i s t a , C a l i f o r n i a
C A M I N O L A R G O 1 2 . 1 6 . 2 1
J:
\
G
R
O
U
P
2 1
\
5 4
9 2
1 2
8 9
\
1 2
8 9
F
L
R
3 B
.
D
W
G
Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100
tel. +1 949 553 9100
fax +1 949 553 0548 5 4 9 . 2 1 2 8 9
Newport Beach, CA USA 92660
0 2 4 8
P L A N 3
R e f l e c t s F a r m h o u s e E l e v a t i o n 11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1274 of 1307
11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1275 of 1307
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION PORCH
2 - CAR GARAGE 429 SQ. FT.
TOTAL 2,374 SQ. FT.
2ND FLOOR 1,310 SQ. FT.
1ST FLOOR 1,064 SQ. FT.
FLOOR AREA TABLE
2 - CAR GARAGE
4 BEDROOMS / 3 BATHS / LOFT /
OPT. BEDROOM 5 W/ BA. 4
TARGET: 2,350 SQ. FT.
2,374 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3
45 SQ. FT.
UP
17 R
GARAGE
20 4 20 6X
ENTRY
KITCHEN
STORAGE
BA. 3
DINING
10 8 13 6X
GREAT
ROOM
18 9 15 9X
BEDROOM 4 /
OPT. OFFICE
10 8 10 0X
PANTRY
MINIMUM 160 CUBIC FEET OF OVER HEAD STORAGE
5 0 . 0 0 '
6 5
.
0 0
'
5'-0"40'-0"5'-0"
18 '
-
0 "
37 '
-
0 "
10 '
-
0 "
10 '
-
0 "
15 '
-
0 "
PORCH
LINEN
BA. 2
28 L.F.MASTER
BATH
LAU.
OPEN TO
BELOW
BEDROOM 2
10 0 12 4X
BEDROOM 3
10 0 10 5X
DN
17 R
LOFT /
OPT. BEDROOM 5
W/ BA 4
13 0 15 4X
MASTER
BEDROOM
17 0 16 0X
OPT.
SINK
OP
T
.
U
P
P
E
R
CA
B
.
OPT. OBSCURE GLASS
TYPICAL GARAGE SECTION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
V i s t a , C a l i f o r n i a
C A M I N O L A R G O 1 2 . 1 6 . 2 1
J:
\
G
R
O
U
P
2 1
\
5 4
9 2
1 2
8 9
\
1 2
8 9
F
L
R
3 C
.
D
W
G
Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100
tel. +1 949 553 9100
fax +1 949 553 0548 5 4 9 . 2 1 2 8 9
Newport Beach, CA USA 92660
0 2 4 8
P L A N 3
R e f l e c t s S p a n i s h R a n c h E l e v a t i o n 11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1276 of 1307
11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1277 of 1307
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING
July 19, 2022
P21-0300
REQUEST: A request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map for 46 single- family dwelling units in the proposed Medium Density Residential land use designation (10 du/ac) and located at 2123 N. Santa Fe Avenue.
APPLICANT: California West Communities
RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Adopt Resolution 2022- , recommending City Council approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for 46 single-family dwelling units located at 2123 N.
Santa Fe Avenue
2. Adopt Resolution 2022- , recommending City
Council approval of a General Plan Amendment,
Zone Change, Site Development Plan and Tentative
Subdivision Map for 46 single-family dwelling units
located at 2123 N. Santa Fe Avenue
LOCATION: The project site is located at 2123 N. Santa Fe Avenue, at the northeast corner of N. Santa Fe Avenue and Camino Largo, between Taylor Street to the south and Osborne Street to the north (APN: 159- 240-07) (see Exhibit 3)
LAND AREA: 9.3 acres
KEY ISSUES: Does the project meet the Development Code requirements for the R-1-13 (Residential) zone and small lot development?
Is the proposed project consistent with the General Plan? BACKGROUND:
On October 17, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and that the City Council make an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the Annexation/Reorganization of Assessor's Parcel Number 159-240-07 (2123 N. Santa Fe Avenue) as well as approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map and Zoning Change (pre -zoning to A-1) for an 8-lot single family residential subdivision located at the northeast corner of North Santa Fe Avenue and Camino Largo, between Taylor Street to the south and Osborne Street to the north (Vote: 6-0-1, Cramer absent).
P21-0300SR
EXHIBIT 6
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1278 of 1307
On December 12, 2017, the City Council approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Subdivision Map and Zoning Change (pre -zoning to A-1) for the 8-lot single-family residential subdivision and approved moving forward with an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the Annexation/Reorganization of Assessor's Parcel Number 159-240-07.
Subsequent to LAFCO's approval of the annexation of subject project site, the property owners attempted to move the project forward but they were not successful in doing so.
After several years of project dormancy and inactivity, California West Communities have decided to propose a different residential product at this location that becomes the subject of this request for consideration by the Planning Commission. Basically, proposing a total of 46 single-family dwelling units and associated site improvements where 8 single-family residential homes were once proposed back in 2017.
I. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Site Description
The project site supports a non -operational commercial palm tree nursery.
The nursery operations consisted of selling palm trees that were grown aboveground and maintained in box stock containers. Remnants of the former nursery remain onsite including hoop frames of the former greenhouses, palm trees in box planters, and piles of green waste. There is a structure that is associated with the former nursery operations located in the south-central portion of the site and trucks and machinery scattered throughout the site. Physical improvements on the site consist of internal dirt access drives, chain link fencing and gates, and wooden electrical transmission poles and overhead wires.
Topographically, there is an east -west trending ridge situated in the north central portion of the project site. Elevations on the project site range from 361 feet amsl at the top of the ridge to 295 amsl in the southwestern corner of the property adjacent to Camino Largo.
The project site is located immediately south of the City's northwest boundary. Land uses surrounding the project site include Osborne Street, rural residential and nurseries to the north, North Coast Church to the north/northwest, rural residential and the single-family homes in the Sandalwood neighborhood to the south, Rancho Guajome Adobe Museum and Rancho Guajome Regional Park (in the City of Oceanside) to the west (see Figure 2 in Attachment A). The closest school to the site is Guajome Park Academy located at 2000 North Santa Fe Avenue, approximately 0.25 mile southwest of the project site. The closest City fire station to the site is Vista Fire Department (VFD) Station No. 3 located at 1070 Old Taylor Road, approximately one mile to the east. The closest police station to the site is the San Diego County Sheriff's Department (SDCSD) located at 30 Main Street Unit G130, approximately two miles southeast of the project site. The nearest public airports to the project site are McClellan Palomar P21-0300SR
11/15/2022 PH1 Page 1279 of 1307
Airport and Oceanside Municipal Airport, each located approximately five miles south and west of the project site, respectively.
B. Project Description
The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map to develop 46 single-family dwelling units, drainage improvements, wet and dry utilities, private streets, common and private open space (including one large common open lawn area), and all associated infrastructure on a 9.3- acre parcel. The 46 proposed units would result in a density of 4.95 dwelling units per acre. Conceptual architectural plans for the homes are proposed and included as part of this request. The project site is currently designated by the General Plan as RR Rural Residential (1 du/ac) and the project would require a General Plan Amendment from RR to Medium Density (MD) residential land use (maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre) and a zone change from A-1 to R-1-B (small lot subdivision), 3,600 square foot lots (minimum size) to accommodate the 46 units on the subject site.
The project includes the conversion of the former nursery to residential land uses. To do so, the project would demolish 10,600 square feet (sf) of existing structures that include a greenhouse and a shed. The 46 homes (4-bedroom plans with optional 5t" bedroom) would range from 2,129 sf to 2,374 sf and extend to a height of no greater than 35 feet. Architecturally, the project would provide three residential styles: Santa Barbara; Farmhouse; and Spanish Ranch, each constructed with stucco facades that are enhanced with wood and brick accents. Flat planes would be disrupted with portions of the residences recessed further from the street front, covered front porches, and pitched roofs. Internally, the development would have commonality by using a neutral color palette while expressing individuality through a variation of architectural features such as shutters, arches, and porch and entryway size and placement. Retaining walls are planned for each lot with maximum heights of approximately five feet.
The project is designed to adhere to the General Plan land use and community design goal of sharing common development patterns among neighborhoods. As such, to complement the existing surrounding residential areas, the project is designed in a manner to reflect the styles of agrarian farmhouse and Spanish ranch architecture.
The 46 single-family homes would provide garage parking for two vehicles with two guest parking spaces on the driveway. An additional 46 open guest parking spaces are distributed throughout the site. In all, a total of 230 parking spaces would be provided onsite.
The project would provide 14,923 sf of common open space along the eastern perimeter of the project site. In addition, the project provides landscaped areas (including slopes) that would support a variety of groundcover and shrubs with mature trees within the eastern and northern P21-0300SR 3
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1280 of 1307
perimeter of the project site as well as within buffers between individual rear yards.
Access would be provided by four private cul-de-sac streets that extend from Camino Largo. Resident parking would be provided via two -car garages and individual driveways with additional parking being provided along both sides of each cul-de-sac private street. Camino Largo would be improved from an unclassified gravel road to a two-way paved street with a curb and gutter system and sidewalks. The pavement along the southern half of Camino Largo would be improved to a minimum width of 28 feet. In addition, the four private cul-de-sac streets would be 40 feet wide curb to curb to accommodate on -street parking on both sides of the streets, which would meet the proposed parking requirements set forth in the small lot subdivision/residential development ordinance adopted by the City Council on May 10, 2022. The project would also include the addition of a stop sign at the intersection of Camino Largo and N. Santa Fe Avenue. In addition, to improve line of sight when turning south onto N. Santa Fe Avenue from Camino Largo, two existing trees would be removed at the southeast corner of Camino Largo and N. Santa Fe Avenue.
To accommodate storm water flows and maintain water quality, a 16,219-sf biofiltration basin would be constructed, in the southwest corner of the project site and an underground storage vault/modular wetland system (MWS) would be constructed along the eastern perimeter of the site.
Additional storm drain facilities including a curb and gutter system would be part of the project design. Other new and/or upgraded onsite infrastructure would connect locally to existing water, sewer and storm drain infrastructure that are within an existing easement that parallels Camino Largo.
An electrical transmission line and pole that currently traverse the site would be removed and electrical utilities would be undergrounded. A quitclaim of the current San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) utility easement noted on the Tentative Subdivision Map would occur with a new easement created for the underground infrastructure.
The project would be constructed in one phase. Project construction activities would consist of demolition; site preparation; grading; installation of underground utilities, and internal streets paving; building construction; and architectural coatings. Subject to the City's approvals, demolition is slated to commence in November 2022, with grading and trenching for underground infrastructure to begin in late winter/early spring 2023. Site paving and construction of the homes follow, with project completion anticipated in fall of 2023. In all, the project would include 40,950 cubic yards (cy) of export.
Proposed drainage improvements would include curbs and gutters, curb inlets, swales, catch basins, concrete brow ditches, and storm drain P21-0300SR 4
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1281 of 1307
pipes. The improvements would convey on -site storm water runoff through one biofiltration basin (BMP-A) and one underground vault (BMP-2, detention for the 100-year storm event).
Biofiltration basins and storm drain system would accommodate existing drainage through the site with total discharge not exceeding pre - development conditions. The storm drain system would be capable of handling a 100-year storm event as mentioned above and would include post -construction water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) in accordance with local, regional, and State stormwater regulations.
The proposed project involves the construction of 46 single-family residences, which would increase the impervious surface area at the site.
The project runoff would be treated by the proposed biofiltration basin and the underground stormwater vault/MWS. Runoff from the westerly half of the project would enter a biofiltration basin at the southwest corner of the site. A proposed storm drain would convey the treated runoff out of the biofiltration basin and to a culvert along North Santa Fe Avenue and eventually the unnamed drainage that parallels Camino Largo. A proposed storm drain would convey the treated runoff from an underground stormwater vault/ MWS situated in the eastern portion of the site and discharge towards the unnamed natural drainage course that parallels the south side of Camino Largo. Thus, similar to existing conditions, runoff from the project site would ultimately enter the unnamed drainage. A Hydromodification Screening was prepared for the project to quantify the project's erosion susceptibility rating (low, medium, or high).
The analysis involved a channel screening analysis that established the limits of the study area and included a field survey in addition to archival research. The conclusion of the Hydromodification Screening is that the project has an overall low susceptibility to erosion both onsite and offsite within the unnamed channel and the limits of the study area. Therefore, analysis concluded that the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Impacts would be less than significant.
Dry utilities that include electric, gas, and telecommunication infrastructure would be extended to the site from existing infrastructure, and the current overhead electrical lines that traverse the site would be undergrounded across the site and reconnected to the existing infrastructure off site.
C. Required Approvals
The project is a proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to City Council, and ultimately the City Council is authorized to approve the project.
Following approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map, the developer has a period of three years (with additional extensions of two or more years P21-0300SR 5
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1282 of 1307
granted by the State under various Assembly and Senate Bills if applicable at that time) to process a Final Map, otherwise the Tentative Subdivision Map expires. The Final Map can be approved by the City Council when a licensed engineer submits a map which substantially complies with the Tentative Subdivision Map and satisfies the applicable conditions, including the completion of street and other public improvements or the provision of bonds guaranteeing the construction of those improvements, typically within one year. Upon recordation of the Final Map, a legal lot is created and homes may be constructed. Consistent with State law and City policy, associated discretionary permits approved in conjunction with a subdivision map are also valid for the term and life of the map.
D. Zoning/Existing Land Use
Subject property (Existing): A-1 (Residential) Zone/non-operational commercial palm tree nursery
Subject property (Proposed): R-1-B (Residential) Small Lot Residential Development
Surrounding property:
North: Limited Agricultural Use (A- 70) (County of SD) and Commercial (C-1) (City of Vista) / Single-family residential, agricultural fields, and ranches
East: A-1 (Residential) Zone/single-family residential units South: A-1 (Residential) Zone/single-family residential unit West: E-1 (Residential) Zone/Antique Gas and Steam Engine Museum
E. General Plan Land Use Designation
Subject property (Existing): Rural Residential (RR) 1 du/ac Subject property (Proposed): Medium Density Residential (MD), maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre
Surrounding property:
North: Semi -Rural Residential (SR-1) (County of SD) and Neighborhood Commercial (CN) (City of Vista)
East: Rural Residential (RR), maximum of one dwelling unit per acre
South: Low Density (LD), maximum of two dwelling units per acre West: Open Space (OP)
F. Environmental Review
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the proposed project, which is included as Exhibit "A" to Exhibit 1. The mitigation requirements are summarized in Appendix J of the MND. The public review period started on May 11, 2022 and ended on May 30, 2022. Five comment letters were received during that period, and written responses were prepared (contained in Appendix I of the MND).
P21-0300SR
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1283 of 1307
II. ANALYSIS
A. Zonina and General Plan Conformance
The project site is currently designated by the General Plan as Rural Residential (RR) at 1 du/ac. The project is proposing a designation of Medium Density (MD) residential land use (maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre) that would allow a maximum of 93 units on the subject site.
Therefore, the proposed 46 single-family homes under this project would be consistent with the proposed General Plan designation for the site of Medium Density Residential. The proposed density of approximately 4.95 dwelling units per acre is below the maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre permitted by the proposed General Plan designation. The site would be re- zoned R-1-B, single-family zone as a small lot subdivision in accordance with Chapter 18.33 of the Development Code.
Small Lot Development
Small lot development regulations were adopted by the City Council on May 10, 2022 subsequent to receiving Planning Commission's recommendation of approval for these new regulations. Small lot subdivisions are intended to provide an alternative to the traditional single- family subdivisions, thereby increasing options for fee simple homeownership opportunities.
Development standards in the small lot subdivision ordinance concerning minimum lot area, lot width, parking, open space, landscaping, storage, building height and setbacks are being applied in this case. Conceptual architectural plans for the homes are proposed and included as part of this request. Building permits will be required for subsequent development of the single-family units on the site, which will be limited by the building height and setback standards as shown on the conceptual site development plans - typical lot detail. The minimum lot size requirement of 3,600 square feet is being met. The maximum allowable building height is 35 feet or two stories, whichever is less. The proposed height for the units is a maximum of 29 feet. The minimum lot width of 45 feet applies and proposed lots are approximately 50 feet wide meeting this standard. Four parking spaces per lot is required where all lots are proposing two car garages and two spaces on the driveway. On -street parking is being provided on both sides of the private streets for a total of 46 on -street parking spaces for this project.
All areas not occupied by structures, driveways, parking areas and pedestrian walkways shall have landscaping in the form of street trees, landscaped parkways, and slope erosion control planting, therefore the project meets this requirement. The overall landscaping of the project would consist of a variety of native and non-native evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs that would provide shade, ornamental accents, slope stabilization, and integration of the development into the existing surrounding landscape. Non-native vines would be used for freestanding and any plantable walls where applicable; non-native and P21-0300SR 7
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1284 of 1307
native shrubs would be used on slopes; turf or grass would be limited to the open space areas; and primarily native plants would be used for the biofiltration basins. Plant selection is based on the Water Efficient Landscaping ordinance in the City's Development Code, Chapter 18.56.
All of the proposed plant species would require low or moderate water use and would be fairly drought tolerant, with the exception of the turf areas which would require high water use.
Common usable open space requirements would also be satisfied through the provision of one open space/park area totaling 14,923 square feet. A total of 9,200 square feet of common usable open space is required for this project, therefore this requirement is being met on the site. Further, 9,200 square feet of private usable open space would be divided among the 46 units, meeting the minimum required 200 square feet of private usable open space per unit with a minimum 10-foot dimension.
Minimum setbacks are required as follows: 20 feet front yard from driveway line to face of garage and 10 feet front yard from driveway line to the remainder of the residential unit; 5 feet side yard with no encroachments allowed; and 10 feet rear yards with no encroachments allowed. The project, as proposed, is meeting all setback requirements.
Each home will include a minimum 160 cubic feet enclosable overhead storage cabinet in the garage. Proposed units would be constructed per the requirements of the California Building Code (CBC) that is in effect at the time building plans are submitted for permit approvals (including CALGreen requirements), and would include Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) units mounted on the ground.
As proposed, the project is consistent with applicable development standards for a small lot development in the R-1-B zone.
B. Biological Resources
Vegetation on the project site is limited to ornamental vegetation, including Eucalyptus, Mexican fan palm, Canary Island date palm, and Peruvian pepper tree as well as non-native species and non-native grass, which is mowed on an annual basis. During the due diligence for the project site and the vegetation surveying conducted in January 2022, no sensitive plant or any animal species were observed.
The project site contains trees and shrubs that could support nesting sites for bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
Impacts to nesting birds could occur if vegetation clearing were to take place during the avian breeding season (generally February 1 to August 31). Mitigation Measure BR-1 reduces potential impacts to nesting birds to less than significant as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
P21-0300SR
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1285 of 1307
C. Land Use Compatibility
The subject property is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east, and south. Therefore, the proposed single-family residential project is compatible with adjacent land uses.
D. Public Service Availability
All public services and utilities are at the site boundaries and can be extended to serve the project and all utility providers have indicated that they are able to provide services to the 46 proposed residential units.
E. Traffic Impacts
The project proposes 46 single-family dwelling units which will generate a total of 460 trips per day as identified in the Local Transportation Study report prepared by LLG, November 30, 2021. Because the project will generate less than 500 trips per day, the project is concluded to have no significant transportation impacts (VMT or Vehicle Miles Traveled) for purposes of CEQA and no VMT related improvements are required and VMT analysis is not needed. Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) resulted in a shift in the measure of effectiveness for determining transportation impacts from Level of Service (LOS) and vehicular delay to VMT. As of July 1, 2020, VMT analyses are required for use in all CEQA documents.
Transit service in Vista is provided by the North County Transit District (NCTD). Within the project area, NCTD operates two bus routes: Route 303 is a high frequency route that travels between the Oceanside Transit Center and the Vista Transit Center and travels along North Santa Fe Avenue in the project area; Route 318 also travels between the Oceanside Transit Center and the Vista Transit Center and travels along Bobier Drive, within one mile of the project site. Route 303 has a bus stop approximately
0.10 mile south of the project site. The project would not affect these existing bus operations or facilities.
F. Noise
Construction noise is governed by the City's Noise Element (2012).
Pursuant to the City's noise abatement criteria, construction activities are limited to Monday through Saturday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The maximum permissible noise level for construction activities is 75 dBA measured over eight hours of continuous construction (or Leq- 8h). This noise level is measured at or within the property lines of any property that is developed and used either in part or whole for residential purposes. Thus, for the purposes of analysis, construction operations at the project site would be deemed in compliance if the 75 dBA Leq-8h noise contour does not touch the closest residential property line.
Ambient noise levels were conducted at the project site approximately 600 feet east of N. Santa Fe Avenue. During this short-term measurement, noise levels of 47.1 dBA were taken. Furthermore, noise levels 100 feet P21-0300SR 9
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1286 of 1307
from N. Santa Fe Avenue would be approximately 62.7 dBA CNEL.1 By both measures, construction noise levels would likely exceed the existing ambient noise environment by 10 dBA. The following mitigation measure would incorporate a construction noise management plan including the use of temporary sound barriers to reduce noise levels at neighboring NSLUs.
A Construction Management Plan that describes the measures included on the construction plans to ensure compliance with the noise limit shall be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to the City of Vista Planning Division for approval prior to issuance of the grading permit.
Specific measures further outlined in the MND are to be included in order to reduce construction noise. Temporary sound barriers or sound blankets may be installed between construction operations and adjacent noise - sensitive receptors. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas to be located as far as practicable from noise sensitive receptors.
G. Public Policv Consideration
General Plan/Development Code/Design Guidelines Conformance:
The proposed project is consistent with the Development Code, Design Guidelines, and proposed General Plan designation for the site of Medium Density Residential. The proposed density of approximately 4.95 dwelling units per acre is below the maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre permitted by the General Plan.
III. REQUIRED FINDINGS:
The draft findings for approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map are included in the attached Resolution (Exhibit 2).
IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
The project, as proposed, meets the requirements of the City's Development Code for a small lot subdivision in the R-1-B zone as it would be consistent with the proposed General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential (10 du/ac) for the site. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map.
UET-To i M I• -•
�2�
Patsy Chow
Deputy Director of Community Development / City Planner 1 CNEL metric includes evening and nighttime noise levels. Construction would not occur during those hours.
P21-0300SR 10
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1287 of 1307
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution 2022- , recommending City Council approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration with Exhibit "A"
2. Resolution 2022- , recommending City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map with Exhibits "A" and "B"
3. Location Map
4. Project Plans — full size (limited distribution)
P21-0300SR
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1288 of 1307
COMMISSIONERS
Chair Rick Rosaler, Vice Chair Charles Grimm,
John Aguilera, Garry Garretson, Beth Hastings,
Don Looney, John Savage
STUDENT COMMISSIONERS
Kassani Rio Herrera, Peter Childs
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 19, 2022
MINUTES
The July 19, 2022, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Rosaler at 6:00 pm.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Rick Rosaler, Vice Chair Charles Grimm, Garry Garretson, Don Looney, Beth Hastings, John Savage,
Student Commissioners: Peter Childs, Kassani Rio Herrera COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
John Aguilera
STAFF PRESENT:
City Planner & Deputy Director of Community Development Patsy Chow Principal Planner Michael Ressler
Associate Planner Raffi Mangassarian
Deputy City Attorney Amanda Guy
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Rosaler led the Pledge of Allegiance
AGENDA CHANGES:
Deputy Director Patsy Chow stated that there are no changes to the agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Garretson moved to approve the minutes of July 5, 2022. Seconded by Cmnr. Savage.
MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED: Vote 6-0 (Aguilera absent)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
11 /15/2022 200 Civic Center Drive Vista, ca s2084 1 78U-726-134U cityetv;sta.cePage 1289 of 1307
Planning Commission - Minutes
July 19, 2022
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
PH1. P21-0130 — Melrose Way Subdivision — Zoran Djordjevich, Pacific International Investments, Inc.
The project applicant, Zoran Djordjevich, is requesting approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Subdivision Map and Density Bonus for a 15-Lot single family residential subdivision at 1205 Melrose Way (APNs 166-184-10-00, 166-184-09-00 and 166-183-17-00).
Associate Planner Raffi Mangassarian presented the staff report.
Erin McKinley provided applicant's presentation.
Planning Commission comments:
• Desired transition / land uses
• Density
• Waivers / concessions circumstances
• Affordable Housing unit(s) - Deed restrictions — 55 years Chair Rosaler opened the public hearing.
SPEAKERS:
• Erin McKinley (applicant) — in favor
• Chris Robbins — in opposition
• Amanda Olivas — in favor
• Christine Manier — in opposition
• Carla McMillan — in favor
• Ben Williams — in favor
• Lorren Etienne — no position stated on speaker card
• Maria Martin- in favor
Chair Rosaler closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission comments:
• No architecture or floor plans presented
• Compatibility issues
• ADU questions
• Is this the appropriate place for infill?
• General Plan / Zone Change legislative — recommendation going to City Council • Proposal not in the best interest of the community — not in support of project 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1290 of 1307
Planning Commission - Minutes
July 19, 2022
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE
CHANGE, AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP INCLUDING A DENSITY BONUS FOR A 15-LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 1205 MELROSE WAY (APNS 166-184-10-00, 166-184-09-00, AND 166-183-17-00)
NO ACTION TAKEN
MOTION BY CMNR. LOONEY TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION, SECONDED BY CMNR. GARRETSON
2. ADOPT RESOLUTION 2022-14, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
DENIAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, AND
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP INCLUDING A DENSITY BONUS FOR A 15-LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 1205 MELROSE WAY (APNS 166-184-10-00, 166-184-09-00, AND 166- 183-17-00)
MOTION CARRIED: Vote 6-0 (Aguilera absent)
Five-minute break
PH2. P21-0300 — Camino Largo - California West Communities A request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map for 46 single-family dwelling units located at 2123 N. Santa Fe Avenue (APN: 159-240-07-00).
City Planner & Deputy Director of Community Development Patsy Chow presented staff report.
Arlene Tendrick provided applicant's presentation.
Planning Commission comments:
• Parking requirements
• City Council prelim discussion item (previously done) — no formal vote • Junior ADU possibility
• Slope maintenance — HOA exhibit
• Sales price
• Fencing — 6-foot-tall fence
• Recorded easement
• Sidewalk improvements / intersection improvements at Osborne Chair Rosaler opened the public hearing.
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1291 of 1307
Planning Commission - Minutes
July 19, 2022
SPEAKERS:
• Arlene Tendick (applicant) — in favor
• Gabriel Jacobs — in opposition
• Chris Jacobs — in opposition
• Michael Jacobs — no position stated on the speaker card • Phil Church — neutral
• Gary Gilman — in opposition
• Mary Cottle — in opposition
• Teri Ardito — in opposition
• Joseph Gregory — in opposition
• Ryan Jacobs — in opposition
• John Simone — in opposition
• Leigh Dick — in opposition
• Ursula Sack — in opposition
• Tyler Martin — in favor
Chair Rosaler closed the public hearing.
Twenty -five-minute break
Rod Bradley with BHA — roadway explanation provided — Camino Largo private street Kara Palm with Helix Environmental — off -site blue line stream, cannot confirm status since not previously studied, not part of the project
Planning Commission comments:
• Entitlements run with the land
• Road detail on Camino Largo
• Camino Largo only in -and -out access
• Future widening of N. Santa Fe Avenue
• Stream boundary
• Concerned about unit size / price of homes
• More amenities — recreation — pool — dog run —tot lot • Density of proposed project not compatible with adjacent properties
1. RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR 46 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS
LOCATED AT 2123 N. SANTA FE AVENUE
NO ACTION TAKEN
MOTION BY CMNR. GRIMM TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION, SECONDED BY CMNR. GARRETSON
2. ADOPT RESOLUTION 2022-13, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
DENIAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SITE
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1292 of 1307
Planning Commission - Minutes
July 19, 2022
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 46
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS LOCATED AT 2123 N. SANTA FE AVENUE
MOTION CARRIED: Vote 6-0 (Aguilera absent)
REPORTS/COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS
• None
City Planner & Deputy Director of Community Development Patsy Chow • No meeting in August (tentative)
• September 6, 2022, housing related topics
• Discussion regarding annexation and zoning in general ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Rosaler adjourned the meeting at 10:02PM.
SECRETARY
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1293 of 1307
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2022-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CHARTERED
CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF
A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 46 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES LOCATED AT 2123 N. SANTA FE AVENUE
APPLICANT: CALIFORNIA WEST COMMUNITIES
PLANNING CASE NO. P21-0300
The Planning Commission of the City of Vista does resolve as follows:
Findings. The Planning Commission hereby finds and declares the following:
A. Pursuant to Section 18.48.020 of the Vista Development Code, the applicant, California West Communities, has submitted an application for a project located at 2123 N. Santa Fe Avenue, as follows:
A General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map to construct 46 single-family dwelling units on a 9.3-acre site located at 2123 N. Santa Fe Avenue. The project proposes to construct 46 homes, open space amenities, guest parking, and associated site improvements.
B. On July 19, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map on a property generally described as follows:
A 9.3-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of N. Santa Fe Avenue and Camino Largo, addressed as 2123 N. Santa Fe Avenue, and also known as Assessor's Parcel Number 159-240-07-00.
C. On July 19, 2022, the Planning Commission did not take action regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project;
D. Pursuant to Title 17 of the Vista Development Code, the Planning Commission did consider the recommendations of the City Planner, City Engineer, the Vista Irrigation District, and the San Diego Gas and Electric Company, or their authorized representatives, with respect to appropriate fire flow, fire hydrants, public improvements and connections to be installed, and such other agencies as may have been deemed necessary by the Community Development Director, pertaining to the project;
E. Following the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the General P18-0117 res EXHIBIT 7
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1294 of 1307
RESOLUTION 2022-13
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA
PAGE 2
Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map, including the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit A, will be presented to the City Council for a final decision;
F. At the public hearing staff reports both written and oral were received in evidence, and all persons desiring to speak on the project were heard. At the conclusion of said hearing, after consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission made certain findings and reached a decision on the project as hereinafter set forth.
2. Action.
A. The above recitations are true and correct.
B. The Planning Commission does not make the following findings with regard to the request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for 46 single- family homes as proposed by the applicant:
1. The General Plan, Land Use and Community Identity (LUCI) Element, Goal 2 promotes the preservation and enhancement of neighborhoods that share common development patterns, topography, major streets, and zoning patterns.
The proposed General Plan Amendment for 46 single-family homes on a 9.3-acre site would not be compatible or consistent with existing surrounding single-family residential development and their large lot sizes. The proposed amendment would also not help preserve existing neighborhoods that surround the project site.
2. The proposed Zone Change from A-1 (Agricultural) for single-family residential use and other related uses to R-1-13 (Residential) small lot development would allow for residential development at much higher density compared to existing one dwelling unit per acre zoning for the subject property and nearby properties abutting the site. At the same time, the proposed zone change would diminish the amount of rural zoned land that is currently available in the city.
C. The Planning Commission does not recommend approval of the request for a Site Development Permit to develop 46 single-family homes, including associated site improvements, as that approval is predicated upon consistency with all applicable elements of the General Plan and Development Code regulations. Consistency with the General Plan proposed designation for the project site of Medium Density (MD) residential cannot be found absent approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
D. The Planning Commission does not recommend approval of the request for a Tentative Subdivision Map as that approval is predicated upon consistency with all general and specific plans. Consistency with the General Plan proposed designation for the project site of Medium Density (MD) residential cannot be found absent approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
P21-0300 res
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1295 of 1307
RESOLUTION 2022-13
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA
PAGE 3
E. In view of the necessary findings, and considering the applicable law, the decision of the Planning Commission is to recommend City Council denial of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, and Tentative Subdivision Map to develop 46 single-family homes and associated site improvements on 9.3 acres of land located at 2123 N. Santa Fe Avenue (APN 159-240-07-00).
3. Recommendation. DENIED at a regular meeting held on the 19t" day of July, 2022, by the Vista Planning Commission by the following vote:
AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Rosaler, Savage, Grimm, Hastings, Garretson, Looney
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:1 COMMISSIONERS: Aguilera
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Walter Chung, Acting City Attorney
1-.0
Exhibits:
A. Project Plans
RICHARD ROSALER, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
Secretary
IIn
P21-0300 res
11 /15/2022
PH1 Page 1296 of 1307
DOC # 2009-0419582
IIIII I IIlIIIIlI IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII III JUL 28, 2009 2:18 PM
OFFICIAL RECORDS
=AN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE
DAVID L. BUTLER, COUNT`i' RECOFDER
FEES: 0.00 WAY ,: 2
OC: NA
PAGES: 10
IIIIII IIIII IIIII I lli IIII1 IIIII hill 1111111111111 hill hill IIIII hill IIIII 1111 IIII RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
CITY OF VISTA THIS DOCUMENT BEING RECORDED
AFTER RECORDING, PLEASE WITHOUT FEE TO BENEFIT THE
RETURN ,THIS INSTRUMENT TO: CITY OF VISTA
CITY OF VISTA -CITY CLERK
600 EUCALYPTUS AVENUE DOCUMENTARY TRA SFER TAX $
VISTA, CA. 92084 SIGNATURE
OPEN SPACE EASEMENT
APN NO. 159-240-15-00
PC 09-222 2133 NORTH SANTA FE AVENUE
KWW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT ON THIS DAY OF
sJ ►-+ III e , 2001 , GRANTOR(S) THE MIKLOS S.
ZSIROS AND SLOAN T. ZSIROS REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST, OF THE
CITY OF VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND
OWNERS OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED LANDS, FOR A VALUABLE
CONSIDERATION, THE RECEIPT WHEREOF IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, AND THE BENEFITS TO ACCRUE TO THEM, WE DO, BY THESE PRESENTS.
HEREBY GRANT, CONVEY AND DEDICATE TO THE CITY OF VISTA, A
CHARTERED MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, COUNTY OF SAN DIE -GO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GRANTEE, AN EASEMENT FOR OPEN SPACE UPON,
OVER AND ACROSS THE SAID LANDS, HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, LYING
AND BEING WITHIN THE CITY OF VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
THE GRANTORS ARE THE OWNERS OF CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO, AND REFERRED TO AS "THE SUBJECT PROPERTY":
11 /15/2022
EXHIBIT 8
PH1
OPEN SPACE EASEMENT
PC 09-222 APN NO. 159-240-15-00
2. THE REAL PROPERTY OF THE GRANTORS IS SHOWN ON THE
GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF VISTA AS OPEN SPACE TO BE PRESERVED IN ITS NATURAL STATE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
THE PRESERVATION OF THE GRANTORS PROPERTY AS OPEN SPACE
IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY OF VISTA BECAUSE THE LAND IS
UNIMPROVED AND PRESERVES THE SEMI -RURAL CHARACTER OF THE CITY OF VISTA.
4, THE GRANTORS, SUBJECT TO THE RESERVATIONS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO, WISH TO GRANT TO THE CITY OF
VISTA THE USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THEREBY PROTECT THE
PRESENT AND FUTURE OPEN SPACE, BY THE RESTRICTIVE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY BY THE GRANTORS.
NOW THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMISES, THE
GRANTORS GRANT AND CONVEY TO THE CITY OF VISTA, A CHARTERED
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AN OPEN SPACE EASEMENT OF THE NATURE AND
CHARACTER AND TO THE EXTENT HEREINAFTER EXPRESSED, ON THAT CERTAIN
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE THERETO.
THIS EASEMENT SHALL CONSTITUTE A SERVITUDE UPON THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY, WHICH RESULTS FROM THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THIS INSTRUMENT UPON THE USE OF THE PROPERTY BY GRANTORS. TO THAT END
AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCOMPLISHING THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES, THE
GRANTORS DO COVENANT GRANTEE TO DO AND REFRAIN FROM DOING
SEVERALLY AND COLLECTIVELY UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE VARIOUS ACTS HEREINAFTER MENI"IONED. IT IS THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES
THAT THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY THIS
EASEMENT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN THE OPEN SPACE EASEMENT ACT OF 1974 BEGINNING WITH SECTION 51070 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
THE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS PLACED ON SAID PROPERTY ARE SET FORTH IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT "B", AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE THERETO.
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1298 of 1307
OPEN SPACE EASEMENT
PC 09-222 APN NO. 159-240-15-00
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE GRANTORS HAVE EXECUTED THIS EASEMENT THE DAY AND YEAR FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN_
THE MIKLOS S. ZSIROS AND SLOAN T. ZSIROS REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST Print Name and Title
Signature
Print Name and Title
Signatu
NOTE: MUST ATTACH CALIFORNIA ALI, PURPOSE NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT
FOR EACH SIGNATURE ABOVE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY CONVEYED BY THIS
DOCUMENT TO THE CITY OF VISTA, A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, IS HEREBY
ACCEPTED BY THE UNDERSIGNED OFFICER ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF VISTA, PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY RESOLUTION NO. 93-5 t OF THE CITY COUNCIL; ADOPTED ON MAY 11, 1993, AND THE GRANTEE CONSENTS TO RECORDATION THEREOF BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
DATED: �p�%/ �'%
BY: ft �
LAWRENCE D. PIERCE, CITY ENGINEER
APPROVED AS TO FORM
DAROLD PIEPER, CITY ATTORNEY
By G
Date I ^ I r
11 /15/2022
PH1
State of California
County of ^ 2_'n b d ep O
On b('- ++
Date
personally appeared
s«, °• OFFICIAL SEAL
y ASH NICKLE
=m� +Ta�NOTARYPUBLIC•CAUFORNIA9
cc
COMM. NO. 1538900
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
° www.Nationa] Notary.org Item #5907 Reorder: Call Tall -Free 1-800-676-6827 11 /15/2022
PH1
OPEN SPACE EASEMENT
PC 09-222 APN NO. 159-240-15-00
LENDERS SUBORDINATION AND CONSENT
THE UNDERSIGNED, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
BENEFICIARY UNDER THAT CERTAIN DEED OF TRUST RECORDED ON October 19, 2006 199 /200 AS INSTRUMENT
2006-0742437
NO. , IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE WITHIN EASEMENT
DOCUMENT AND HEREBY SUBORDINATES THE LIEN OF SAID DEED OF TRUST TO
THE LIEN AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE WITHIN EASEMENT DOCUMENT THE MIKLOS S. ZSIROS AND SLOAN T. Z.SIROS REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST (NAME OF TRUSTOR(S) — OWNER OF PROPERTY)
MORTGAGE FLECTRONIC RECTSTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
(NAME OF LENDING INSTrrUTION — rgLC�XX beneficiary
Qa' rr��r'• BY-
p .
4�~;�v�P NAME:
SEAL "
Ci
"
!�Jli1li9l4`t BY-
NAME:
TITLE:
PEGGY LINDER
V.P.
MICHAEL T. OLIVER
V.P.
X"Ckx11+ ALL PURPOSE NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR EACH
SIGNATURE ABOVE}
m
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1301 of 1307
State of North Carolina
County of Wake
On April 20, 2009, before me, Cynthia E. Lawrence, personally appeared Peggy Linder and Michael T. Oliver, as officers of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (beneficiary), who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by their signatures on the instrument, the persons or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PURJURY under the laws of the State of North Carolina that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
CYNTHIA E. LAWRENCE
NOTARY PUBLIC
wake County, North Carolina
commission moires October 3, 2011
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 1302 of 1307
r
EXHIBIT A Pay- � of z
PARCEL `C'
(Open Space Easement)
All that portion of the East Half of Section 12, Township 11 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base & Meridian, according to Official Plat of said land filed in the District Land Office, February 20, 1971 and a portion of Lot 5 of Rancho Guajome and lands adjoining to Map in Superior Court Case No. 10201, on file in the Office of the County Clerk of said County, being within the City of Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast comer of said Section 12; thence along the East boundary of said Section, North 00°17'07" East, a distance of 2334.72 feet; thence leaving said East line, North 64°21'53" West, a distance of 161.34 feet, to the southeasterly most corner of land described in deed to The Miklos S. Zsiros and Sloan T. Zsiros Revocable Family Trust, recorded: October 20, 2006, as Document No. 2006-0746666 of Official Records, also being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said line, North 64°21'53" West, a distance of 158.64 feet; thence South 71°47'07" West, a distance of 1200.40 feet, to the easterly right-of-way line of Santa Fe Avenue; thence northerly along said easterly line, North 17°21'00" West, a distance of 103.55 feet, to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the west having a radius of 950.00 feet and a central angle of 2°49'36"; thence northerly and northwesterly along said curve, an are distance of 46.87 feet, thence leaving said sideline, South 73°07'57" East, a distance of
50.60 feet; thence South 67°33`29" East, a distance of 70.48 feet; thence North 779 P55" East, a distance of 87.45 feet; thence North 66°07'07" East, a distance of 125.00 feet; thence North 64°37'28" East, a distance of 254.59 feet; thence North 23°52'53" West, a distance of 195.97 feet, to the southerly line of land described in deed to Kyun Tae Kim, recorded June 7, 2007, in Document No. 2007-0386110 of Official Records; thence northeasterly along said southerly, line, North 66°07'07" East, a distance of 465.91 feet; thence South 88°20'53" East, a distance of 431.09 feet, to the northeast corner of said Zsiros lands; thence southerly along said Zsiros lands, South 00° 17'07" West, a distance of 170.00 feet; thence South 88020'53" East, a distance of 10.00 feet; thence South 00°l T07" West, a distance of 158.72 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Together with all rights associated with the Grant of Reciprocal Easement for ingress & egress for all present & future owners of subject property as described in deed between Miklos S. Zsiros & Sloan T. Zsiros, individually and as Trustees of the Zsiros Revocable Family Trust, established 05-13-04; Kyun Tae Kim and Frank Sohaei, Trustee of the Falor Family Trust, recorded November 6, 2007, as Document No. 2007-0706045 of Official Records.
11 /15/2022
��� LAND .
v Ar M
e Exp
OP C
PH 1 Page 1303 of 1307
EXHIBIT A Page 2 o f Z
(OPEN SPACE EASEMENT)
EAST LINE, SECTION 12
NE CORNER
ZSIROS LAND
2 �° ��g• N 642153
5864, 41y
PARCEL C
NOT
U, A
PART
0 r`
0 © �ilr1
28'
QP
cv
4�
SOUTH LINE LAND TO
KYUN TAE KIM,
DOC# 2007-0386110
REC: 6-07-2007
RECIPROCAL ACCESS
5 EASEMENT PER
q,
DOC # 2007-0706045
4 REC: 11-06-2007
50, —
�,T & F. AVENUES
a
0 Lo
= o
Lo o N
0 N O
ad :2 ,
a
00 100 0 200 401
- -- '0 -
TABULATI❑N
O
BEARING DELTA
RADIUS
LENGTH
1 N 1721 '00" W
-
103.55'
2 02 49'36"
950.00'
46.87'
3 N 73 0757" W
-
50. 60'
4 N 673349" W
—
70.48'
5 N 7731 '55" E
—
87. 45'
6 N 66 07'07" E
—
125.00'
7 N 64 37'28" E
—
254.59
8 N 23 5253" W
—
195.97'
9 N 18'12'53" W
—
20.00'
10 N 7147'07" E
-
20.00'
11 N 88 20'53" W
-
10. 00'
SOUTH LINE OF LAND
TO ZSIROS TRUST
DOC # 2006-0746666
REC: 10-20-2006
(RS 392)
IAID
A
IS 941
V.12/31/08 Ak
If
°F cAti��
bhA,inc,
land planning, cM engineering, surveying
5115 AVENIDA ENCENAS
SUITE V
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387
(760) 931-8700 _ _
r
OPEN SPACE EASEMENT
PC 09-222 APN NO. 159-240-15-00
EXHIBIT "B"
FIRST: THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHALL BE USED FOR NO PURPOSES OTHER
THAN THOSE WHICH WILL MAINTAIN THE EXISTING RURAL CHARACTER OF THE S ITE.
SECOND: THE GRANTORS, THEIR SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, SHALL REFRAIN FROM DOING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTS UPON TffE SUBJECT PROPERTY;
PLACE OR ERECT ANY BUILDING, STRUCTURE OR PAVING UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
2. NO DRAINAGE STRUCTURE MAY BE PLACED WITHIN THE EASEMENT
UNLESS IT CONFORMS TO THE OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION
ELEMENTS OF THE DIRECTORS OF PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS. 3 NO TREE WITH A DIAMETER OF FOUR INCHES (4") OR GREATER OR SHRUB TWO FEET (2') HIGH ABOVE GROUND LEVEL MAY BE
REMOVED WITHOUT THE UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OF THE
DIRECTORS OF PUBLIC WORKS, PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
SERVICES.
4. ANY REMOVAL OF THE TREES OR SHRUBS LISTED IN NO. 3 WILL
REQUIRE REPLACEMENT WITH LIVE TREES OR SHRUBS AS
REQUIRED BY THE D[RECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.
5. ALL OTHER MAINTENANCE PROVIDED SHALL BE AS REQUIRED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.
THIRD: THE GRANTORS, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES, THEIR SUCCESSORS
AND ASSIGNS, EXPRESSLY RESERVE THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES 11 /15/2022
PH 1 Page 1305 of 1307
OPEN SPACE EASEMENT
PC 09-222 APN NO. 159-240- l 5-00
WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, TO WIT:
ALL USES, OCCUPANCY, INGRESS AND EGRESS TO, IN AND UPON THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY, NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE RESTRICTIONS
SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED ABOVE, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO
PROHIBIT ENTRY THEREON BY AUTHORIZED PERSONS.
2. THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP WATER SOURCES, INCLUDING SPRINGS,
AND TO LAY, CONSTRUCT, REPAIR AND REPLACE UNDERGROUND
PIPES AND CONDUITS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF WATER.
THE RIGHT TO MANAGE THE LAND AND ITS RESOURCES IN A
MANNER CONSISTENT WITH ACCEPTED PRINCIPALS OF
CONSERVATION PRACTICES.
FOURTH: IN THE EVENT AN ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN FOR
CONDEMNATION OF ANY INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS FILED OR
WHEN IT IS ACQUIRED IN LIEU OF EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
BY A PUBLIC AGENCY OR PERSON, THOSE RESTRICTIONS ARE NULL AND VOID AS TO SUCH INTEREST IN LAND ACTUALLY BEING CONDEMNED OR ACQUIRED.
FIFTH: THIS GRANT SHALL BIND THE SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS OF THE
GRANTORS, SHALL CONSTITUTE A SERVITUDE UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,
AND THE RESERVATION SHALL INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE GRANTORS, THEIR SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS TO THE EXTENT HEREINABOVE PROVIDED. 11 /15/2022
PH1
ADD TO PACKET
From: everett(cadelanoanddelano.com
To: Kathy Valdez
Cc: Patsy Chow
Subject: 11-15-22 City Council Meeting, Item PHI: Camino Largo Project and MND Date: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:49:31 AM
Attachments: Letter to City of Vista City Council re Camino Larao Proiect and MND.Ddf Hiahliahted Camino Largo Site Plan.pdf
Letter to City of Vista Plannina Commission re Camino Larao Proiect and MND.Ddf Comments to City of Vista re Revised MND re Camino Largo Proiect.pdf Please ensure the attached are provided to the Mayor and City Council prior to their consideration of Camino Largo Project and MIND.
Please confirm receipt.
Thank you,
Everett DeLano
DeLano & DeLano
104 W. Grand Ave., Suite A
Escondido, CA 92025
(760) 741-1200
www.delanoanddelano.com
PH1
1 iL"@�
oiio
DELANO ♦ DELANO
November 14, 2022
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Vista
200 Civic Center Dr.
Vista, CA 92084
Re: November 15 2022 Meeting Agenda Item PHI � P21-0300 Camino Largo Project and MND
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:
This letter is submitted on behalf of Guajome Alliance for Responsible Development ("GUARD") in connection with the proposed Camino Largo project ("Project") and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND").
L The City has Failed to Provide for Adequate Public Involvement and Public Information
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., is premised in part on "a belief that citizens can make important contributions to environmental protection and ... notions of democratic decision -making ..." Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32n' Agricultural Assoc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 936. "Environmental review derives its vitality from public participation." Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn. v. Montecito Water Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.e 396, 400.
Nothing was mentioned about a proposed summary vacation of an open space easement, either in the original MND, or the revised MND, or prior to or during the Planning Commission meeting. The complete failure to identify and discuss this proposed vacation is a significant impediment to public participation and involvement. The revisions to the Proj ect should be analyzed and environmental analysis should be circulated for public review and comment.
IL The Proposed Summary Vacation is Not Supported
The proposed resolution vacating a portion of the 2009 open space easement is not supported. It asserts California Streets and Highways Code Section 8333(a) allows a summary vacation "if the easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
November 14, 2022
vacation." But the 2009 open space easement specifically provides that preservation of the property "as open space is in the best interest of the City of Vista because the land is unimproved and preserves the semi -Waal character of the City of Vista." That recognition of the importance of preserving the land in its existing character was identified when the land already had a paved road on this portion of the property.
The evidence shows the paved road existed in 2009. Indeed, Exhibit A to the 2009 open space easement identified the existence of the reciprocal access easement. And the revised MND acknowledges "Camino Largo has historically served as an access road for existing residents ...... Revised MND at iii.
Exhibit B to the 2009 open space easement prohibits the placement of a stricture or paving on the property, but it did not require the removal of pavement that already existed at the time. And the continuation of that pavement is consistent with the "existing Waal character of the site" described in Exhibit B. As such, there is no support for the proposed vacation of a portion of the open space easement.
Furthermore, the Project proposes to extend the pavement even farther onto the property to the south. The Site Plan shows a 20-foot-wide roadway easement on the property to the south (APN 159-240-31), and that the existing pavement lies within that width. However, it also shows that the Project would construct a road that extends another approximately four feet further south, thereby encroaching even further onto the property to the south. See Highlighted Camino Largo Site Plan attached hereto. This is beyond the 20 feet width the summary vacation seeks — in other words, while the 2009 open space easement prohibits new pavement, the vacation would actually cover that portion that was already paved in 2009 while not addressing new pavement the Project intends to construct, which would encroach into the open space easement.
III. The Project Will Lead to Significant Impacts
CEQA requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIIV ) whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that significant environmental impacts may occur. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(d); No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 13 Cal.3d 68. If there is "substantial evidence that the project might have [a significant impact on the environment], but the agency failed to secure preparation of the required EK the agency's action is to be set aside because the agency abused its discretion by failing to proceed in a `manner required by law."' Friends of `B" Street v.
City ofHayward(1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988,1002.
My July 15 and October 3, 2022 letters, attached and incorporated by reference, identified several inadequacies in the environmental analysis. Despite the applicant's claims, these inadequacies have not been remedied. The City must prepare an EJR before proceeding; the Project is likely to lead to several significant impacts.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
November 14, 2022
TV. The Project Violates the General Plan and Municipal Code The General Plan is the City's single most important planning document. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 570 — 71. Any attempt to approve a project that is inconsistent with the General Plan would be "invalid at the time it is passed." Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 544. Here, the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan and Municipal Code; as such, the Project should be denied. See e.g., Carmel Valley View, Ltd v. Board of Supervisors (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 817, 822 — 23 (upholding denial of a tentative map because the site was not physically suited for the proposed project); Harroman Co. v.
Town of Tiburon (1991) 235 Ca1.App.3d 388, 393 — 94 (upholding denial because the proposed project was inconsistent with general plan).
• The Project proposes to place dense residential uses in a rural, agricultural area. The Project is inconsistent with the surrounding area. Indeed, the staff report to the Planning Commission acknowledged the Project is surrounded mainly by agricultural zoning and generally rural and low -density General Plan designations.
• It claimed the "property is surrounded by residential uses ...." But this claim misses the fact that the dense project is incompatible with its much less dense surroundings.
• The Project is inconsistent with several aspects of the City's General Plan.
For example, contrary to LUCI Policy 2.4, it disrupts the existing development pattern within the established neighborhood (the diagram on page 2-4 of the Land Use and Community Design Element demonstrates clearly how the Project violates this policy). And contrary to LUCI Policy
2.1, it does not provide for large -lot single-family residential development. • The staff report to the Planning Commission claimed the City recently adopted small lot development regulations "to provide an alternative to the traditional single-family subdivisions, thereby increasing options for fee simple homeownership opportunities." But there is no showing that the Project will provide affordable housing.
• Municipal Code Chapter 17.12 and the State Subdivision Map Act require findings for the approval of a tentative map. The Project does not meet these findings. For example, it is inconsistent with the General Plan. The site is not suitable for the type of development. And the Project is likely to cause public health problems.
• The MND claims the site is identified in the City's Housing Element, but there is nothing in the Housing Element indicating the site should be developed at anything greater than one dwelling unit.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
November 14, 2022
V. The Proposed Findings are Inadequate and Unsupported; the Project Should be Rejected
"[R]egardless of whether the local ordinance commands that the [] board set forth findings, that body must render findings sufficient both to enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they should seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the board's action." TopangaAssn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514 (footnote omitted). The proposed resolutions fail to produce adequate findings supported by evidence. Among other things, as noted above, the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and State Subdivision Map Act. Additionally, as discussed above, the Project will adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the City and its residents.
Furthermore, the proposed findings do not address important criteria required by the Municipal Code. The City must consider "all relevant factors, and [demonstrate] a rational connection between those factors, the choice made, and the purposes of the enabling statute." California Hotel &Motel Assoc. v.Industrial Were Comm. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 200, 212. The City has failed to do so, and the evidence does not support approval of the Project. Indeed, the Planning Commission resolution of denial correctly identifies the evidence and reasons to deny the Project and MND.
Furthermore, the proposed summary vacation is not supported by the evidence.
VL Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, GuARD respectfully urges you reject the Project and MND. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.
Enc.:
Sincerely,
Everett DeLano
1. Highlighted Camino Largo Site Plan
2. July 15, 2022 letter from Everett DeLano to City of Vista Planning Commission
3. October 3, 2022 letter from Everett DeLano to City of Vista cc: Patsy Chow, Deputy Director
Camin(
v�
LR746 .
...........
,& SRC,"� _
59w
. LOT B
r , 'ti � _" . - = 5 ' = _ � fi • �^ - 5'' .� l? '� I (1! �3 - '�. � wnv sm�w re-x� se n.ew nur / s 4 ' _ _ Pip 54 -- _ -- �� �; ,... .�,;: •r 4 A.w +ror t� r Av�a.� �.
�Avk
•, � � rpr�p.5s 6�x,��p5 V 8 '�{� � � ` y • � 5 � 4 - - 5 �..^ � N' 1 -� • -- fs. J' i i 59.T lY�.EjS'. _ ✓? a� � .n-1'-�- -- __ � � S� i - -�' - 3. j. - �- a a� _ � ••• s V' N � T ,� _ - 5 .� � �� ��., . -_;.. -��y _ _ � �s� � Ise _ ,� 1 •O,TyS�'� Pti'''�v.� � ' '��-�.�1- _ 4� S _ � T 41�.y- _ p l � •S' V _ � = �'-`' - -- ---------- --_-- -'.
L \ l
_ �+ s • � L � - i?)� eM'� s 4%A � � J 6yV N4-. ` 5 - �- we [ssYnG m ixcr www . .: . : :.......:...'.0 �. � •: �1 L .�53r •' Y �.13 4 ald... _ __-- ... „r�. A. _ . � Fps °Iss' .-.- - .�.:. • ... ,. :.. P ,n� .. '. R.... _ ..fr r \ P.1'' _ �V _ .:.-._..; - i' � � r�a ,•�.w�x�as. rs8 �. �...';.. 4.it•F y J`. .�i ..� >y �0 .0 e~ - -lf �( ON•1y .'R MuuCY nsnxe rmrA r9sa-o
`
yy pF A95 A18-F SryfMr 9 Sta4fe 7A Alr,
r .. x - QTJ r s ��Y L�NR �..�' , ; - 4-p:s'``.+� ��� •`'�: rcPA>E KC[F 1IM112S IOX piY0rkWA w�nx As ax M. mrz-ows2x7
- = Y -' \ - P - 'Lr - -'rro."y. _� P - - - -w •� - _ '-.r .3 ro ar axra.wa-n W,
• r '' ti - 5 � r:�i� I - 59 � V � -` - i� d� 1a Epsm� �,prp�nur'{1a ad' � ---•• .>� ,p i 5l - - .PV-.1a: — s .. J � _a`� a a_�p�>ti���� m-�;az� �o"� �:
-A fta'C urelF rr p5r i3' I• r.s SY yo q f'tdi+`
r ' (j51i y _.— 4 'r✓_ PJi. �i _ - - ,���6,�4�� ll�.' ..'. d CA MC r. 5`0 S •4- ` • i \ 4LA �11�.' / 1•,'' >• � .�- p�,�1J. .195� R� �. � x!Q-O; ,r .�p•,�3 •:- � , , ,ca� '1:- _ •L�-l: l`IL �i15.. �...-• rE4� ���� � I, /9 2 �.T
Ck" ID 5nd pp. Tp`T p° V i • .
OL
IPA
V V,••y
Source: BHA, Inc, 2022
HELIX Site Plan
Environmental Planning
11 /15/2022 PH1 Page 46 of 1301igure 3
DELANO & DELANO
July 15, 2022
Planning Commission
City of Vista
200 Civic Center Dr.
Vista, CA 92084
Re: July 19, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda Item PH2: P21-033, Camino Law Project and MND
Dear Honorable Planning Commission Members:
This letter is submitted on behalf of Guajome Alliance for Responsible Development ("GuARD") in connection with the proposed Camino Largo project ("Project") and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND").
I. The Project Violates the General Plan, Municipal Code, and State Law The General Plan is the City's single most important planning document. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 570 — 71. Any attempt to approve a project that is inconsistent with the General Plan would be "invalid at the time it is passed." Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 544. Here, the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan and Municipal Code; as such, the Project should be denied. See e.g., Carmel Valley View, Ltd. v. Board of Supervisors (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 817, 822 —23 (upholding denial of a tentative map because the site was not physically suited for the proposed project); Harroman Co. v.
Town of Tiburon (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 388, 393 — 94 (upholding denial because the proposed project was inconsistent with general plan).
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that significant environmental impacts may occur. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(d); No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 13 Cal.3d 68. If there is "substantial evidence that the project might have [a significant impact on the environment], but the agency failed to secure preparation of the required EIR, the agency's action is to be set aside because the agency abused its discretion by failing to proceed in a `manner required by law."' Friends of "B" Street v.
City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002. Here, the City should prepare an EIR before proceeding; the Project is likely to lead to several significant impacts.
Honorable Planning Commission Members
July 15, 2022
The Project will lead to significant impacts to land use, aesthetics, and agricultural resources.
• The Project proposes to place dense residential uses in a rural, agricultural area. The Project is inconsistent with the surrounding area. Indeed, the staff report acknowledges the Project is surrounded mainly by agricultural zoning and generally rural and low -density General Plan designations. Staff Report at 6.
• The staff report claims the "property is surrounded by residential uses ...:.
Staff Report at 9. But this claim misses the fact that the dense project is incompatible with its much less dense surroundings.
• The Project is inconsistent with several aspects of the City's General Plan.
For example, contrary to LUCI Policy 2.4, it disrupts the existing development pattern within the established neighborhood (the diagram on page 2-4 of the Land Use and Community Design Element demonstrates clearly how the Project violates this policy). And contrary to LUCI Policy
2.1, it does not provide for large -lot single-family residential development. • The staff report claims the City recently adopted small lot development regulations "to provide an alternative to the traditional single-family subdivisions, thereby increasing options for fee simple homeownership opportunities." Staff Report at 7. But there is no showing that the Project will provide affordable housing.
• Municipal Code Chapter 17.12 and the State Subdivision Map Act require findings for the approval of a tentative map. The Project does not meet these findings. For example, it is inconsistent with the General Plan. The site is not suitable for the type of development. And the Project is likely to cause public health problems.
• The MND claims the site is identified in the City's Housing Element, but there is nothing in the Housing Element indicating the site should be developed at anything greater than one dwelling unit.
The Project will lead to significant impacts to traffic.
The MND fails to consider significant impacts associated with construction traffic.
The MND fails to consider significant impacts to applicable roadway segments and intersections.
The MND fails to consider the potential for public health and safety impacts, including significantly unsafe conditions associated with the several private streets intersecting with Camino Largo.
Honorable Planning Commission Members
July 15, 2022
The Project will lead to significant impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
The MND claims the site is identified in the City's Housing Element, but there is nothing in the Housing Element indicating the site should be developed at anything greater than one dwelling unit. As such, contrary to the MND's assertion, vehicle trips associated with the development of 46 residential uses on the Project site were not accounted for in the State Implementation Plan. MND at 3-9. Such impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions will be significant.
The MND attempts to separate air emissions into construction and operational phases. However, it fails to account for the fact that such phases can, indeed are likely to, overlap, thereby increasing the amounts of emissions at any given time. This is particularly stark in light of the emissions ofjust construction equipment alone.
The MND averages construction emissions over the life of the Project. MND at 3-27. Such emissions should be calculated as they will actually occur, not averaged over a longer period of time. See Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.0 1013, 1049. Indeed, if construction emissions were appropriately accounted for, the Project would exceed the City's GHG Threshold.
The Project will lead to significant impacts to noise.
The MND dismisses substantial construction noise impacts because they will be temporary. MND at 346. But the temporary nature of a noise impact does not make it insignificant. See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v.
Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4a' 1344, 1380 — 81.
The MND acknowledges the noise analysis found existing conditions far in excess of applicable limits. MND at 3-44. Yet the Project will not be providing mitigation to address these impacts. Indeed, where on -the -ground conditions are severe, the `relevant question" is whether the project's additional impacts will be significant "in light of the serious nature" of the existing problems. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Ca1.App.3d 692, 718.
The Project's noise mitigation is vague and insufficient. See Citizens for Responsible and Open Government Y. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.46' 1323, 1341 ("there is no evidence of any measures to be taken that would ensure that the noise standards would be effectively monitored and vigorously enforced").
II. The Proposed Findings are Unsupported
"[R]egardless of whether the local ordinance commands that the 0 board set forth findings, that body must render findings sufficient both to enable the parties to determine
Honorable Planning Commission Members
July 15, 2022
whether and on what basis they should seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the board's action." Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514 (footnote omitted). The proposed resolutions fail to produce adequate findings supported by evidence. Among other things, as noted above, the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and State Subdivision Map Act. Additionally, as discussed above, the Project will adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the City and its residents.
Furthermore, the proposed findings do not address important criteria required by the Municipal Code.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, GuARD requests you reject the Project and MND.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.
Sincerely,
Everett DeLano
ce: Patsy Chow, Deputy Director
October 3, 2022
Patsy Chow, Deputy Director
Planning Division
City of Vista
200 Civic Center Dr.
Vista, CA 92084
Re: Camino Largo Project (P21-0300) and Revised MND
Dare City of Vista:
This letter is submitted on behalf of Guajome Alliance for Responsible Development ("GUARD") in connection with the proposed Camino Largo project ("Project") and Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND").
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA" ), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EUC ) whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that significant environmental impacts may occur. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(d); No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 13 Cal.3d 68. If there is "substantial evidence that the project might have [a significant impact on the environment], but the agency failed to secure preparation of the required EIR, the agency's action is to be set aside because the agency abused its discretion by failing to proceed in a `manner required by law."' Friends of "B" Street v.
City of Hayward (1980) 106 Ca1.App.3d 988, 1002. Here, the City should prepare an EIR before proceeding; the Project is likely to lead to several significant impacts.
On July 15, 2022, I submitted a letter on behalf of GuARD, which, among other things, identified several inadequacies in the Project and MND. The City recently issued the Revised MND. The Revised MND contains some amended language regarding air quality, land use/planning, and population and housing, but it still contains several critical flaws.
The Revised MND asserts the "project would be consistent with the growth assumptions used to develop the region's Attainment Plan and, therefore, [air quality] impacts would be less than significant." Revised MND at 3-6. This conclusion is not supported. The Revised MND notes that the "City had a total of 32,815 units as of the 2020 census." Id It also explains that "SANDAG Series 13 Regional Data have predicted 35,307 units by 2035 ......Id The Revised MND concludes that accounting
City of Vista
October 3, 2022
for 1,121 entitled/approved units and pending units (including the Project's units) "would result in 33,936 units ...." Id However, in a section on Land Use and Planning impacts, the Revised MND notes that the City Housing Element Update "for the 2021 — 2029 planning period assigned Vista a new housing need of 2,561 units." Id at 3-12.
Therefore, by 2029 (the last year of the planning period) the total number of units would be 35,376 — 69 units higher than the Attainment Plan accounted for and with six y of development still to go. In otherwords, the City's own plans project more units by 2029 than the air quality analysis assumed would be developed by 2035. And if we assumed a continued growth rate for those last six years comparable to the growth rate anticipated by the 2021 to 2029 period (320 units/year), the actual amount of development by 2035 would be 37,296 units — 1,989 units more than what the Attainment Plan anticipates.
And for these same reasons, the Revised MND's analysis of land uselplanning and population and housing impacts is insufficient.
Additionally, the City has not revised or otherwise responded to the several other comments regarding the inadequacies in the Project and MND, including the following:
The Project will lead to significant impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
The MND attempts to separate air emissions into construction and operational phases. However, it fails to account for the fact that such phases can, indeed are likely to, overlap, thereby increasing the amounts of emissions at any given time. This is particularly stark in light of the emissions ofjust construction equipment alone.
The MND averages construction emissions over the life of the Project. MND at 3-27. Such emissions should be calculated as they will actually occur, not averaged over a longer period of time. See Taxpayers for Accountable School BondSpending v. Smt Diego UnifiedSchool Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4'a 1013, 1049. Indeed, if construction emissions were appropriately accounted for, the Project would exceed the City's GHG Threshold.
The Project will lead to significant impacts to land use, aesthetics, and agricultural resources.
The Project proposes to place dense residential uses in a rural, agricultural area. The Project is inconsistent with the surrounding area. Indeed, the staff report acknowledges the Project is surrounded mainly by agricultural zoning and generally rural and low -density General Plan designations. Staff Report at 6.
The staff report claims the "property is surrounded by residential uses ...." Staff Report at 9. But this claim misses the fact that the dense project is incompatible with its much less dense surroundings.
City of Vista
October 3, 2022
• The Project is inconsistent with several aspects of the City's General Plan.
For example, contrary to LUCI Policy 2.4, it disrupts the existing development pattern within the established neighborhood (the diagram on page 2-4 of the Land Use and Community Design Element demonstrates clearly how the Project violates this policy). And contrary to LUCI Policy
2.1, it does not provide for large -lot single-family residential development • The staff report claims the City recently adopted small lot development regulations "to provide an alternative to the traditional single-family subdivisions, thereby increasing options for fee simple homeownership opportunities." Staff Report at 7. But there is no showing that the Project will provide affordable housing.
• Municipal Code Chapter 17.12 and the State Subdivision Map Act require findings for the approval of a tentative map. The Project does not meet these findings. For example, it is inconsistent with the General Plan. The site is not suitable for the type of development. And the Project is likely to cause public health problems.
• The MND claims the site is identified in the City's Housing Element, but there is nothing in the Housing Element indicating the site should be developed at anything greater than one dwelling unit.
The Project will lead to significant impacts to traffic.
The MND fails to consider significant impacts associated with construction traffic.
The MND fails to consider significant impacts to applicable roadway segments and intersections.
The MND fails to consider the potential for public health and safety impacts, including significantly unsafe conditions associated with the several private streets intersecting with Camino Largo.
The Project will lead to significant impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
The MND claims the site is identified in the City's Housing Element, but there is nothing in the Housing Element indicating the site should be developed at anything greater than one dwelling unit. As such, contrary to the MND's assertion, vehicle trips associated with the development of 46 residential uses on the Project site were not accounted for in the State Implementation Plan. MND at 3-9. Such impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions will be significant.
The MND attempts to separate air emissions into construction and operational phases. However, it fails to account for the fact that such phases can, indeed are likely to, overlap, thereby increasing the amounts of emissions at any given time. This is particularly stark in light of the emissions of just construction equipment alone.
City of Vista
October 3, 2022
• The MND averages construction emissions over the life of the Project. MND at 3-27. Such emissions should be calculated as they will actually occur, not averaged over a longer period of time. See Taxpayers forAccountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.411 1013, 1049. Indeed, if construction emissions were appropriately accounted for, the Project would exceed the City's GHG Threshold.
The Project will lead to significant impacts to noise.
• The MND dismisses substantial construction noise impacts because they will be temporary. MND at 346. But the temporary nature of a noise impact does not make it insignificant. See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v.
Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.46 1344, 1380 — 81. • The MND acknowledges the noise analysis found existing conditions far in excess of applicable limits. MND at 344. Yet the Project will not be providing mitigation to address these impacts. Indeed, where on -the -ground conditions are severe, the "relevant question" is whether the project's additional impacts will be significant "in light of the serious nature" of the existing problems. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 718.
• The Project's noise mitigation is vague and insufficient. See Chizensfor Responsible and Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.0 1323, 1341 ("there is no evidence of any measures to be taken that would ensure that the noise standards would be effectively monitored and vigorously enforced").
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.
Sincerely,
Everett DeLano
From:
To: Public Comments
Subject: Camino Largo
Date: Thursday, November 10, 2022 5:19:39 PM
Good evening,
My name is Bridget Henchy and I live at Neil Terrace. Please do not change the zoning & approve this new development. I beg of you. It will ruin this neighborhood. There are already all those new homes on Melrose & Oceanside Blvd./Bobier. We will be trapped in an evacuation due to wildfires. It will be gridlock! Traffic is already out of control & extremely dangerous. Please do not allow this land to be rezoned. My parents live on Blackwell Drive and I am worried they won't be able to get out of here. Nobody will be able to! They have lived here for 30 years! This will open up the floodgates & so many people that don't care about our community here will want to rezone. It will be so sad. PLEASE vote no on this matter. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Bridget Henchy
Sent from my iPhone
From:
Eleanor Henchv
To:
Public Comments
Subject:
Camino Largo
Date:
Friday, November 11, 2022 11:28:22 AM
Dear City of Vista,
I live on Blackwell Drive in the unincorporated area of Vista. I have lived here almost 30 years. This is the first time that I am truly frightened to live here. We had to evacuate in 2017 during the Lilac fire. At that time we couldn't get onto E. Vista Way at all. At certain times of day, now, we cannot turn off our street onto Hutchison.
How are we supposed to deal with the increase in traffic congestion with your Camino Largo project? Please, for the sake of safety, environmental concerns and quality of life, do not approve this project! It is way too dense for our area.
Thank you.
Eleanor Henchy
Sent from my iPad
From: Mary Gilman
To: Public Comments
Subject: Camino Largo
Date: Saturday, November 12, 2022 8:25:34 PM
I oppose the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map for 46 single-family dwelling units located at 2123 N. Santa Fe Avenue, aka Camino Largo development project Changing the land use and rezoning this property to build 46 homes instead of the currently approved 8 homes would negatively alter the nature and quality of our neighborhood, result in a loss of open space and wildlife habitat, and increase the traffic congestion and vehicle emissions in the area. North Santa Fe, the current alternate route to congested East Vista Way, will become just as congested and present an emergency evacuation risk.
I implore the City Council to vote NO on this proposed project, which is counter to the greater good of the surrounding community. Any benefit that comes from developing this property will happen under the current zoning of one home per acre, which is consistent with the surrounding properties. The city has better and smarter options to satisfy additional housing needs than dense, sprawl development in this agricultural and semi -rural neighborhood.
Please enter my comments on this Camino Largo proposed project into the public hearing record for the City Council Meeting on November 15, 2022.
Regards,
Mary Gilman
Resident and Property Owner,
- Hawley Dr., City of Vista 92084
Board Member,
Guajome Alliance for Responsible Development (GuARD)
From:
To: Public Comments
Subject: Camino Largo
Date: Sunday, November 13, 2022 6:33:15 PM
My name is Thomas Hardin and I oppose the building of this subdivision and efforts to rezone such sights. I moved to Vista for its quiet country charm, which is being destroyed with every new development. Traffic down Osborne and hutchison has become overly congested and cannot accommodate any further cut through Traffic ... This is a horrible idea and sets a trend that myself and my neighbors oppose. Leave rual Vista alone and stop the sprawl.
Thank you
Thomas Hardin
LAW OFFICES
NORTON MOORE & ADAMS
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP TELEPHONE
525 B STREET, SUITE 1500 (619) 233-8200
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
ANN Y. MOORE
November 14, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Honorable Mayor Ritter and City Council
City of Vista
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
Re: Camino Largo — Response to Delano July 15 Letter
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council,
TELECOPIER
(619) 231-7595
This letter is provided to respond to the comments received from the law firm of Delano & Delano, LLP, dated July 15, 2022 ("Delano Letter ") on behalf of Guajome Alliance for Responsible Development ("GUARD"), regarding the Camino Largo project ("Project") located in the City of Vista ("City"). The Delano letter disagrees with the evidence and findings presented in the Planning Commission Hearing Report, dated July 15, 2022 ("Staff Report") and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative P21-0300 ("IS/MND") prepared by various experts on behalf of the City for the Project. But the Delano Letter has failed to provide evidence to substantiate any of the claims made in the Delano Letter regarding both documents. Moreover, in response to a comment in the Delano Letter related to the Project's consistency with the State Implementation Plan in the Air Quality Section of the IS/MND, the City subsequently revised portions of the IS/MND (and circulated for a 20-day public review period) ("Revised IS/MND") to provide additional information and analysis related to this comment. (The Revised IS/MND also clarified language in the Land Use and Planning and Population and Housing sections associated with the same subject.)
BACKGROUND
The project will convert a former non -operational commercial palm tree nursery to residential land uses to allow for the construction of forty-six two-story single-family 1 residences. The project would also provide private streets, common and private open space (including one large common open lawn area), and other associated infrastructure, including a stop sign at the intersection of Camino Largo and North Santa Fe Avenue. The homes are designed to reflect the styles of agrarian farmhouses and Spanish ranch architecture that complement the surrounding residential areas. (Staff Report, page 3.) The Project site is located northeast of the intersection of North Santa Fe Avenue and Camino Largo and south of the City's boundary with the County of San Diego ("County"). Guajome Regional Park is located to the west across North Santa Fe Avenue, and single-family residences are located to the south and east.
The Project site is currently designated under the Vista General Plan 2030 ("General Plan") as RR Rural Residential (1 du/ac) and requires a General Plan Amendment to change its designation to Medium Density (MD) residential (maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre). A zone change from A-1 to R-1-B (small lot subdivision) is also required to accommodate the proposed residences. The project will exceed the minimum requirements of the small lot zone, with the larger lots being located along the site's northern boundary to create greater separation from the existing larger lots within the County. Although the Project site is zoned for agricultural use (A-1), it is not currently used for agricultural purposes. Furthermore, the A- 1 zone allows single-family residential units to be built on the site. The ability to use the site for agricultural purposes would be limited due to the existing surrounding development (residential neighborhoods, a church, museum, and county park) that are incompatible with agricultural production. (IS/MND, page 3-7.)
ANALYSIS
L The City is uniquely qualified to interpret the provisions of its General Plan, and its decision carries a strong presumption of regularity if supported by findings and substantial evidence.
The City's determination as to whether the Project is consistent with the General Plan is entitled to deference, and its decision will not be set aside by a court unless no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion. (Orange Citizens for Parks & Recreation v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 141, 155 and Holden v. City of San Diego, (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 404, 412. See also No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 223, 244 and Eureka Citizens for Responsible Gov't v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 CA4th 357.) The courts have consistently determined that City Council members are uniquely qualified to interpret the provisions of the General Plan, and their decision carries a strong presumption of regularity if supported by findings and substantial evidence.' (Orange Citizens for Parks & Recreation v.
Superior Court supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 412.)
1 1 Substantial evidence means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.AppAth 656, 675.) 2 Although general plans have been described as the "constitution for all future development," a project need not conform perfectly to be consistent. (Spring Valley Lake Assn. v. City of Victorville (2016) 248 Cal.AppAth 91, 100. Holden v. City of San Diego, (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 404, 412.) "[G]eneral and specific plans attempt to balance a range of competing interests. It follows that it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable plan. It is enough that the proposed project will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the applicable plan." (Holden, at p. 412.) The words used in general plan policies are also critically important because "specific, mandatory, and fundamental" language in policies cannot be overcome when determining if a project is consistent with a general plan. (Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin, (2011) 197 Cal.AppAth 200, 238; Spring Valley Lake Assn. v. City of Victorville, supra, 248 Cal.AppAth at p.101.) On the other hand, policies that are amorphous in nature, using words such as "encouraged," provide officials discretion in applying general plan policies. (Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal. App. 4th 704, 719. See also Naraghi Lakes Preservation Association v. City of Modesto (2016) 1 Cal. App. 5th 9 [use of the permissive word "should" in place of the mandatory "shall"].) For a frame of reference, both policies referenced by Delano (Land Use and Community Identity Element ("LUCI") 2.4 and 2.1 use discretionary words such as "encourage" and "discourage." II. The City has provided ample evidentiary support and an underlying factual basis for concluding that the Project conforms to the intent and principles of Policies LUCI 2.4 and
2.1. There is ample evidence in the record, as described below, to support the City's conclusion that the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy LUCI 2.4 despite Delano's assertions.
General Plan LUCI Policy 2.4 states: "Discourage subdivision design [emphasis added] that disrupts the existing development pattern within established neighborhoods..." Delano contends that the Project is inconsistent with LUCI Policy 2.4 because it disrupts the existing development pattern within the established neighborhood (without specifically referencing which neighborhood) and is incompatible with its less dense surroundings.
However, the City has determined that the Project's subdivision design maintains the existing residential character of the surrounding area by using similar architectural features such as materials and a neutral color palette. The homes would be single-family similar to the neighborhood to the south and would not disrupt the existing development pattern. The project would be a continuation of the denser residential development located south of the site, creating a cohesive development pattern. (IS/MND, page 3-36.) Finally, the site's northern perimeter would be sloped, supporting ornamental landscaping that would provide separation between the residences and the land uses to the north, which is within the City's sphere of influence but outside of the City's jurisdictional boundaries. (IS/MND, page 3-5.) 3 The site supports the remnants of a former nursery that is no longer operational. The ability to use the site for agricultural purposes is limited due to the existing surrounding development (residential neighborhoods, a church, museum, and county park) that are incompatible with agricultural production. Therefore, the City recognized that there was potential for the Project site to be used to help meet the City's housing targets (Housing Element Update 2021- 2029, page 45).
Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, the Project is consistent with Policy 2.4 because the project maintains the existing residential character of the surrounding area. The homes would be single-family similar to the neighborhood to the south and would not disrupt the existing development pattern. Buffers would be provided to separate the land uses to the north. The City is afforded great discretion in interpreting LUCI 2.4 as the language is not mandatory in nature; rather, it "discourages subdivision design" that would disrupt an existing development pattern within established neighborhoods. It does not prohibit development, as stated in Delano's letter.
Delano also asserts that the Project is inconsistent with LUCI Policy 2.1 because the Project does not provide large -lot single-family homes. However, LUCI Policy 2.1 does not require all new development within the City to provide large single-family lots. Instead, LUCI Policy
2.1 calls for maintaining the "existing residential character of Vista," where areas are characterized by large -lot single-family residential development by "encouraging land uses and intensities of development that are consistent" with such neighborhoods [emphasis added].
The residential areas in Vista that surround the Project site are not characterized by large - lot single-family homes. Instead, Delano references the large lot single-family residential areas that are located within the County. As explained above, the City determined that the Project would be consistent with the single-family neighborhood to the south in Vista and would not disrupt the existing development pattern. Although the site is currently designated as RR Rural Residential and zoned A-1 (agricultural), the ability to use the site for agricultural purposes is limited due to the existing surrounding development (residential neighborhoods, a church, museum, and county park) that are not compatible with agricultural production.
Not all single-family homes in the City have been built on large lots, as alluded to by Delano. The City adopted the "Small Lot Development" Ordinance ("Small Lot Ordinance") on May 10, 2022, to specifically allow for small single-family lots (i.e., lots that are 6,000 square feet or less) when appropriate. (Vista Municipal Code (VMC) Chapter 18.33.) The Small Lot Ordinance was adopted to provide an alternative to condominium subdivisions built in the past to increase options for fee -simple homeownership opportunities. (Agenda Report; Small lot Residential Development, May 10, 2022, pages 1 and 7.)
The Project is consistent with the intent of the Small Lot Ordinance. It complies with its requirements, including minimum lot size, height requirements, sidewalks, landscaped parkways, on -street parking, and common and private open space areas. (Staff Report, page 4.) Contrary to Delano's assertion, a small lot subdivision is not required to show it will provide affordable housing. (See VMC Chapter 18.33.)
N
Conclusion: The Project is consistent with LUCI Policy 2.1 because the increased density resulting from the Project is similar to the residential neighborhoods to the south and the Project is consistent with the Small Lot Ordinance requirements. Delano's reference to the large lot single-family residential areas that are located within the County is not relevant here. The Project site and the surrounding residential areas in Vista are not characterized by large -lot single-family homes.
III. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is the Most Appropriate and Logical Environmental Document for the Project.
CEQA allows a public agency to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") where the Initial Study has identified potentially significant impacts, but the project applicant, prior to public review, has made or agrees to make project revisions that would mitigate such impacts to a level below significance. (Public Resources Code section 21064.5, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15070.) Moreover, courts have consistently upheld the use of MNDs when a project has been tailored to avoid potential impacts or the applicant is willing to accept mitigating conditions. (Running Fence Corp. V. Superior Court (1975) 51 CAM 400, Baldwin v. City of Los Angles (1999) 70 Cal. AppAth 819, and Citizens for Responsible Development in West Hollywood v. City of West Hollywood (1995) 39 Cal. App 4th 925.) If substantial evidence indicates that the revised project with mitigation may still have a significant environmental effect, an MND may not be used for a project. However, the mere objection to a project by an opponent does not preclude the use of an MND; substantial evidence must be presented that shows the proposed mitigation measures are inadequate and that the project, as revised and/or mitigated, may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
The project opponent must demonstrate by substantial evidence that the proposed mitigation measures are inadequate and that the project, as revised and/or mitigated, may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b) (2).) In other words, the burden is on the project opponent to demonstrate that there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the proposed project may have a significant effect even after mitigation measures are considered. (Citizens for Responsible & Open Gov't v. City o Grand Terrace (2008)160 CA4th 1323, 1323.) The courts will uphold the use of an MND when the opponent fails to present evidence that identifies a defect in the factual analysis of the agency's documents. (Baldwin, supra at p. 844)
Delano asserts that the preparation of an EIR is required for the Project. However, as discussed further below, Delano has failed to provide substantial evidence that shows the proposed mitigation measures are inadequate and that the Project, as revised and/or mitigated, may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Delano's mere objection to the Project does not preclude the use of an MND; instead, Delano must demonstrate that there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the proposed project may have a significant effect even after mitigation measures are considered. 61 Indeed, the City has demonstrated that the IS/MND identified and thoroughly analyzed potential significant environmental impacts of the Project. Revisions to the Project have been made, and mitigation measures have been developed that fully mitigate each of these impacts to a level below significance.
The Delano Letter states that the Project will lead to significant impacts on the following topical areas of the IS/MND: land use, aesthetics, agricultural resources, traffic, noise, air quality, and greenhouse gas. But Delano has not presented substantial evidence that any of the Project's proposed mitigation measures are inadequate and that the Project, as revised and/or mitigated, may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b) (2).
1. Land use, aesthetics, agricultural resource: Delano has not provided substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment resulting from any of the alleged inconsistencies identified by Delano concerning land use, aesthetics, or agricultural resource other than to disagree with the City's interpretation of its General Plan.
Land Use. As described above in this letter, the design of the proposed Project maintains the existing residential character of the surrounding area. The homes would be single-family similar to the neighborhood to the south and would not disrupt the existing development pattern. The site's northern perimeter would be sloped, supporting ornamental landscaping that would provide separation between the residences and the land uses to the north that is within the City's sphere of influence but outside of the City's jurisdictional boundaries.
Even though the Project would require a General Plan Amendment and zone change to accommodate the residential land uses, the site's transition from previous agricultural uses to residential is an extension of the existing land uses to the south. Moreover, the current RR designation and A-1 zone indicate that the site is suitable for residential development since single-family residences are allowed in the current A-1 zone. The proposed homes are compatible with the land uses immediately adjacent to the site. Finally, since the Project is consistent with the surrounding land uses, it would not divide an established community. (IS/MND, page 3-11.)
The Project complies with the requirements of the Small Lot Ordinance, including minimum lot size, height requirements, sidewalks, landscaped parkways, on -street parking, and common and private open space areas. (Staff Report, page 4.) Contrary to Delano's assertion, the Small Lot Ordinance does not require a showing that it would provide affordable housing. (See VMC Chapter 18.33.)
Aesthetics. The certified Program EIR for the General Plan (General Plan EIR SCH# 2009121028) identified two main viewsheds in the City and six public vantage points. The nearest public vantage point from the Project site is Public Vantage Point 3: West Bobier Drive, located approximately a half mile southwest of the site. At a half -mile distance, Project implementation would not have a substantial adverse effect on views from this designated public vantage point. Additionally, the Project site is not in a location where prominent views are available. Thus, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Finally, the City's General Plan does not identify any scenic roadways near the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. (IS/MND, pages 3-4.)
The site is zoned for agricultural uses, which is not indicative of the type of zoning that protects scenic resources. Instead, a variety of uses in addition to raising crops could occur under this zone, including packing or processing plants for crops, silos, accessory buildings (including workshops and barns), farm labor housing, and residential care/transition homes. (City of Vista Municipal Code (VMC), Chapter 18.10.) Therefore, the IS/MND concluded that no impacts would occur concerning Aesthetics under Section I: parts a, b, and c. (IS/MND, pages 3-4 and 3-5.)
Concerning any impacts related to light, although the project would introduce new light sources, the sources are similar to those of the surrounding land uses, and the project would adhere to applicable regulations. The project would not create a new source of substantial light which would adversely affect views in the area. Light impacts were found to be less than significant. Concerning glare, glass would be limited to windows and doors, and no other highly reflective surfaces would be allowed. The surface area of glass on the homes would not be at a scale to generate adverse glare effects. As such, the Project would not create a new source of glare that would adversely affect views in the area. Glare impacts were also determined to be less than significant. (IS/MND, page 3-6.)
Agricultural Resources. According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation (California Department of Conservation [DOC] 2021), the Project site is classified as Other Land (land not included in any other mapping category). Therefore, implementation of the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. There is no Williamson Act contract that directs land use at the site. The Project site is zoned for agricultural use (A-1); however, it is not currently used for agricultural purposes. Furthermore, the A-1 zone allows for single-family residential development to occur on the site. Finally, the ability to use the site for agricultural purposes is limited due to the existing surrounding uses.
Since no substantial areas of agricultural use surround the Project site, the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use would not occur. (IS/MND, page 3-7.)
2. Delano has not provided substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment resulting from the alleged failure to consider significant impacts associated with construction traffic, applicable roadway segments and intersections, and the potential for public health and safety impacts, including 7 significantly unsafe conditions related to the several private streets intersecting with Camino Largo.
Applicable roadway segments and intersections analysis. Delano fails to provide substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the proposed project failed to consider significant impacts associated with applicable roadway segments and intersections. Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) changed how transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA from a Level of Service (LOS) analysis that included vehicular delay, roadway capacity, and traffic congestion to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
The project will generate a total of 460 trips per day. (Local Transportation Study report, prepared by LLG, November 30, 2021 ("LTS Report"), attached to the IS/MND as Appendix H.) According to the City's Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, projects that are not consistent with the applicable General Plan land use designation only require a VMT analysis if the anticipated ADT would be greater than 500 trips. Because the Project will generate less than 500 trips per day, the Project is concluded to have no significant transportation impacts (VMT) for purposes of CEQA, no VMT-related improvements are required, and a VMT analysis is not needed.
However, the LTS Report still analyzed the traffic impacts associated with the Project with respect to study area intersections and street segments using the LOS criteria. The Circulation Element of the General Plan has established LOS D as the threshold for acceptable operating conditions in designated areas. In addition, if a roadway or intersection is currently operating at a capacity less than the applicable LOS, additional traffic will have a substantial effect if it adds more than an average of two seconds of delay. Although the Project would increase traffic near the site, the roadways and intersections within the study area would not conflict with the City's established LOS goals. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. (LTS Report, page 40.) Safety issues. Delano fails to provide substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the proposed project failed to consider significant impacts associated with the potential for public health and safety impacts, including the allegation that significantly unsafe conditions are associated with the several private streets intersecting with Camino Largo. Access to the Project site would be provided by four private cul-de-sac streets extending north from Camino Largo. Camino Largo is currently a two-lane unclassified roadway. Camino Largo will be paved and extended to a minimum width of 28 feet. (IS/MND, page 2-2.) A two-way left turn lane is present along North Santa Fe Avenue at Camino Largo, allowing southbound left turns into the Project site outside the southbound through movement.
The two-way left -turn lane along North Santa Fe Avenue also facilitates outbound left turns from Camino Largo by providing a refuge lane and enabling drivers to cross one direction of traffic at a time. The intersection analysis at the Camino Largo / North Santa Fe intersection results in LOS C or better in all scenarios. LLG concluded that no improvements were deemed necessary based on the presence of the two-way left -turn lane and the acceptable LOS results.
Although, a stop sign installed on Camino Largo at North Santa Fe Avenue is recommended. 8 (Local Transportation Study report, LLG, November 30, 2021, page 38.) Final Project improvement plans would be subject to City review and approval, ensuring that driveway intersections and internal circulation are safe with adequate sight distance and driveway widths for entering and exiting the site. Because the Project site is surrounded by a museum and regional park to the west, a church to the north, and an existing residential neighborhood to the south, it would not create hazards due to incompatible uses. (IS/MND.
In summary, there would be no hazardous design features or incompatible uses introduced because of the Project. The Project is a typical residential subdivision that is comparable to the surrounding land uses. No unique roadway features, traffic patterns, or incompatible vehicles would be introduced as part of the development. The project proposes improving Camino Largo, an unclassified street, and improving site access via four separate cul-de-sacs. The Project would also add a stop sign at the intersection of Camino Largo and North Santa Fe Avenue. In addition, two trees would be removed to improve the line of sight when turning south onto North Santa Fe Avenue from Camino Largo. As a result, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. The development of the proposed Project would not increase traffic hazards due to incompatible uses that could affect existing traffic or circulation in the project area. Impacts would be less than significant. (IS/MND. Page 3-54.) Construction traffic. Delano fails to provide substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the proposed project failed to consider significant impacts associated with construction traffic. It was anticipated that 2,758 round trips, or 5,516 one-way haul truck trips, would be required for soil export over 20 workdays during the grading phase of construction, equating to 276 one-way haul truck trips, or passes, per day. Over an eight -hour construction day, it is assumed that 34 haul truck trips would occur per hour. The additional 34 construction trips were added to the existing traffic volumes on North Santa Fe Avenue south of the project site. (Noise Assessment Study, Helix Environmental, December 2021, page 15.) The additional 34 construction trips did not trigger any CEQA significance criteria. The City requires traffic control plans for any construction activity that will disrupt traffic flow on City streets, and project conditions of approval would require that emergency access be maintained during construction. (IS/MND. Page 3-54.)
3. Delano has not provided substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the proposed project will lead to significant impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
State Implementation Plan. Delano asserts that the Project was not accounted for (beyond anything more than one dwelling unit) in the State Implementation Plan ("SIP"). As such, W�
impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions will be significant. However, Delano fails to provide substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the proposed Project would have a significant impact on air quality.
Although the Project site is designated as RR Rural Residential and would require a General Plan Amendment, the Revised IS/MND explained that the Project would not exceed the assumptions in the SIP. Tables AQ-1 and AQ-2 of the Revised IS/MND (pages 3-5 and 3-6) identify a total of 1,121 residential units that have been entitled, approved, and/or pending within the City (as of August 17, 2022) and were conservatively assumed in the Revised IS/MND to be under construction or constructed. The project has an active application with the City and was, therefore, included on the pending project list (Table AQ-2). The Revised IS/MND explains that even if conservatively assuming all 1,121 residential units are built, the buildout intensity levels assumed under the current SIP have yet to be achieved. (Revised IS/MND, page 3-6.) In other words, because the population assumed under the SIP has not yet been reached, the Project fits within the plan's population forecasts and would not obstruct the implementation of the Plan. Furthermore, the Air Pollution Control District is required to update such plans and its modeling on a triennial basis. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 40925, subd. (a) [every three years, the district shall revise plans to attain state air quality standards to, among other things, incorporate projected emissions growth received.] The City would submit its updated population numbers as a part of the district's next review cycle, and the City could reasonably assume that the Air District would comply with its duties and would formally account for the Project.
The Project is also in compliance with federal and state ambient air quality standards and would not result in significant air quality impacts with respect to the Project's construction and operational -related emissions of ozone precursors or criteria air pollutants (see Table AQ 3 and AQ-4). (Revised IS/MND, pages 3-7 and 3-8.) Because the population and employment growth anticipated by the SIP has not been achieved, in conjunction with the Project's less - than -significant emission impacts, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the local air quality plan.
Construction and Operational Phases. Delano fails to provide substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the proposed Project failed to consider significant impacts associated with air quality impacts by failing to account for a presumed overlap between the construction and operational phases of the Project. As explained in Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Technical Report (December 2021), the project would be constructed in one phase. Project construction activities include demolition, site preparation, grading, installation of underground utilities, internal street and parking area paving, building construction, and architectural coatings. Construction of the project would commence in April 2022 and be completed in approximately March 2023 for a total construction duration of approximately one year. (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Technical 10 Report, Helix Environmental Planning, December 2021, page 1.) Therefore, there would be no overlap between the construction and operational phases of the Project. As shown in Table AQ- 3 of the Revised IS/MND, the Project's temporary construction -related criteria pollutant and precursor emissions would be below the SDAPCD's significance thresholds. (Revised IS/MND, page 3-7). Therefore, the Project's construction activities would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants that would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and such impacts would be less than significant. (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Technical Report, Helix Environmental Planning, December 2021, page 1.) As shown in Table AQ-4, the Project's long-term emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would not exceed the SDAPCD daily or annual screening thresholds. (Revised IS/MND, page 3-8.) Therefore, the project's operational activities would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants that would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Impacts would be less than significant. (IS/MND, page 3-8.)
Project Life. Delano asserts based on Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.AppAth 1013, 1049 that the IS/MND should have calculated construction emissions as they will actually occur, not averaged over the life of the Project. However, in Taxpayers, the court dismissed the lead agency's methodology because it determined it was not backed by substantial evidence based on the data that the lead agency utilized. The decision does not bar the City as the lead agency from using a construction emissions analysis that averages emissions over time where, as in this case, the choice of methodology is supported by substantial evidence. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) requires a lead agency to make a "good -faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions resulting from a project." Section 15064.4(a)(1) further provides that a lead agency, when deciding whether to assess the significance of the project's emissions using a quantitative or qualitative approach, has the "discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate provided it supports its decision with substantial evidence." The Project Site is located in the San Diego Air Basin and is under the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) jurisdiction. However, the SDAPCD does not provide guidance on the subject of mitigation periods for GHG emissions. Therefore, reference was made to the guidance of the neighboring air district, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which supports using a 30-year project life to analyze a project's GHG emissions under CEQA. (SCAQMD is principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin, which includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County.)
In conjunction with its development of GHG emissions significance thresholds for application in the CEQA context, SCAQMD identified a 30-year project life offset criterion after multiple stakeholders' working group meetings. SCAQMD recommended this specific project 11 life because: "... the 30-year life of credits is based on a standard 30-year economic life of a project (equipment, etc.), and the SCAQMD is looking at that time period as a default time period."2
In December 2008, SCAQMD's Board adopted the staff -recommended interim GHG significance threshold for stationary source/industrial projects where the air district is the CEQA lead agency; that threshold uses a 30-year project life for modeling purposes and for determining required mitigation. SCAQMD's Board was not asked to take final action on the significance evaluation framework developed by staff for residential and commercial projects due to the need for further work efforts related to CARB's then -pending interim GHG proposal.
However, SCAQMD's documentation does not discriminate between project types (industrial vs. residential/commercial) for purposes of delineating the project life criterion. Instead, like in the industrial/stationary source context, the mitigation offsets criterion for residential/commercial projects also applies to a 30-year project life.
Also, a 30-year project life is widely used in CEQA documents by expert consultants and lead agencies including Vista, the local land use agency with jurisdiction over the Project site for analyzing a project's GHG emissions under CEQA. It is industry practice to amortize construction emissions for residential and commercial projects over a 30-year period, which corresponds to the assumed operational life of such projects, the standard practice of lead agencies and expert consultants across California.3
Finally, the modeling analysis overestimates the Project's GHG emissions because the modeling does not take into account reasonably foreseeable regulatory programs and other a 2 SCAQMD, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #6 (October 22, 2008), p. 4; see also ICF International Technical Memorandum, Appendix B, Summaries of Working Group Meetings, Figure B-3, Proposed Tiered Decision Tree Approach, at p. B-10 (Jul. 30, 2008) ["Offsets provided for 30-year project life, unless project life limited by permit, lease, or other legally binding conditions."].
3 Seismic Improvements Project (SCH No. 2015092045; September 2015), Lead Agency: Port of Oakland, GHG Consultant: URS, page 3-40 (available: at: http://www.portofoakland.com/files/PDF/environment/Airport_Public_Draft_ IS_MND .pdf); Certified Final EIR for The Landing at Walnut Creek Apartments Project (SCH No. 2013092048; May 2014), Lead Agency: City of Walnut Creek, GHG Consultant: The Planning Center 1 DC&E (Place Works), Greenhouse Gas Emissions Section at pages 4.7- 14 and 4.7- 15 (available at: http://www.walnut-creek.org/home/showdocument?id=3000); and, Certified Final Additional Environmental Analysis for the Newhall Ranch RMDP/SCP Project (SCH No. 2000011025, June 2017), Lead Agency: CDFW, GHG Consultants:
Ascent Environmental, Inc. and Ramboll Environ, Global Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Section at pages 2.1-20 through 2.1-22 (available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/regions/5/newhall) . 4 CARB's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan incorporates the "Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario" of CARB's Mobile Source Strategy (May 2016), which is based on the assumption that the combined car and light trucks sales of zero emission vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles will reach 100 percent by 2050. (Mobile Source Strategy, p. 36.) On page 65 of the Mobile Source Strategy, CARB similarly observes that: "The updated Vision analysis shows the vast majority of the on- road fleet must be ZEVs and PHEVs by 2050 in order to meet GHG targets, requiring sales to achieve nearly 100 percent ZEVs (BEVs, FVCs, and PHEVs combined) by that point." Therefore, CARB, with the contemplated amendment of its Advanced Clean Cars regulation described in the Mobile Source Strategy, is striving to ensure that 5.3 million combined ZEVs and PHEVs statewide are on California's roadways in 2050. (Mobile Source Strategy, p. 65.) The referenced "Vision analysis" is based on a multi -pollutant scenario planning tool that quantifies changes in criteria air pollutants (and their pre- cursors), GHG emissions, toxic air contaminants and petroleum usage as various technologies become widespread in vehicle and equipment fleets. (Mobile Source Strategy, p. 6.)
12 governmental strategies and technological factors that likely would result in further reductions in GHG emissions levels throughout California that are needed to achieve the State's 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction targets. Those future policies, regulations, and programs are not yet adopted, and their precise parameters are unknown at this time.
4. Delano has not provided substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the proposed project will lead to significant impacts related to noise.
Construction noise. Delano incorrectly states that the IS/MND dismisses substantial construction noise impacts as temporary. Although the use of construction equipment is not anticipated to exceed City's noise ordinance limits, construction noise may exceed ambient conditions by ten dBA. Although the anticipated construction activities would generate temporarily elevated noise levels, the application of Mitigation measure NOI-1 would reduce such impacts to less than significant levels. (IS/MND, page 3-46.) Threshold of Significance. Delano applies an incorrect threshold of significance in determining whether implementation of the Project would result in a significant adverse impact.
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the Project would result in a significant adverse impact if it would: Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the General Plan or noise ordinance. The new residential land uses would not be compliant with the General Plan Noise Element limits if exterior use areas are exposed to noise exceeding sixty-five community noise equivalent level (CNEL). Mitigation measure LUI-1 would require the placement of permanent noise walls to reduce noise levels at these locations and reduce impacts to less than significant. (IS/MND, page 3-38.) If exterior noise levels at a building fagade exceed 60 CNEL, it is conservatively assumed that interior noise levels may exceed the 45 CNEL limit set forth in the General Plan's Noise Element for residential uses. To ensure that the project's habitable rooms do not exceed 45 CNEL, mitigation measure LU-2 would be required. (IS/MND, page 3-39.)
Mitigation Measure. Delano has not provided substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project's noise mitigation is vague and insufficient. ("there is no evidence of any measures to be taken that would ensure that the noise standards would be effectively monitored and vigorously enforced"). Assuming Delano is referring to mitigation measure LU- 1, a Construction Management Plan shall be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to the City of Vista Planning Division for approval prior to issuance of the grading permit. The measure outlines the measures that must be included to ensure compliance with the noise limit.
Findings for the tentative map can be made to approve the tentative map.
Tentative Map Findings: Based on the discussion above, findings for the tentative map can be made to approve the tentative map pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 17.12 and the State Subdivision Map Act. The Project is consistent with the General Plan, the site is suitable for the type of development, and the Project will not cause public health problems. 13 CONCLUSION
The IS/MND evaluated all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts based on scientific and factual data set forth in the technical studies prepared for the Project. The IS/MND demonstrates how the Project will avoid, mitigate or compensate for any potential significant impacts. Further, these offsetting measures are being agreed to by the Project applicant prior to circulation for public review. Finally, the City has determined that the Project is consistent with the General Plan.
Very truly yours,
NORTON MOORE & ADAMS
0-"" 7��?�
Ann Y. Moore
14 LAW OFFICES
NORTON MOORE & ADAMS
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP TELEPHONE
525 B STREET, SUITE 1500 (619) 233-8200
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
ANN Y. MOORE
November 14, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Ms. Amanda Guy
Deputy City Attorney
City Attorney Office
City of Vista
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
Re: Camino Largo
Dear Ms. Guy
TELECOPIER
(619) 231.7595
Our firm represents California West Communities, the applicant ("Applicant") of a project that proposes to construct 46 two-story detached single-family residential units ("Project") on a 9.3-acre parcel, identified as Assessor's Parcel Number [APN] 159-240-07 ("Project Site"). The Applicant is seeking approval from the City of Vista ("Vista" or "City") of a Revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("Revised IS/MND"), General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Site Development Plan to develop the Project. This letter has been prepared to address comments received regarding the Applicant's ability to make the improvements described in its application.
BACKGROUND
Camino Largo roadway.
The Project Site is located northeast of the North Santa Fe Avenue intersection and Camino Largo. Access from the Project site will be provided by five private streets that extend onto Camino Largo. Currently, Camino Largo runs along the boundary of the Project site and the parcels owned by Peter Marcone (Parcel A: APN 159-240-32) and the John and Linda Marcone Family Trust (Parcel B: APN 240-159-33 and Parcel C: 240-159-31) (collectively 1 referred to as the "Marcones" or "Marcones Parcels"). The private roadway continues past the Macrone Parcels to the parcel owned by the Jacobs family ("Jacobs") at 266 Camino Largo ("Jacobs Parcel').
Easements for ingress and egress.
Property owners along Camino Largo have access rights to the roadway through a series of easements that have been granted over the years. The Jacobs family has an expressed easement created by a reservation in its grant deed over a specifically identified twenty -foot - wide strip of land on the Marcone Parcels in which Camino Largo is currently located, and is recorded in that certain Deed of Trust, recorded as Document Nol991-0028356, on January 18, 1991, in the Official Records of San Diego County ("Jacobs Easement"). The Jacobs Easement expressly grants an "easement and right of way for ingress and egress purposes" over the twenty -foot -wide strip of land that ends at North Santa Fe Avenue.
The Applicant derived access rights to Camino Largo from that certain Grant of Reciprocal Easement, dated May 13, 2007, and recorded as document No 2007-0706045 on November 6, 2007, in the Official Records of San Diego County ("2007-Reciprocal Easement"). In 2007, the previous owners of the Macrone Parcels and the Project site combined portions of their land to create a 56 feet wide reciprocal access easement for public or private ingress and egress and public utility purposes to serve their respective properties.
The 2007-Reciprocal Easement granted both landowners a mutual, reciprocal private driveway easement to serve their individual properties for vehicular ingress and egress and public utility purposes over, under, along, and across that certain strip of land described within the document. The parties were granted improvement rights to grade, create and maintain necessary slopes, embankments and install drainage facilities consistent with reasonable engineering practices on areas outside and adjacent to the proposed road. This grant of easement was non-exclusive to each grantee and their successors -in -interest. The easement was also conveyed with the right to burden for subdivision purposes. Neither owner had the right to restrict vehicular travel unless both owners signed a subsequent easement amendment.
In 2013, a new 56 feet wide reciprocal easement was created by the then owners of the Marcone Parcels and the Project site that superseded and replaced the 2007-Reciprocal Easement and was recorded as document No 2013-0426168 on July 8, 2013, in the Official Records of San Diego County ("2013-Reciprocal Easement"). The 2013 Reciprocal Easement was identical to the previously recorded 2007 Reciprocal Easement, except the improvement rights granted to the parties were now expressly provided to accommodate future development. The Jacobs Easement passes through the portion of the 2013 Reciprocal Easement that is located within the Marcone Parcels.
Other easements of interest.
On June 24, 1998, the predecessors to the John and Linda Marcone Family Trust granted an easement to the previous owns of the Project site, for private storm drain and 2 appurtenances, including for construction and maintenance purposes ("Drainage Easement"), over a portion of its land designated as Parcel C (APN 159-240-31) and more specifically described in the easement document. The Drainage Easement is located within a part of Camino Largo that falls within the Jacobs Easement. The Drainage Easement was recorded as document No 1998-0562349 on September 2, 1998, in the Official Records of San Diego County.
In 2009, the predecessors to the John and Linda Marcone Family Trust granted and dedicated to the City an easement for open space purposes, prohibiting such activities as paving over the entirety of Parcel C, which included Camino Largo. This area was already disturbed and was being used for ingress and egress purposes by various property owners, including the Jacobs. Camino Largo has been continuously used for ingress and egress purposes before the grant of the Open Space Easement and has remained in use since 2009.
This use has been well documented, as evidenced in the comments by the Jacobs family regarding Camino Largo. Additionally, the Open Space Easement conflicts with or does not consider the rights previously provided through various easements recorded over the same Parcel C before 2009.
Project Description
As described above, the proposed Project includes the construction of 46 single- family homes, drainage improvements, wet and dry utilities, private streets, and open space areas. [Revised IS/MND, page 2-2.] The Applicant will vacate the 2013 Reciprocal Easement and establish a new forty -foot easement ("Improved Camino Largo Easement") that essentially follows the same footprint as Camino Largo and the 2013 Reciprocal Easement; albeit the easement area would be reduced from fifty-six feet to forty -feet. Camino Largo will be improved to increase the width of the road to a paved 28 feet within the Improved Camino Largo Easement area, with a curb and gutter system and sidewalks. The Improved Camino Largo Easement area will be equally located on the Marcone Parcels (twenty feet) and the Project site (twenty feet). The roadway will be improved from an unclassified road to a two- way paved street.
While Jacobs correctly points out that Camino Largo is twenty feet wide, the current roadway must accommodate two lanes of traffic. The improvements made by the Applicant will increase the width of the road to a paved 28 feet, allowing greater lane width for both directions of travel. With improvements to Camino Largo, the Jacobs will be able to continue to travel unimpeded from its parcel to North Santa Fe Avenue along a wider, safer, and improved roadway. Therefore, the Applicant will not unreasonably interfere with the Jacobs Easement.
The Project's frontage along Camino Largo would include landscaping, retaining walls, and sidewalks set back from the roadway to accommodate pedestrian usage.
Collectively, these project features are considered a visual improvement in relation to the existing conditions along Camino Largo. [Revised IS/MND, page 3-5, Aesthetics.] To 3 accommodate stormwater flows and maintain water quality, a 6,572-SF biofiltration basin would be constructed in the southwest corner of the Project Site, and a 4,675-SF underground storage vault/modular wetland system (MWS) would be constructed along the eastern perimeter of the site within the Drainage Easement. [Revised IS/MND, pages 2-2 and 2-3, Project Description.] Since the public review of the Revised IS/MND and the approval by the Planning Commission, the Project has been revised to remove any improvements that were previously located outside the Drainage Easement boundaries.
ANALYSIS
Several comments have been received regarding the Applicant's easement rights over Camino Largo and the ability to improve this roadway. This response was prepared to provide the proper context and factual and legal underpinnings for addressing these concerns.
Although research did not reveal a case precisely on point, a number of decisions have addressed whether a property owner could grant easements on or over the same servient estate and the limits to which an easement holder may enjoy the use of an easement.
General Law Regarding . Easements.
An easement is "an incorporeal interest in the land of another which gives its owner the right to use another's property or to prevent the use of the property by its owner." [Moylan v. Dykes, (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 561, 568.] Easements are appurtenant or in gross, and the benefits and scope of an easement are either set forth in a grant or determined by implication or prescription. An easement that benefits adjoining property, such as a driveway, is termed an "appurtenant easement." An easement that does not benefit a particular tract of land, such as a gas transmission pipeline, is termed an "easement in gross." When a grant or reservation creates an easement, the terms of the grant control the scope and use of the easement. [Van Klompenburg v. Berghold, (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 345, 349; Scruby v. Vintage Grapevine, Inc., (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 697, 702; Cal. Civ. Code § 806 ("the extent of the servitude is determined by the terms of the grant, or the nature of the enjoyment by which it was acquired")."] In construing an instrument conveying an easement, the rules applicable to the construction of deeds generally apply. If the language is clear and explicit in the conveyance, there is no occasion for the use of parol evidence to show the nature and extent of the rights acquired." [Van Klompenburg, supra, 126 Cal. AppAth at 349 quoting Scruby, supra, 37 Cal. AppAth at 702.] To that end, "a grant is to be interpreted in favor of the grantee, except that a reservation in any grant ... is to be interpreted in favor of the grantor." [Cal. Civil Code § 1069; see also City of Los Angeles v. Ingersoll-Rand Co, (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 889, 894.]
Nonexclusive easements.
Most easements are non-exclusive, meaning that the owner retains the right to use the property and the right to grant easements to others for various purposes. Because an exclusive 4 easement restricts the property owner's right to use the land, as a general rule, an easement is nonexclusive unless the granting instrument expressly makes it exclusive. [City of Pasadena v California -Michigan Land & Water Co., (1941) 17 C2d 576, 578; Rye v Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal Co. (2013) 222 CA4th 84, 93.] As explained in Pasadena, an exclusive easement is an unusual interest in land equating to almost a conveyance of fee. As such, there must be a clear indication by the grantor to convey such interest. [Pasadena, supra, 17 C2d, at 578.]
Under a non-exclusive easement, the servient tenement (grantor) is entitled to make all use of its land (servient estate) so long as it does not unreasonably interfere with the rights of the easement holder(s). Moreover, the landowner can grant additional easements to other parties on or over the same servient estate. The California Supreme Court in Pasadena made clear that the grant of additional easements over the same piece of land does not, as a matter of law, result in an unreasonable interference with the first easement holder's use, even if the land is partially occupied under the first easement. As the owner of the servient tenement, the granting party retains the power to transfer these interests to subsequent parties. Similarly, the previous owners of the Marcone Parcels had the right to grant an easement to the Jacobs as well as to the previous owners of the Project site over the same strip of land. In such instances, it becomes a question of fact whether there is an unreasonable interference with the use of the easement. [Pasadena, id at page 579; See also Smith v Rock Creek Water Corp (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 49.]
The servient owner is entitled to make all uses of the land that is not prohibited by the servitude and that do not interfere unreasonably with the uses authorized by the easement.
Actions that make it more difficult to use an easement or that increase the risks associated with the use of the easement are prohibited unless justified by the needs of the servient estate.
In determining whether the holder of the servient estate has unreasonably interfered with the exercise of an easement, "the interests of the parties must be balanced to strike a reasonable accommodation that maximizes overall utility to the extent consistent with effectuating the purpose of the easement, and subject to any different conclusion based on the intent or expectations of the parties." [Dolnikov v Ekizian (2013) 222 CA4th 419, 429. Restatement:
Servitudes §4. 9.]
In determining what constitutes an unreasonable interference with the use of the easement, the courts have looked at a number of factors. In Pasadena, the Court distinguished between the burden of the easement on the servient land and the location at which the burden is to be imposed. The fact that an easement's location is precisely defined does not determine the extent of the burden imposed on the servient land. In other words, the extent of the burden that the parties intend to impose upon the servient tenement is not fixed merely by a specification of width and location. It does not mean that the easement holder has a right to occupy it to the fullest. Said another way, even when an easement's location is precisely defined, it doesn't mean that the property owner has given up their rights to use that land. [Pasadena, supra, 17 C2d, at 580.]
5 In Zissler v. Saville, (2018) 29 Cal. App. 5th 630,641, the court determined that the scope of the easement and the extent of servitude on the landowner granting the easement was dependent on the actual language in the easement. "[T]he purpose of an easement for `ingress and egress' may [as here] be specifically defined as the entrance and exit of people, or people and vehicles, or more generally defined as access to the dominant estate." [Zissler id at page 641, quoting (Rest.3d Property, Servitudes, § 4.10, com. d, p. 595.] When there is an express right-of-way easement, it can also be presumed to contemplate "normal future development," and will not generally be restricted to its historical use. [Zissler id at page 641.]
Jacobs holds an easement for the expressed and limited purpose of ingress and egress to and from the Jacobs Parcel. Furthermore, the Jacobs Easement does not expressly state that the easement is exclusive, and nothing indicates that the predecessors to the Marcone Parcels intended that their property rights be restricted in such a manner. In fact, the owners subsequently granted a reciprocal easement to the adjacent property owners in 2007 and 2013 in anticipation of developing their respective land.
Because the Jacobs Easement is nonexclusive, the granting party [Macrone] is entitled to all uses of the servient estate so long as it does not unreasonably interfere with existing easement use. Even though the location of the Jacobs Easement is specifically defined, it doesn't mean that Marcone has given up its ability to use that land. Just as it is reasonable to assume that the dominant tenement that holds a right-of-way easement can contemplate growth on its property, it is also reasonable to assume that the servient tenement can contemplate the same. Both parties must exercise their respective rights and privileges in a manner that preserves the utility of the easement while minimizing the impact on the servient estate. Furthermore, the granting party [Macrone] can grant easement rights to other people in the exact location as the Jacobs Easement, provided the subsequent grantees do not unreasonably interfere with the use of the original easement. In other words, Marcone can grant the Applicant a new twenty -foot easement over the Marcone Parcels in the exact location as the Jacobs Easement so long as it does not unreasonably interfere with the use of the Jacobs Easement.
The Applicant is proposing improvements to Camino Largo that will improve the safety of the road and has offered on numerous occasions to grant Jacobs an easement over the Applicant's half of the Improved Camino Largo Easement but to no avail. At this point, it can be assumed that Jacobs is refusing to accept the Applicant's offer in an attempt to stop development on the Project site and on Parcels A and B of the Marcones Parcels. Jacobs's limited right to ingress and egress cannot prevent the Marcones from developing its property as contemplated in the 2013 Reciprocal Easement. At that time, it was anticipated that Camino Largo would be improved within a fifty -six-foot area to accommodate future development provided, however, vehicular travel could not be restricted. The Project before the City will accomplish this but on a more limited footprint. Finally, the Jacobs Easement granted access rights only "over" the easement area; the Drainage Easement has no impact on its rights under its easement.
In any event, the legal issues raised by Jacobs concerning its easement rights are strictly a private matter between property owners and are outside of the City's land use authority. The Project can still be allowed to move forward by conditioning the Project to confirm its access rights to Camino Largo prior to final map approval by any of the following methods as approved by the City Attorney: providing evidence that the Jacobs and other appropriate parties (other adjacent property owners as applicable) have a recorded easement allowing ingress and egress over the Improved Camino Largo Easement; recording an affirmative covenant against its Project site that dedicates the twenty -foot portion of the Improved Camino Largo Easement to the appropriate parties (Jacobs and any other adjacent property owners) for ingress and egress purposes, or dedicating Camino Largo to the City (on the tentative map or by separate Irrevocable Offer of Dedication) as a public roadway provided the Project's Homeowners Association is required to maintain it. The dedication of the road will not require any changes to the Revised IS/MND because the footprint will remain the same. The dedication of Camino Largo would not indirectly induce growth or contribute to substantial growth because the project site is already surrounded by existing development, including a museum and regional park to the west, a church to the north, and an existing residential neighborhood to the south. Therefore, even as a public road, Camino Largo would not provide any new or future potential to accommodate development beyond the site. [Revised IS/MND, page 3-49.]
Summary Vacation.
Finally, concerning the Open Space Easement, it is clear that the findings can be made by which a portion of the easement may be vacated. Cal Std & Hy Code Section 8333(a) states that a legislative body may summarily vacate a public service easement if "the easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation." A portion of the Open Space Easement runs over the Jacobs Easement and Camino Largo, which the Jacobs family has used for ingress and egress purposes since before the dedication of the Open Space Easement to the City.
Granting all of Parcel C to the City without excluding the current easement areas was a mistake by the Grantor, as evidenced by the 2007 Reciprocal Easement that was granted before the Open Space Easement. In any event, a portion of the Open Space Easement should be vacated to remove the area that has been continuously used for roadway purposes since 2009, clearly showing that this easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated for more than five consecutive years before this proposed vacation.
Conclusion.
The Applicant has offered the Jacobs family an easement over its twenty -foot portion of the Improved Camino Largo Easement on numerous occasions, which the Jacobs have refused. With the combination of the Applicant's easement and the Jacobs Easement, the Jacobs family would have an easement over the entire Improved Camino Largo Easement area and be able to ingress and egress to and from their property to North Santa Fe Avenue.
Instead, Jacobs is unreasonably interfering with the use of Marcones' servient tenement and the Applicant's rights under the 2013 Reciprocal Easement. Because this is a private matter 7 between the property owners, the City can condition the project to require the Applicant to confirm its access rights to Camino Largo prior to final map approval by any of the methods described above.
Very truly yours,
NORTON MOORE & ADAMS
Ann Y. Moore
From: Tom Henchv
To: Public Comments
Subject: Camino Largo
Date: Friday, November 11, 2022 11:33:45 AM
To the Vista City Council: I would like to alert you to the danger inherent in the Camino Largo plan. Being neighbors and using Osborne and Santa Fe streets all the time, including 2 evacuations because of fire, it is alarming that they are contemplating more cars in a static road system. It was terrifying enough getting to safety without the significant rise in traffic due to this plan. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Thomas P. Henchy, PhD
From: Linda Harvev
To: Public Comments
Subject: Camino Largo
Date: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:30:38 AM
I am Linda Harvey. My family has been long time generational residents of Vista.
VOTE NO for the huge development on Camino Largo. I'm not against development! But why change the zoning that already exists. Guajome is a special place and please think twice before overdeveloping it. VOTE NO
From: Patsy Chow
To: Kathy Valdez
Subject: FW: Camino Largo issues 11/15 Council
Date: Monday, November 7, 2022 9:47:40 AM
From: Michael Jacobs
Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 5:10 PM
To: John Conley ; Patsy Chow ; John Franklin
; Corinna Contreras ; Katie Melendez
; Ursula Kreml ; Joe Green
; Andrea Jacobs ; Pe Church
[email protected]
Subject: Camino Largo issues
Dear City of Vista Leaders,
The purpose of my letter is to highlight a few issues concerning the proposed development called the "Camino Largo Project".
• Impact of traffic on Camino Largo in the morning and evening. (This project is located between Osborn and Taylor Streets, intersecting with North Santa Fe. Two of the most impacted intersections in Vista.) So adding 300-400 more traffic vehicles onto Camino Largo to transition onto NSF between Osborn and Taylor will bring Santa Fe to a standstill with Osborn, Taylor, and Camino Largo turning into virtual parking lots. What mitigation can Cal West realistically offer to mitigate this issue?
• The Planning commission unanimously voted to recommend negation of this plan and offered objections for the denial. Has Cal West offered any solutions to these objections? One objection was the lack of "green space" for the families in this development. • Scope and scale of this proposed project by Cal West is far out of alignment with the Local Vista Community. It does not fit with the surrounding homes at all. The project calls for tiny 2,500 sq.ft. lots in an area of Vista zoned to 43,560 sq. ft. (one acre). They want 46 small homes in a space zoned for 8. (Do not let this happen, please.) • What is this idea they have about reissuing easements? Do they want us to issue back our 56' easements so they can issue us 40' easements? Or do they think they can quitclaim back the 56' easement (we own) and then issue all of us 40' easements? Is this reasonable, clear thinking on behalf of a construction company?
• Noise pollution that will affect the fish and wildlife and the construction that will restrict water flow through the aquifer to the tributary on the southern edge of Marcones' land. Construction of homes, streets, driveways, sidewalks, patios, etc. will restrict water absorption and limit water availability to the Guajome Lakes. This water flows under N. Santa Fe and replenishes the Guajome Lakes. The noise from construction and otherwise is restricted to 100' so as not to disturb the wildlife in the creek bed. This project is within 100' of Marcone's tributary.
For these and more reasons The City Council should vote to reject this poorly conceived proposal by Cal West.
Submitted by,
Michael Jacobs
Vista Resident
From: Patsy Chow
To: Kathy Valdez
Subject: FW: Camino Largo Support (11/15 Agenda) ADD TO PACKET Date: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:01:09 AM
From: traci waller
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 2:12 PM
To: Judy Ritter ; John Franklin ; Joe Green
; Corinna Contreras ; Katie Melendez
; Patsy Chow
Subject: Camino Largo Support (11/15 Agenda)
Dear Mayor Ritter and members of the City Council,
Please accept this letter of support for CalWest and its Camino Largo project. I understand that you will be deciding on this project next week. In short, I think this project is a good step towards helping to achieve City goals to provide more housing for the people who live and work here.
I've lived in Vista for 38 years and continue to be amazed by how much it's changed and how expensive even modest homes have become. My home is not too far from where these new homes are planned. I like that this project feels approachable. Not McMansions on huge lots, just regular, nice homes, for regular people.
Please vote yes!
Traci & Roger Waller
=Rainbow Court
Vista, Ca 92083
From: Patsy Chow
To: Kathy Valdez
Subject: FW: Council Meeting Comments
Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 1:25:41 PM
From: Mary Kay Stuckey
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 11:26 AM
To: Judy Ritter ; John Franklin ; Joe Green
; Corinna Contreras ; Katie Melendez
; Patsy Chow
Subject: Council Meeting Comments
I was planning on attending the Council Meeting next week but, unfortunately, I will not be able to attend. I hope you consider this support letter when you're making your decision about the new homes planned for Camino Largo.
As with any development project fear of the unknown has resulted in a lot of misconceptions floating around about the changes in process for N. Santa Fe and Camino Largo. I too was nervous when I first learned about the development, but after doing a little research on my own, I'd like to share my support for this project. I have lived in Vista for 46 years and frequently drive past the old nursery. I'm glad that the developer has considered the surrounding community and will be landscaping the slope along Santa Fe since it's such a visible spot.
I also like that they are building homes for the often -forgotten middle class. My own kids are grown now, but I love the idea of continuing to invest in making Vista such a great place to raise a family.
Mary Kay Stuckey
= Sugarbush Drive
Vista, CA 92084
From: Patsy Chow
To: Kathy Valdez
Subject: FW: Opposition to Camino Largo Project: Falsities In Legal Argument and ISMND by Cal West Date: Monday, November 7, 2022 5:14:49 PM
From: Gabriel Jacobs
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 4:56 PM
To: John Conley ; Patsy Chow ; Corinna Contreras
; John Franklin ; Joe Green
; Judy Ritter ; Katie Melendez
; Patsy Chow ; Walter C. Chung
Subject: Opposition to Camino Largo Project: Falsities In Legal Argument and ISMND by Cal West To the city council,
We are reaching out to ensure that you have all the facts as we have just read the legal opinion from Cal West development and, like the revised MND, they continue to include in their arguments mischaracterizations and falsities.
Below we will demonstrate that Cal West does not possess the legal right to expand their road as it will infringe upon The Jacobs' easement, that their development will significantly impact air quality, is not compatible with the housing element as it would exceed growth assumptions, compound an already failing thoroughfare making North Santa Fe more congested, and create a dangerous situation putting the city at risk of lawsuit.
While Cal West's "research did not reveal a case precisely on point" for them to use to bolster their arguments, my research turned out to be more fruitful. Below are court decisions which make the case that Cal West developers do not possess the legal right to expand the road as it will infringe upon The Jacobs' easement.
First "When a grant or reservation creates an easement, the terms of the grant control the scope and use of the easement. [Van Klompenburg v. Berghold, (2005) 126 Cal.AppAth 345, 349; Scruby v. Vintage Grapevine, Inc., (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 697, 702; Cal. Civ. Code § 806 ("the extent of the servitude is determined by the terms of the grant, or the nature of the enjoyment by which it was acquired")."] If the language is clear and explicit in the conveyance, there is no occasion for the use of parol evidence to show the nature and extent of the rights acquired." [Van Klompenburg, supra, 126 Cal. AppAth at 349 quoting Scruby, supra, 37 Cal. AppAth at 702.] Our easement is our easement. As the lawyer from Cal West stated "the location of the Jacobs Easement is specifically defined." We have a legal right to use our 20 foot wide easement as clearly expressed by the terms of our grant. The way Cal West wishes to develop their easement will unreasonably interfere with The Jacobs' use of their easement. Just because Cal West Development will grant us an additional easement for egress across their land does not negate the fact that we, The Jacobs,
also have a grant from the Marcone's which allows us use of 20 feet of their land to ingress and egress.
Cal West Lawyers in their legal opinion make the case that "owners of the Marcone Parcels had the right to grant an easement to the Jacobs as well as to the previous owners of the Project site over the same strip of land. In such instances, it becomes a question of fact whether there is an unreasonable interference with the use of the easement." Additionally Cal West lawyers try to argue not only that their expanded road won't cause unreasonable interference, but that the construction of it is a positive stating, "the current roadway must accommodate two lanes of traffic. The improvements made by the Applicant will increase the width of the road to a paved 28 feet, allowing greater lane width for both directions of travel. With improvements to Camino Largo, the Jacobs will be able to continue to travel unimpeded from its parcel to North Santa Fe Avenue along a wider, safer, and improved roadway." The Jacobs' do not refute the Marcone's right to grant easements. We, The Jacobs, do refute the assertion by Cal West that the use of their easement will cause no unreasonable interference with ours. The "improved road" will not give a greater lane to travel down. The Jacobs currently enjoy a lane 20 feet in width. Improvements to the road will not make it safer either. It will make it busier, and create a greater chance for car accidents. Furthermore, splitting Camino Largo in half will certainly interfere with the use of The Jacobs' easement as it will effectively cut the original lane of 20 feet down to two lanes of only 14 feet. Lastly, increased traffic of 200 additional vehicles will impede The Jacobs ingress and egress.
It's important to note that "Actions that make it more difficult to use an easement or that increase the risks associated with the use of the easement are prohibited unless justified by the needs of the servient estate." [Dolnikov v Ekizian (2013) 222 CA4th 419, 429. Restatement: Servitudes §4. 9.]
The development intends to terminate The Jacobs' ability to use their Easement as intended upon creation of this two lane road. This two lane road will not allow The Jacobs to use their easement as originally intended as they will have to dodge oncoming traffic. Thus, the developer will be taking actions that will make it more difficult for The Jacobs to use their easement. Based on the aforementioned ruling the developers should be prohibited from expanding the road, especially because they are not the servient estate. The servient estate in this case is the Marcone Estate.
Cal West accuses us of preventing the servient estate from developing, stating, "At this point, it can be assumed that Jacobs is refusing to accept the Applicant's offer in an attempt to stop development on the Project site and on Parcels A and B of the Marcones Parcels. Jacobs's limited right to ingress and egress cannot prevent the Marcones from developing its property as contemplated in the 2013 Reciprocal Easement. At that time, it was anticipated that Camino Largo would be improved within a fifty -six-foot area to accommodate future development provided, however, vehicular travel could not be restricted."
This statement is blatantly false. Multiple times to multiple people, including the planning commission, city council members, and when we met with Arlene, Matt Howl, and Matt Thorne, have we communicated that we are not anti development. Us Jacobs, are anti poor planning, which will destroy the neighborhood in which we live, violate the 2030 general plan, specifically LUCI Goal 2 and LUCI Policy 2.4. This is not just The Jacobs' opinion of the proposed development, but also the opinion of the planning commission. They, the Planning Commission, voted to recommend denial of the project unanimously choosing to maintain rural neighborhoods, and rejecting the development on the grounds that it violated the 2030 General Plan such that it was incompatible with the existing community and its surroundings; specifically citing density, lot size differences, and that it diminished the amount of rural zoning.
Additionally, this statement is further misleading as it makes the claim that the Marcone's are trying to develop their property. This is false, the Marcone's are not doing any development and in fact are opposed to Cal West's plans for their current development.
Furthermore this statement is false as it assumes to know what the Marcone's were contemplating when creating the 2013 Reciprocal Easement.
Lastly, it mischaracterizes the contemplated development connected to the 2013 Reciprocal easement. At this time in 2013 only 8 houses were to be built on the property located at 2123 N Santa Fe Av Parcel number:1592400700.
After being unable to make a convincing legal case the lawyer for Cal West decided "In any event, the legal issues raised by Jacobs concerning its easement rights are strictly a private matter between property owners and are outside of the City's land use authority."
This statement too is untrue, as the City Attorney is charged with ensuring the City does not violate the legal rights of any property owner during the entitlement process.
Thus, this is why the City Attorney, Walter Chung, told the developer "that the City needs a legal analysis demonstrating that it possesses all the necessary legal rights for the proposed road expansion."
Further proof that this is within the City's authority is that the developer accepted the City's request and engaged a title insurance company to determine the extent of all relevant easements, obtained title insurance and employed a lawyer to demonstrate to the City that they did indeed possess the necessary legal rights.
If the city were to approve the development they would be operating outside their land use authority as this approval would indicate that the 2013 reciprocating easement supersedes and effectively terminates the Jacobs easement, and only a judge has the authority to make that decision.
In a further instance of the developer accepting that this is a City matter and not just a private one, is when they provide the City options to circumvent The Jacobs' right to
our easement. Of the three suggested, the one I found most distasteful is when they suggest theft as one of their options, trying to give private land they don't own to the City, "dedicating Camino Largo to the City (on the tentative map or by separate Irrevocable Offer of Dedication) as a public roadway." Any attempt to circumvent the rights of The Jacobs' to use their easement will be rejected, and fought to the fullest extent.
On top of the developer, Cal West, not possessing the necessary legal right to expand the road, their development will negatively impact the environment by exceeding SANDAG's projected greenhouse gas emission levels.
The revised IS/MND has mischaracterized the city's need for housing. As stated in the housing element "as of November 2020, the city only had a remaining RHNA of 1,549 units." In 2021, 542 units were issued certificates of occupancy bringing the remaining RHNA to 1007 units. Based on information provided within the MND from tables AQ1 and AQ2 regarding approved and pending units the city will have built enough units to satisfy the RHNA without including the proposed development at Camino Largo.
The construction of the original 2,561 units assigned to Vista by the RHNA are supposed to take place over a span of 8 years between 2021 and 2029. With the city's current projected rate of development, we will reach the RHNA goal within the next couple years if not within the year.
As clearly expressed by the revised IS/MND, "If a project proposes development that results in growth greater than that anticipated in the adopted land use plans and SANDAG's growth projections upon which the Attainment Plan is based, the project may conflict with the Attainment Plan and could have a potentially significant impact on air quality."
Thus, it's evident that this development would significantly impact air quality and is not compatible with the housing element as it would exceed growth assumptions.
The development will also negatively impact the flow of traffic along North Santa Fe.
The following is a quote from the Traffic Congestion Management Plan 2020. "Travel times are more than twice the free flow speed in both directions on seven corridor segments during the morning peak period and five corridor segments during the evening peak hour.Three of the 12 intersections operate at LOS E or F during the a.m. peak hour, and two intersections operating at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour.
The three intersections are at Osborne Street, Taylor Street, and Bobier Drive. N.
Santa Fe Avenue and Taylor Street during the a.m. peak hour is the most congested intersection in Vista. The delay for the southbound through movement is a LOS F, and the northbound through movement is at LOS F also."
To those who are unaware the proposed land for project development falls in between Taylor and Osborne. These intersections already operate at a level of
service that the city considers deficient. For the revised IS/MND to reach the conclusion that "the roadways and intersections within the study area would not conflict with the City's established LOS goals. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan" is blatantly false. Increasing in and out traffic 100 fold at the intersection of Camino Largo will make an already failing deficient thoroughfare worse. Adding this level of traffic directly conflicts with the goals of the circulation element and the stated priorities of city council members to find a solution for traffic. Furthermore, should this development be approved and they use Camino Largo to accommodate projected traffic generated from the construction of 46 houses the City Council will have willfully and knowingly created an unsafe life endangering situation at the intersection of Camino Largo and North Santa Fe. The city should be held responsible for any accidents or deaths that occur at this intersection.
In conclusion The Jacobs' easement is clearly defined, we are not stopping the servient estate from developing their land, and the proposed expansion of Camino Largo by Cal West will unreasonably interfere with how The Jacobs use their easement. Additionally the development will impact greenhouse gas emissions by exceeding SANDAG's projected greenhouse gas emissions levels. Furthermore, the proposed development is not compatible with the Housing Element as the development will result in growth projections greater than that anticipated in the adopted land use plans and SANDAG's growth projections upon which the Attainment Plan is based. Lastly, this project will make traffic worse.
Sincerely,
Gabriel Jacobs
Michael Jacobs
DELANO & DELANO
July 15, 2022
Planning Commission
City of Vista
200 Civic Center Dr.
Vista, CA 92084
Re: July 19, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda Item PH2: P21-033, Camino Law Project and MND
Dear Honorable Planning Commission Members:
This letter is submitted on behalf of Guajome Alliance for Responsible Development ("GuARD") in connection with the proposed Camino Largo project ("Project") and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND").
I. The Project Violates the General Plan, Municipal Code, and State Law The General Plan is the City's single most important planning document. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 570 — 71. Any attempt to approve a project that is inconsistent with the General Plan would be "invalid at the time it is passed." Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 544. Here, the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan and Municipal Code; as such, the Project should be denied. See e.g., Carmel Valley View, Ltd. v. Board of Supervisors (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 817, 822 —23 (upholding denial of a tentative map because the site was not physically suited for the proposed project); Harroman Co. v.
Town of Tiburon (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 388, 393 — 94 (upholding denial because the proposed project was inconsistent with general plan).
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that significant environmental impacts may occur. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(d); No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 13 Cal.3d 68. If there is "substantial evidence that the project might have [a significant impact on the environment], but the agency failed to secure preparation of the required EIR, the agency's action is to be set aside because the agency abused its discretion by failing to proceed in a `manner required by law."' Friends of "B" Street v.
City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002. Here, the City should prepare an EIR before proceeding; the Project is likely to lead to several significant impacts.
Honorable Planning Commission Members
July 15, 2022
The Project will lead to significant impacts to land use, aesthetics, and agricultural resources.
• The Project proposes to place dense residential uses in a rural, agricultural area. The Project is inconsistent with the surrounding area. Indeed, the staff report acknowledges the Project is surrounded mainly by agricultural zoning and generally rural and low -density General Plan designations. Staff Report at 6.
• The staff report claims the "property is surrounded by residential uses ...:.
Staff Report at 9. But this claim misses the fact that the dense project is incompatible with its much less dense surroundings.
• The Project is inconsistent with several aspects of the City's General Plan.
For example, contrary to LUCI Policy 2.4, it disrupts the existing development pattern within the established neighborhood (the diagram on page 2-4 of the Land Use and Community Design Element demonstrates clearly how the Project violates this policy). And contrary to LUCI Policy
2.1, it does not provide for large -lot single-family residential development. • The staff report claims the City recently adopted small lot development regulations "to provide an alternative to the traditional single-family subdivisions, thereby increasing options for fee simple homeownership opportunities." Staff Report at 7. But there is no showing that the Project will provide affordable housing.
• Municipal Code Chapter 17.12 and the State Subdivision Map Act require findings for the approval of a tentative map. The Project does not meet these findings. For example, it is inconsistent with the General Plan. The site is not suitable for the type of development. And the Project is likely to cause public health problems.
• The MND claims the site is identified in the City's Housing Element, but there is nothing in the Housing Element indicating the site should be developed at anything greater than one dwelling unit.
The Project will lead to significant impacts to traffic.
The MND fails to consider significant impacts associated with construction traffic.
The MND fails to consider significant impacts to applicable roadway segments and intersections.
The MND fails to consider the potential for public health and safety impacts, including significantly unsafe conditions associated with the several private streets intersecting with Camino Largo.
Honorable Planning Commission Members
July 15, 2022
The Project will lead to significant impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
The MND claims the site is identified in the City's Housing Element, but there is nothing in the Housing Element indicating the site should be developed at anything greater than one dwelling unit. As such, contrary to the MND's assertion, vehicle trips associated with the development of 46 residential uses on the Project site were not accounted for in the State Implementation Plan. MND at 3-9. Such impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions will be significant.
The MND attempts to separate air emissions into construction and operational phases. However, it fails to account for the fact that such phases can, indeed are likely to, overlap, thereby increasing the amounts of emissions at any given time. This is particularly stark in light of the emissions ofjust construction equipment alone.
The MND averages construction emissions over the life of the Project. MND at 3-27. Such emissions should be calculated as they will actually occur, not averaged over a longer period of time. See Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.0 1013, 1049. Indeed, if construction emissions were appropriately accounted for, the Project would exceed the City's GHG Threshold.
The Project will lead to significant impacts to noise.
The MND dismisses substantial construction noise impacts because they will be temporary. MND at 346. But the temporary nature of a noise impact does not make it insignificant. See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v.
Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4a' 1344, 1380 — 81.
The MND acknowledges the noise analysis found existing conditions far in excess of applicable limits. MND at 3-44. Yet the Project will not be providing mitigation to address these impacts. Indeed, where on -the -ground conditions are severe, the `relevant question" is whether the project's additional impacts will be significant "in light of the serious nature" of the existing problems. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Ca1.App.3d 692, 718.
The Project's noise mitigation is vague and insufficient. See Citizens for Responsible and Open Government Y. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.46' 1323, 1341 ("there is no evidence of any measures to be taken that would ensure that the noise standards would be effectively monitored and vigorously enforced").
II. The Proposed Findings are Unsupported
"[R]egardless of whether the local ordinance commands that the 0 board set forth findings, that body must render findings sufficient both to enable the parties to determine
Honorable Planning Commission Members
July 15, 2022
whether and on what basis they should seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the board's action." Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514 (footnote omitted). The proposed resolutions fail to produce adequate findings supported by evidence. Among other things, as noted above, the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and State Subdivision Map Act. Additionally, as discussed above, the Project will adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the City and its residents.
Furthermore, the proposed findings do not address important criteria required by the Municipal Code.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, GuARD requests you reject the Project and MND.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.
Sincerely,
Everett DeLano
ce: Patsy Chow, Deputy Director
From: andrew aiello
To: Public Comments
Subject: Re: Camino Largo
Date: Thursday, November 10, 2022 5:36:15 PM
Hello,
My name is Andrew Ajello. I am a Vista resident and neighbor to the location of proposed Camino Largo development that is adjacent to the Guajome Adobe Park, a creek, a 4-acre horse ranch, and a few rural homes on 1 + acres My family and I are strongly opposed to the general plan to rezone these 9 acres for small lots allowing 5+ homes per acre (the current zoning is 1 home per acre)!
This is a terrible precedent that will lead to the loss of more rural land, because all future land owners will request (and receive) the higher density zoning.
We oppose this General Plan Amendment because rezoning for such an extreme density boost will:
• Increase traffic congestion, air pollution, and greenhouse gasses • Cause loss of open space and rural community character • Facilitate the conversion of adjacent rural land to more sprawl housing development • Increase risk from wildfires and traffic evacuation congestion As a family member to the current chairperson of the Traffic Commission for City of Cypress in Orange County California I am all too aware of the unintended complexities of unsustainable increases in traffic related to rezoning. This development will certainly create many traffic issues and an increase in car accidents.
Thanks,
Andrew
From:
Norma Hill
To:
Public Comments
Subject:
Vista new houses
Date:
Saturday, November 12, 2022 2:33:04 PM
To whom of may concern,
I moved to Vista two years ago to escape the traffic and congestion in Encinitas. Vista was a beautiful oasis and if you allow more housing you will ruin it. We already are straining our resources as it is. Please do not allow more building to be done on Saute Fe or anywhere in Vista. Enough is enough.
Thank you,
Norma Hill
Sent from my iPhone
ADD TO PACKET
From: amoore(cbnmaIawfirm. com
To: Public Comments
Cc: Amanda L. Guv; Patsy Chow
Subject: PH 1-CAMINO LARGO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (P21-0300) Date: Monday, November 14, 2022 3:36:03 PM
Attachments: Camino Largo Response letter to Jacobs Nov 7 email.pdf Please see the attached letter to be submitted to the City Council for the November 15, 2022, hearing on Camino Largo.
NORTON MOORE & ADAMS
A Limited Liability Partnership
501 West Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: 619.233.800
Cell: 619-233-3332
amoore o nmalawfirm.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: INFORMATION IN THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED
ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. This message, and any attachment, may be an Attorney -Client communication, or may be Attorney Work Product, and is therefore privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email, delete the message and return any hard copy printouts to the address above. Thank you.
PH1
LAW OFFICES
NORTON MOORE & ADAMS
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP TELEPHONE
525 B STREET, SUITE 1500 (619) 233-8200
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
ANN Y. MOORE
November 9, 2022
►Iir_11DILVAEAI
Honorable Mayor Ritter and City Council
City of Vista
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
Re: Camino Largo — Response to Jacobs email November 7, 2022 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council,
TELECOPIER
(619) 231-7595
California West Communities is the applicant ("Applicant") of a project that proposes to construct 46 two-story detached single-family residential units ("Project") on a 9.3-acre parcel, identified as Assessor's Parcel Number [APN] 159-240-07 ("Project Site"). The Applicant is seeking approval from the City of Vista ("Vista" or "City") of a Revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("Revised IS/MND"), General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Site Development Plan ("Entitlements") to develop the Project. This letter has been prepared to address comments received from Gabriel and Michael Jacobs ("Jacobs") via email dated November 7, 2022, regarding the Project.
As background, a portion of Camino Largo runs along the boundary of the Project site. It is currently located entirely on parcels owned by Peter Marcone (Parcel A: APN 159-240-32) and the John and Linda Marcone Family Trust (Parcel B: APN 240-159-33 and Parcel C: 240- 159-31) (collectively, the parties are referred to as the "Marcone" or the parcels as the "Marcone Parcels"). The private roadway continues past the Macrone Parcels to the lot owned by the Jacobs family ("Jacobs") at 266 Camino Largo ("Jacobs Parcel"). The property owners along Camino Largo have access rights to the roadway through a series of easements granted over the Marcone Parcels through the years.
The Jacobs family has an easement over a specifically identified twenty -foot -wide strip 1 of land on the Marcone Parcels in which Camino Largo is currently located, which expressly grants a nonexclusive "easement and right of way for ingress and egress purposes" to and from land owned by the Jacobs ("Jacobs Parcel") and ends at North Santa Fe Avenue ("Jacobs Easement"). [Deed of Trust, recorded as Document No1991-0028356, on January 18, 1991, in the Official Records of San Diego County.]
In 2013, the Applicant and Marcone granted to each other a mutual, reciprocal private driveway nonexclusive easement over a 56 feet wide strip of land located equally on the Applicant's property and the Marcone Parcels to serve their individual properties for vehicular ingress and egress and public utility purposes ("2013- Reciprocal Easement"). The 2013- Reciprocal Easement was granted for grading and installing a roadway for future development on the respective properties! A portion of the 2013 Reciprocal Easement is located within the Jacobs Easement.
As a part of the Project, the Applicant will improve Camino Largo from its twenty- to twenty-eight feet, which will be located half on the Applicant's property and half on the Marcone Parcels (`improved Camino Largo"). The improved Camino Largo will also have standard curb and gutter improvements, a six-foot- wide parkway, and sidewalks.
L The Applicant has the legal right to expand Camino Largo as part of its Proiect, and Jacobs' Easement does not prohibit such expansion.
As described above, the Applicant has access rights along the current Camino Largo roadway on the Marcone Parcels pursuant to the 2013 Reciprocal Easement. The 2013 Reciprocal Easement gave both Marcone and Applicant a right of vehicular ingress and egress and for public utility purposes to serve their individual properties, along with the right to build a future roadway to accommodate future development. The parties anticipated that Camino Largo would be improved as either a private or public street in compliance with the "City's Development Standards" within the fifty-six feet easement area to serve their respective properties. The 2013- Reciprocal Easement granted both parties the right to improve Camino Largo, including creating and maintaining slopes, embankments, and drainage facilities as necessary. Thus, the Applicant has the absolute right to use the fifty -six- foot easement area to improve Camino Largo to accommodate development on its property.
On the other hand, Jacobs holds a nonexclusive easement along Camino Largo for the limited purpose of ingress and egress to and from the Jacobs Parcel. Because the Jacobs Easement is nonexclusive, the landowner (Marcone) could grant additional easements to other parties on or over the same servient estate. It becomes a question of fact whether granting additional easements over the same piece of land would result in unreasonable interference with the first easement holder's use. [City of Pasadena v California -Michigan Land & Water Co (1941) 17 C2d 576, 579. See also Smith v Rock Creek Water Corp (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 'The 2013 Reciprocal Easement specifically states: "The easement described herein is being granted with the incidental improvement rights to grade, create and maintain necessary slopes, embankments and install drainage facilities consistent with reasonable engineering practices on areas outside and adjacent to the proposed road to accommodate future development." 2 49.] In other words, the granting party [Macrone] had the right to grant easement rights to the Applicant in the exact location of the Jacobs Easement, provided Jacobs could still ingress and egress to and from the Jacobs parcel.
When the easement is "nonexclusive," the common users must accommodate each other.
The owner of a servient estate can continue to use the easement area so long as the use does not "interfere unreasonably" with the easement's purpose. Whether a particular use by the servient owner of the easement area constitutes an unreasonable interference of such an easement is a question of fact for the trier of fact. [Scruby v. Vintage Grapevine, Inc., (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 697, 703.] In Scruby, the area used by the easement holder for ingress and egress purposes was moved to accommodate the servient tenement's continued use of the property. The court found that the precise specification of the width and location of an easement for ingress and egress purposes did not always determine the burden placed on the servient tenement. Instead, the question was whether the easement holder could still have ingress and egress. Moreover, an easement is for ingress and egress purposes and gives the easement holder the right to passage but no other rights. [Scruby, id page 705.] In 2008, Marcone was informed by the City that if he wanted to develop Parcel B in the future, the entire length of Camino Largo would need to be improved to a paved width of twenty-four feet.2 Additionally, Marcone was required to dedicate an open- space/natural habitat easement over Parcel "C." Thus, it was clear that at some point, Marcone would need to improve Camino Largo and possibly change its location if Parcel B was to be developed in the future.
Jacobs' position that Camino Largo must always remain the same would prevent Marcone from developing its property and interfere with the Applicant's rights under the 2013- Reciprocal Easement. Moreover, nothing in the Jacobs Easement gives Jacobs the right to freeze the number of cars that would use Camino Largo in the future. Jacobs's assertion that its easement rights would be adversely impacted if more cars were to travel on Camino Largo would essentially strip Marcone of any future right to develop its property because any development would increase the number of vehicles that travel on Camino Largo. Again, a simple ingress and egress easement does not give the easement holder the right to regulate development or traffic flow on the servient tenement. So, the question is whether the easement holder could still ingress and egress to and from their property without unreasonable interference.
Contrary to Jacobs' assertion expanding Camino Largo by building half on the Project site and half on the Marcone Parcels would not unreasonably infringe on his easement rights to ingress and egress to and from his property. Nor would it result in terminating the easement; rather, the Applicant has offered Jacobs an easement over the Applicant's half of the improved Camino Largo roadway, which Jacobs has repeatedly refused. At this point, it can be assumed 2 See letter written to Yvette Hermann (SHA, Inc.) dated October 20, 2008 from the City of Vista, regarding a boundary adjustment and certificate of Compliance application for 2133 N. Santa Fe Avenue: "Prior to the development of Parcel B, the entire length of Camino Largo shall be improved to a minimum paved width of 24-feet." 3 that Jacobs refuses to accept Applicant's offer to stop development on the Project site and Marcone Parcels.
As we have stated previously, there are no cases that address the exact circumstance that is found here, where the easement holder (Jacobs) would have the right to prevent the servient tenement (Marcone) from developing its property on the pretext that such development would unreasonably interfere with the easement holder's right to ingress and egress, even though that right is being reasonably accommodated. The Applicant has proposed several alternatives that would allow Jacobs to travel along Camino Largo and would not prevent the Applicant from exercising its rights under the 2013- Reciprocal Easement or prevent Marcone from developing its property. The Applicant has offered to grant Jacobs an easement over the Applicant's portion of the improved Camino Largo roadway, record an affirmative covenant against its property that allows the public to access its side of Camino Largo, or dedicate Camino Largo to the City. With any of these options, Jacobs has been assured the same right of ingress and egress that he currently holds. This would strike a reasonable accommodation between all concerned by preserving Marcone's right to develop its property, the Applicant's rights under the 2013- Reciprocal Easement, and Jacobs' right to continue to travel along Camino Largo.
The case cited by Jacobs, Van Klompenburg v. Berghold, (2005) 126 Cal.AppAth 345 was cited in our previous correspondence but did not specifically apply to the Jacobs circumstance. In Van Klompenburg, the easement holder had an easement that explicitly stated the easement area was to "remain open" and "wholly unobstructed." The easement grantor ("servient estate") installed two locked gates across the easement area. The Court explained that the servient estate could typically construct gates across the easement area so long as it didn't unreasonably interfere with the easement holder's rite of passage. But in the Van Klompenburg case, the easement language explicitly stated that the easement area was to "remain open" and "wholly unobstructed." When the easement language is so explicit, such language prevails over the rule that the underlying property owner retains the absolute right to continue to use the servient estate. Therefore, the servient estate could not install gates contrary to the easement's explicit language to keep the area unobstructed. Here, the Jacobs Easement provides them with a right of way for ingress and egress purposes, nothing more.
II. Jacobs incorrectly states that improving Camino Largo as proposed by the Proiect would make it more challenzinz to travel alonm Camino Larro, However, contrary to these assertions, improving Camino Larzo would make it easier and safer to travel on the roadway,
Jacobs incorrectly states that improving Camino Largo from twenty feet to twenty-eight feet would decrease the size of the lanes. Camino Largo currently accommodates two-way traffic on a twenty -foot -wide roadway, effectively making each lane of travel approximately ten feet, versus expanding the same roadway to twenty-eight feet which would make each lane fourteen feet wide.
M
Jacobs also incorrectly states that the increased traffic on Camino Largo would impede its ability to use the roadway and negatively impact traffic flow along North Santa Fe Avenue at the intersections of Osborne Street, Taylor Street, and Bobier Drive. According to the Local Transportation Study report prepared for the Project by LLG on November 30, 2021 ("LTS Report"), the addition of the traffic generated by the Project would not substantially affect nearby roads and intersections. The Project would not increase traffic near the site that would conflict with the City's established Level of Service (LOS) goals. In particular, the intersection at Camino Largo and North Santa Fe Avenue would function at a LOS C or better. (LTS Report, page 40.) Furthermore, because the Project will generate less than 500 trips per day, there will be no significant transportation impacts (using VMT analysis) for purposes of CEQA
III.. Any disagreement between Jacobs and the Applicant regarding their respective easement rights is a private matter that should be decided between the parties.
Furthermore, cities and counties routinely accept dedications ofprivate property for public use.
As stated above, the Applicant has proposed granting Jacobs an easement for its portion of Camino Largo, which would be a fair way to accommodate all parties. It is not for the City to make decisions on legal issues related to Jacobs' easement claims. As Jacobs has stated, the Applicant has provided an analysis regarding its legal rights granted by the 2013- Reciprocal Easement. The Applicant has offered several alternatives that assure Jacobs the right of ingress and egress. Finally, the City can accept a dedication of land from private property owners for public use, which the City may accept pursuant to Government Code Section 7050. Finally, the 2013- Reciprocal Easement anticipated that the improved Camino Largo would either be for public or private use.
IV. Jacobs alleges that the Proiect would violate the 2030 general plan, specifically the Land Use and Community Identity Element (L UCI) Goal 2 and Policy 2.4.
There is ample evidence in the record to support the conclusion that the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy LUCI 2.4 despite Jacobs' assertions or the alleged findings of the Planning Commission to the contrary. In the Response to comments provided by the City for the Revised MND, the Project's conformance with LUCI Goal 2 and Policy
2.4 was explained in great detail.
In any event, the City Council is not held to the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Instead, the City's determination as to whether the Project is consistent with the General Plan is entitled to deference, and its decision will not be set aside by a court unless no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion. (Orange Citizens for Parks & Recreation v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 141, 155 and Holden v. City of San Diego, (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 404,412. See also No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 223, 244 and Eureka Citizens for Responsible Gov't v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 CA4th 357.] The courts have consistently determined that City Council members are uniquely qualified to interpret the provisions of the General Plan, and their decision carries a strong 5 presumption of regularity if supported by findings and substantial evidence. [Orange Citizens for Parks & Recreation v. Superior Court supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 412.] V. Although the Proiect site is designated as RR Rural Residential and would require a General Plan Amendment, the Revised IS/MND explained that the Project would not exceed the assumptions in the SIP.
Jacobs incorrectly asserts that because the Project was not accounted for in the State Implementation Plan ("SIP"), the Project's impact on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions will be significant. However, as explained in the Revised IS/MND, the Project would not exceed the assumptions in the SIP. Tables AQ-1 and AQ-2 of the Revised IS/MND (pages 3-5 and 3-6) identify a total of 1,121 residential units that have been entitled, approved, and pending within the City (as of August 17, 2022) and were conservatively assumed in the Revised IS/MND to be under construction or constructed. The project has an active application with the City and was, therefore, included on the pending project list (Table AQ- 2). The Revised IS/MND explains that even if conservatively assuming all 1,121 residential units are built, the buildout intensity levels assumed under the current SIP have yet to be achieved. (Revised IS/MND, page 3-6.)
The Project is also in compliance with federal and state ambient air quality standards and would not result in significant air quality impacts concerning the Project's construction and operational -related emissions of ozone precursors or criteria air pollutants (see Table AQ 3 and AQ-4). (Revised IS/MND, pages 3-7 and 3-8.) Because the population and employment growth anticipated by the SIP has not been achieved, in conjunction with the Project's less - than -significant emission impacts, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the local air quality plan.
VT As explained in the ISIMND, the Project's GHG impact would be less than significant.
Contrary to Jacobs' unfounded contention that the Project would impact greenhouse gas emissions by exceeding SANDAG's projected greenhouse gas emissions levels, the Project's impact is less than significant as measured by the City's threshold of significance. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allowed local agencies to rely on a threshold of significance based on the exercise of careful judgment and believed to be appropriate in the context of a particular project. [CEQA Guidelines 15064.4.] As identified in the City's Interim Guidance Memorandum on Assessing GHG Emissions from Projects Subject to CEQA, it was determined that a level of 1,185 MT CO2e would capture 90 percent of the City's emissions that are attributable to development projects (City 2016). The Project's GHG emissions would be approximately 749.7 MT CO2e per year, below the 2024 adjusted City threshold of 966 MT CO2e per year. Furthermore, the Project, by achieving the City's threshold of significance, would not conflict with the goals of the City's Climate Action Plan and may be seen to exceed its fair share in achieving the state's reduction target. Additionally, the Project would be consistent with CAP measures E-1, S-1, and S-2 and Chapter 13.17 of the City's Municipal Code. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with applicable plans,
policies, and regulations related to GHG emission reductions, and the impact would be less than significant. [Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Technical Report, prepared for the Project by Helix Environmental Planning, December 2021, Section 3, pages 24-39.]
VII. The Revised ISIMND does not mischaracterize the city's housing needs. The City's Draft General Plan Housing Element, dated May 2021, identifies the current need for informational Purposes, cited in the Revised ISIMND, as 2,561 units.
The Revised IS/MND refers to the housing needs allocation identified in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for informational purposes to indicate an identified need for additional housing in the City. However, analysis of the housing needs as presented within the RHNA, and the City's General Plan Housing Element Update is outside the scope of the Project's CEQA review.
Instead, the Revised IS/MND analyzed whether there was capacity concerning the buildout intensity levels assumed under the current SIP. The Revised IS/MND explained that because the population assumed under the SIP has not yet been reached, the Project fits within the plan's population forecasts and would not obstruct the implementation of the Plan. Please see the response in paragraph VI above.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Applicant has offered the Jacobs family an easement over its twenty - foot portion of the improved Camino Largo Easement on numerous occasions, which the Jacobs have refused. With the combination of the Applicant's easement and the Jacobs Easement, the Jacobs family would have an easement over the entire Improved Camino Largo Easement area and be able to ingress and egress to and from their property to North Santa Fe Avenue. Instead, Jacobs is unreasonably interfering with Marcone's use of his servient tenement and the Applicant's rights under the 2013 Reciprocal Easement. Because this is a private matter between the property owners, the City can condition the project to require the Applicant to confirm its access rights to Camino Largo prior to final map approval by any of the methods described above.
Very truly yours,
NORTON MOORE & ADAMS
Ann Y. Moore
7 From:
To: Public Comments
Subject: Camino Largo
Date: Monday, November 14, 2022 1:13:44 PM
I think most people would agree that the city needs more affordable housing. When the Camino Largo 9-acre plot became available for development, the approval of 8 1-acre homes was an opportunity for a step in that direction. The Planning Commission agreed, and no re -zoning was required. But then came a push to re -zone the area for more than 5 times that number of homes. The Planning Commission agreed that re- zoning to accommodate so many homes on that site was a bad ideas. I emphatically agree.
Whatever the benefits to the city (tax revenue, businesses) and the developers pales in comparison to the multiple detriments to the community. I want to presume that the council members understand their first commitments are to the community they serve. All the rest is secondary.
I hope you will understand why so many of us oppose the General Plan Amendment:
. Most obvious is the loss of open space and the change from a rural community
. Traffic congestion and air pollution will certainly increase . Wildfires are enough of a risk already without this addition . If this passes, more such sprawling developments will surely follow I'm not advocating for no -growth. I'm advocating for smart development, and I believe there are council members and other officials that have ideas for alternate types of development.
Please remember who your constituents are, listen to the experts on the Planning Commission, and vote NO on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change.
Please enter my comments on the Camino Largo project development into the public hearing record for the City Council Meeting on November 15, 2022.
Sincerely,
Richard Bold
- Hawley Dr, Vista
From: Patsy Chow
To: Kathy Valdez
Subject: FW: Camino Largo Project Please approve ADD TO PACKET Date: Monday, November 14, 2022 2:24:45 PM
From: Kathy Fuller >
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 1:55 PM
To: Judy Ritter ; John Franklin ; Joe Green
; Corinna Contreras ; Katie Melendez
; Patsy Chow
Subject: Camino Largo Project Please approve
Esteemed Members of the City Council -
My home is in technically with the County, but I raised my kids in Vista and have a vested interest in the
continued success of the City.
I don't doubt that you'll hear from the cast of usual characters that are anti -growth — probably already
have. While I don't usually get involved with stuff like this, I think it's important for you all to hear alternative voices. I support this project because it makes sense for the location.
High density apartments aren't always the answer. Large one -acre lots aren't either. These new homes
are big enough for a growing family, without the hassle of lots of acreage to maintain. This design maximizes the land while being mindful of the surrounding community. It's the right project for the right
location. I understand that some of my neighbors are concerned about "character" and the "rural way of
life", but we need to look at what's right for the community as a whole, not just our own vested interest.
Please follow staff's recommendation and approve this project.
Kathy Fuller
- Highview Trail Vista Ca 92084
Yours in health,
Kathy
Kathy Fuller
www.kathyf uller. juiceplus.com
•0•
Juice Plus+ Educational Videos - click below
httl2:// www.youtube.com/user/OfficlaIJuicePlus
"The news isn't that fruits & vegetables are good for you. It's that they are so good for you, they could save your life." David Bjerklie, TIME Magazine, Oct 20, 2003 Children from ages 4-college can take Juice Plus+ for free. Your continued support through referrals and recommendations is always greatly appreciated.
From: Patsy Chow
To: Kathy Valdez
Subject: FW: Support for housing at Camino Largo ADD TO PACKET Date: Monday, November 14, 2022 2:23:29 PM
From:
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 1:34 PM
To: Judy Ritter ; John Franklin ; Joe Green
; Corinna Contreras ; Katie Melendez
; Patsy Chow
Subject: Support for housing at Camino Largo
Mayor Ritter and Councilmembers,
Please accept this letter of support for the new homes planned for Camino Largo. I was disappointed to learn of the Planning Commission's short -sided decision on this project. They failed to look at the city holistically and didn't consider the plans for its future. Not surprisingly, NIMBYs are making a lot of noise. But this is a good plan.
I understand what these people are saying about how new homes change things. But I'd like to offer a different perspective. New development absolutely changes things, but those changes can be really positive too. New development leads to investment in schools and parks. Improvements to infrastructure. Money for public services and safety.
Please don't make the same mistake as the Planning Commission. I hope that you vote yes when this project comes before you on Tuesday.
Regards,
Gabe West
= Dogwood Way
Vista, CA 92081
www.LeeMarPet.com
From: Patsy Chow
To: Kathy Valdez
Subject: FW: We love the Carrion Largo project for Vista! ADD TO PACKET Date: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:42:24 PM
From:
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:09 PM
To: John Franklin ; Joe Green ; Corinna Contreras
; Katie Melendez ; Patsy Chow
; Judy Ritter
Subject: We love the Camion Largo project for Vista!
Dear Vista City Council,
As born and raised Vista residents who attended Vista High School, my wife and I urge the council to APPROVE the project near the school at Camino Largo!!! This project not only is convenient to Elementary through High Shcools that are within walking distance but there is also a bus station just a hundred yards away! I hope there are more develpments like this so that my children and family also have a chance to buy homes in Vista too.
After seeing the work that Cal West has done in the area, I'm hopeful to see how they'll improve the area near the Guajome Adobe and North Coast Church too! Neighborhoods they've built include Oceanside, Carlsbad, and Vista (Buena Creek) areas. They've done a great job to provide housing with beautiful designs as well as attention to walking trails and accessible sidewalks.
On a personal note, I know the leadership at Cal West is Vista -based and Vista -focused! They care about adding value and improving quality of life in each unique area they build on.
I urge the council to APPROVE this build at Camino Largo because of the location to schools, quality of work, and love for the city of Vista!
Cole Sampson -VHS Class of 2002
Kirstie Sampson -VHS Class of 2000
From: Patsy Chow
To: Kathy Valdez
Subject: FW: Support for Camino Largo ADD TO PACKET
Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 10:38:27 AM
From: Chad Cotten
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 5:32 AM
To: Corinna Contreras ; Joe Green ; John
Franklin ; Judy Ritter ; Katie Melendez
; Patsy Chow
Cc: Chad Cotten
Subject: Support for Camino Largo
Mayor Ritter and Councilmembers,
Please accept this letter of support for the new homes planned for Camino Largo. I was disappointed to learn of the Planning Commission's short -sided decision on this project. They failed to look at the city holistically and didn't consider the plans for its future. Not surprisingly, the same people who oppose
every new project have been making a lot of noise.
I understand what these people are saying about how new homes change things. But I'd like to offer a different perspective. New development absolutely changes things, but those changes can be really positive too. New development leads to investment in schools and parks. Improvements to infrastructure. Money for public services and safety.
Please don't make the same mistake as the Planning Commission. I hope that you vote yes when this project comes before you this week.
Chad Cotten
=Tower Dr, Vista, CA 92083
Rancho Vista Pool Services
www.RanchoVistaPools.com
From:
To: Public Comments
Subject: Camino Largo Residential Development (P21-0300) Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 12:31:41 PM
Attachments: Incompatibility with 2030 General Planxdf
The attached is a PDF with my comments regarding the Camino Largo project, Thank you,
Andrea Jacobs
Sent from my Whone
This development's plans are inconsistent with Vista's Land Use and Community Identity Element.
This project does the opposite of LUCI Goal 2 and 2.4.
It aims to demolish the topography and disregard the existing zoning patterns to the North and East. It does nothing to maintain the existing residential character.
In an attempt to force a poor plan through, the revised IS/MND tries to demonstrate that the development is consistent with LUCI goal 2, and LUCI Policy 2.4, by arguing that the zoning and population density to the south create a pattern that their development would continue.
To determine the existing developmental pattern, one needs to simply look at a satellite view on a map. It can be seen that the pattern begins immediately north of Sandalwood, and that 10 acres of protected wetlands acts as a natural barrier separating the high -population residential zoning from the lower -population density agricultural/rural residential zoning. An examination North of the wetlands will find single family houses on property an acre or bigger representative of the surrounding area.
If the project hopes to maintain the character, it would keep the A-1 zoning and not require a change from Rural Residential to Medium Density Residential.
Furthermore, the planning commission agrees with this assessment of the situation as they voted to recommend denial of the project, unanimously choosing to maintain rural neighborhoods while rejecting the development on the grounds that it violated the 2030 General Plan such that it was incompatible with the existing community and its surroundings; specifically citing density, lot size differences, and that it diminished the amount of rural zoning. 1 st picture shows the Northernmost part of Vista and Southeast Oceanside. As you can see the green protected wetlands of Rancho Guajome Adobe reaches far east and separates higher density from lower density.
This second picture shows a zoomed in view with Rancho Guajome Adobe to the left. As you can see the green protected wetlands is a clear natural boundary between higher density and the more semi -rural land.
t
m
This last picture is the most zoomed in of the 3. It shows the proposed Cal West development site (North) clearly separated from the higher density, smaller lot sizes of Sandalwood to the South by the natural boundary of the protected wetlands.
Mr
A
From: Katie Stapko
To: Public Comments
Subject: re: Camino Largo - Oppose
Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:41:28 AM
My name is Kathryn Stapko. I am a Vista resident and neighbor to the location of proposed Camino Largo development that is adjacent to the Guajome Adobe Park, a creek, a 4-acre horse ranch, and a few rural homes on 1+ acres My family and I are strongly opposed to the general plan to rezone these 9 acres for small lots allowing 5+ homes per acre (the current zoning is 1 home per acre)!
This is a terrible precedent that will lead to the loss of more rural land, because all future land owners will request (and receive) the higher density zoning.
We oppose this General Plan Amendment because rezoning for such an extreme density boost will:
• Increase traffic congestion, air pollution, and greenhouse gasses • Cause loss of open space and rural community character • Facilitate the conversion of adjacent rural land to more sprawl housing development • Increase risk from wildfires and traffic evacuation congestion As a family member to the current chairperson of the Traffic Commission for City of Cypress in Orange County California I am all too aware of the unintended complexities of unsustainable increases in traffic related to rezoning. This development will certainly create many traffic issues and an increase in car accidents.
-Kathryn Stapko
From: amoore(cbnmaIawfirm. corn
To: Public Comments
Cc: Amanda L. Guv; Patsy Chow
Subject: Camino Largo Residential Development (P21-0300) Item # PH1 Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 12:33:03 PM
Attachments: Camino Largo Delano Response letter to Delano Nov 14 2022 letter (002).odf Please see the attached letter to be submitted to the City Council for the November 15, 2022, hearing on Camino Largo.
NORTON MOORE & ADAMS
A Limited Liability Partnership
501 West Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: 619.233.800
Cell: 619-233-3332
amoore o nmalawfirm.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: INFORMATION IN THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED
ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. This message, and any attachment, may be an Attorney -Client communication, or may be Attorney Work Product, and is therefore privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email, delete the message and return any hard copy printouts to the address above. Thank you.
LAW OFFICES
NORTON MOORE & ADAMS
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP TELEPHONE
525 B STREET, SUITE 1500 (619) 233-8200
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
ANN Y. MOORE
November 15, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Honorable Mayor Ritter and City Council
City of Vista
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
Re: Camino Largo — Response to Delano November 14, 2022, Letter Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council,
TELECOPIER
(619) 231-7595
This letter is provided to respond to the comments received from the law firm of Delano & Delano, LLP, dated November 14, 2022 ("Delano November Letter") on behalf of the Guajome Alliance for Responsible Development ("GUARD"), regarding the Camino Largo project ("Project") located in the City of Vista ("City"). The Project is located on a 9.3-acre parcel, identified as Assessor's Parcel Number [APN] 159-240-07 ("Project Site"). The Applicant is seeking approval from the City of a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") and Mitigation Monitoring and Report, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Site Development Plan ("Entitlements") to develop the Project. The summary vacation of a portion of an open space easement, recorded as Document No. 2009- 0419582, on July 28, 2009 ("Open Space Easement"), is also being requested.
In 2009, the predecessors to the John and Linda Marcone Family Trust ("Marcone") granted and dedicated the Open Space Easement to the City over all of APN 159-240-31 to preserve the land in its natural state and prohibit such activities as constructing structures or paving over the site. A portion of the Open Space Easement overlaps with Camino Largo, a roadway used by various property owners for ingress and egress purposes. Camino Largo has been continuously used for ingress and egress purposes before the grant of the Open Space Easement and has remained in use since at least 2009. This use has been well documented, as 1 evidenced in the comments by the Jacobs family that has an easement' created in 1991 by a reservation in its grant deed ("Jacobs Easement") that allows Jacobs's ingress and egress to and from their property over a twenty -foot -wide strip of land in which Camino Largo is currently located. A portion of Camino Largo is located within the Open Space Easement being vacated. In other words, the portion of the Open Space Easement being vacated is disturbed and currently consists of a paved twenty -foot roadway, which existed before the Open Space Easement was granted to the City.
The City previously recirculated portions of the MND ("Revised MND") to provide the public with an opportunity to review the additional analysis that was added related to Air Quality. Clarifying language was also added to the Land Use and Planning and Population and Housing sections, which were recirculated as well. After the public review period for the Revised MND was closed and before the public hearing before the City Council, the following minor Project changes were made: (i) Camino Largo is no longer described as a gravel road; (ii) added recognition that the Project site was annexed into the City in 2018; (iii) language added to define the cul de sac streets and private street near Lot B as private; (iv) language added to eliminate any requirement that the Project remove two trees at the southeast corner of Camino Largo and North Santa Fe Avenue; (v) the drainage infrastructure has been modified to remove infrastructure from within the open space easement, and (vi) added requirement to summarily vacate of a portion of an open space easement.
The Delano November Letter states that the Project's MND should be recirculated for review and public comment again because a portion of the Open Space Easement will be vacated as apart of the approval of the Project. However, not all changes to an environmental document must be recirculated for public review. Under Section 15073.5 of California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, recirculation of an IS/MND is required "when the document is substantially revised after public notice of its availability has previously been given pursuant to Section 15072, but prior to its adoption." A "substantial revision" is defined as:
1. A new, avoidable significant effect is identified, and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added to reduce the effect to insignificance, or
2. The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significant and new measures or revisions must be required.
CEQA guidelines further provide that recirculation is not required under the following circumstances:
1. Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1.
2. New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on 1 Recorded in that certain Deed of Trust, recorded as Document Nol991-0028356, on January 18, 1991, in the Official Records of San Diego County
2 the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects.
3. Measures or conditions or project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration, which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects, and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect.
4. New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.
As discussed above, the area of the Open Space Easement being vacated is currently being used for roadway purposes by the surrounding property owners. Thus, while new information was added to the MND to describe the Open Space Easement vacation, no physical environmental effect would result from this change. The vacation of the Open Space Easement pertains only to the portion of the easement where Camino Largo is located. This portion of the Open Space Easement has been used as a roadway since at least 1991 when an easement was granted to Jacobs. The environmental effects related to the improvements to Camino Largo were included in the Project description and, as such, were thoroughly analyzed under the MND.
The information added to the MND would not be considered "significant" under CEQA because it would not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on the Project's environmental effects or feasible ways to mitigate or avoid such effects. On the contrary, the MND fully disclosed the extent of the Project's physical environmental surroundings, including Camino Largo, which is described as a disturbed unclassified roadway used for travel by surrounding property owners. This use has also been well documented, as evidenced in the comments by the Jacobs family regarding Camino Largo, which are incorporated into the administrative record of the Entitlements and MND. The vacation of the portion of the Open Space easement that covers the same roadway would not result in a new avoidable significant effect, and no new mitigation measures or project revisions must be added to reduce the effect to insignificant.
Delano also incorrectly states that the Project would construct a road [Camino Largo] that "extends another approximately four feet further south, thereby encroaching even further onto the property to the south" which is beyond the twenty feet width the summary vacation seeks. However, the Applicant will improve Camino Largo to twenty-eight feet within a forty -foot easement area, to be located half on the Applicant's property and half on the twenty -foot portion of land being vacated.
Finally, Delano asserts that the findings needed to vacate a portion of the Open Space Easement are not supported because the easement was created to preserve the surrounding area's existing character, including the current paved roadway. However, the Open Space Easement explicitly states that the open space area is to "be preserved in its Natural State subject to certain conditions." Included in the conditions was a prohibition that the grantors could not pave the easement area and that ingress and egress would be limited to only the grantors. If the Open Space Easement is not vacated over the twenty -foot strip of land upon 3 which Camino Largo is currently located, only the grantors [Marcone] would be allowed to access the area, no repairs of the existing roadway would be allowed, and Camino Largo would not be allowed in its current location. This would landlock Jacobs and several other property owners. It is evident that when the Open Space Easement was granted to the City, Marcone mistakenly included the twenty -foot portion of Camino Largo that several property owners currently use to access their properties.
NORTON MOORE & ADAMS
Ann Y. Moore
N
0 Camino
=r
- Sol :: �0 k9
1111 �Ae Lar o
Vista City Council November 15 , 2022
CaliforniaWest
A Legacy of Fine Living
0 I" nt I" nl
CaI 'I* forn *IaWest
O
O
Local. Family-Owned. �
0 From the first time you visit one of our
communities, to the closing of your home,
we embrace the opportunity of making you
proud California West built your home
More than 25 years of building community in Vista
• 12 neighborhoods
• 400 homes
��7aarUr,BJ
www.calwestliving.com
__,,�� ./ "' �. Rom•:
eo Mu
oft, 00
. xt1. _ •Fr' - � .�.. _ 5~ � nt om t
_ J_
lop
IN
ow
f �./,�-a+i}�.-�-•�'F�g�, k 'f � � y i ���y g�� - .. _- tJ .r .•7 5y- - 4� �� 1,r'4 �"� '�9?y� ���•"''�_�ii�+ ' � s�l,�.§�-.�iF.a •L-,r-q r..�_. 'r'... F,`� r a � ,�+ � ��r yF' L- '�•k1 _� �," w.. r- � - -A� �sz.=- _ t ..a, t a X- 3 1 -�f _t'�� ..� re. � _ ar_ �� 'TA:... '•-�.J":�����: �. I '�� �-•—.- .. � •` - i�_ f f..�i��.. � - "� .�..':R. .i �� ,_ � t4L� � •�• - � '" -'�-• . .. _x;:
16,081 SF �
11,304
� 10,861 SF
6,645 SF
4,009 SF =�
11,215 SF '
6,681 SF-M
7,239 SF
11,944
Communi* ty Feedback
This list summarizes the questions and concerns we heard through conversations with our neighbors.
d
Traffic Compatibility Drainage Other Concerns Peak hour trips Density Flooding and runoff Access Access to N. Santa Fe Rural Character during rain events Construction noise Crowding on Camino Largo Privacy Impacts to ground water Broadband connection Fire access Impacts to livestock Trash pick up
ti
Current Access Easement for Existing Residents
Camino
Largo
V
Existing residents were granted
GalWest Project 5'ste:
20-
foot easement over r Largo for -- AP1V 159-240-�7 —K." fir_. ingressegress. iA
P IL
S y
Camino
La
o +�
Existing residents were granted a 20-
foot easement ❑ver Camino Largo for _ ingress and egress. o
a"`
The new Camino Largo will be widened
t❑ accommodate ingress and egress, =
so an additional easement will be _ R granted ❑ver the project site to
accommodate egress.
The existing access easement(pink) will
remain as is
Communi* ty Feedback
This list summarizes the questions and concerns we heard through conversations with our neighbors.
d
Traffic Compatibility Drainage Other Concerns Peak hour trips Density Flooding and runoff Access Access to N. Santa Fe Rural Character during rain events Construction noise Crowding on Camino Largo Privacy Impacts to ground water Broadband connection Fire access Impacts to livestock Trash pick up
a
c
KEY hiAP FOR SECTION LINES
ww,
�I
' LOI 28
LOT 29
PKCJfF EF..D fiFk�'A AID
FENCE Ex IgTINGGeDUMo
0SBOR1�=
SEA'TII B-B -®
P S. •_8y �� r
Aesthetics
r
7A
Visual Interest
PERIMETER SLUMP The landscape palette will provide color,texture, and BLOCKWALL celebrate seasonality.
Community Character :
The incorporation of a variety of treespecies will ' complement the rustic character of the surrounding
community
Water-Wise Landscaping
A variety of native and indigenous trees and shrubs will be used resulting in a water-wise landscape.
N.SANTA FE AVE. S WALK
SECTION 1/4"sr
Vi* ew Siemulati* on I
North Santa Fe at Camino Largo
Existing Condition Proposed Condition
Al
4-5
� w r•
Vi* ew Siemulati* on
North Santa Fe (South East View)
Existing Condition Proposed Condition
New Homes
Quality Sustainability Variety Attainable Three plan types in a variety of Community will meet/exceed Cal Providing market rate homes Workforce housing for moderate- colors. textures and materials Green Building Codes for an underserved market income households • ® �•
PLAN I PLAN 7 PLAN 3 PLAN I PLAN 3 FARMHOUSE SPANISH RANCH SANTA BARBARA Sf ANESH RANCH FARMHOUSE
New Homes
Down Payment Assistance Program
Absent a traditional Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the program will eliminate the largest deterrent to
homeownership for qualifying buyers.
A HOME
• Developer-Funded down payment for Y ' qualifying householdsc5t HO
L_
i,4 �
New Homes
Down Payment Assistance Program
Absent a traditional Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the program will eliminate the largest deterrent to Household homeownership for qualifying buyers. ' ' " � ' ' ' ' • Developer-Funded down payment for Four $105,500 $10ze 6,900 $117,600 $128,300 $160,350
qualifying households
• The program is aimed at people who live and Five $113,950 $115,450 $127,000 $138,550 $173,200 work in Vista and have a household income
that is at or below 150% AMI
Six $122,400 $124,000 136,400 $148,850 $186,000
Seven $130,825 $132,550 $145,800 $159,100 $198,850 Eight $139,275 $141,100 $155,250 $169,350 $211,650
Y
New Homes
Down Payment Assistance Program
Absent a traditional Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the - program will eliminate the largest deterrent to
homeownership for qualifying buyers. ' • Developer-Funded down payment for
qualifying households
• The program is aimed at people who live and
work in Vista and have a household income k
that is at or below 150% AMI �;, � • Encourages long-time homeownership so
families can establish roots 4
J.
■ 1�
Camino o
Summary of Benefits
• Compatible with the surrounding
community _ '; •
• Improvements t❑ Camino Largo which . w would address neighbor concerns
• Maintenance of Camino Largo in
perpetuity
• Quality, market-rate homes for families
CaliforniaWest
A Legacy of Fine Living `j - -
CITY OF VISTA C A L r F 0 2 9 J A
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site
Development P1an,Tentative Subdivision Map,
Summary Vacation
CAMINO LARGO
P21 -0300
City Council Public Hearing
November 15, 2022
CITY OF VISTA
C A L I F 0 9 N 1 A Background
• October 17, 2017 - the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of the Annexation/Reorganization of Assessor's Parcel Number 159-240-07 (2123 N.
Santa Fe Avenue) and approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map and Zoning Change (pre-zoning to A-1 ) for an 8-lot single family residential subdivision (PC6-056). • December 12, 2017 - the City Council approved the TSM for 8 single-family residential lots and approved moving forward with the application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for annexation of subject site.
• November 28, 2018 - LAFCO approved the reorganization and annexation of the 8 single-family residential lots subdivision site.
• June 22, 2021 — Preliminary GPA and ZC discussion at City Council for 48 single-family lots at this subject site.
• August 2021 — California West Communities submitted proposed project for 46 single- family dwelling units.
CITY OF VISTA
CITY OF VISTA
C A L I F 0 9 N 1 A Proposed Pro ect
• General Plan Amendment / Zone Change / Site Development Plan / Tentative Subdivision Map / Summary Vacation:
— 9.3-acre parcel
— develop 46 single-family dwelling units (4.95 du/ac) — drainage improvements, wet and dry utilities and all associated infrastructure — private streets
— parking spaces for 230 vehicles; 92 spaces are required and would be provided in the two-car garages of the residences, and 92 uncovered spaces are required and would be provided on the driveways for guest parking as well as distributed throughout the project site (46 spaces on-street parking) — common and private open space areas
— one open space/park area with benches, picnic tables, lighting
ICITY OF VISTA
CITY OF VISTA
C A L I F 0 9 N I A Proposed Project
Small Lot Residential Development — requirements adopted May 10, 2022 by City Council • Promote homeownership, single-family development, and expand owner-occupied housing opportunities for individuals trying to buy a home in Vista. • Applicable in the R-1-13 and R-M (up to 15 dwelling units/acre) residential zones. • Minimum lot size: 3600 SF
• Minimum lot width of 45 feet
• Minimum lot width in a cul-de-sac: 20 feet
• Sidewalks and 6-foot wide landscaped parkways
• On-street parking required on both sides of the private cul-de-sac streets, curb to curb street width minimum of 40 feet to accommodate on-street parking
• Common Open Space: 200 square feet per unit (9200SF) combined into one area (14,153SF Lot B)
• Private Open Space: 200 square feet per unit with a minimum 10-foot dimension. Stormwater basins are not counted towards meeting this requirement for private or common open space • Driveways: straight-in access from a private street to a garage shall be at least 20 feet long • Storage: minimum 160 cubic feet enclosable storage for each dwelling unit
ICITY OF VISTA
CITY OF VISTA
C A L I F 0 1 N P A Proposed Project
Summary Vacation Request:
- A portion of the existing 56-foot-wide reciprocal private road and utility easement which encompasses Camino Largo, a paved roadway, is located within an open space easement that was recorded in 2009.
- Vacate a 20-foot-wide portion of the open space easement that is paved and within the existing 56-foot-wide private drive reciprocal access and utility easement (recorded in 2013). - Ensures no conflict between the open space easement and the proposed project improvements given the historic use of the roadway for the past 5 consecutive years. - The drainage infrastructure has been modified to move infrastructure outside of the open space easement. The project includes a pump station to regulate and release storm water drainage flows to the east, which would then be directed across Camino Largo. The pump station would be designed to be compliant with stormwater requirements. - No project improvements are proposed within the non-vacated open space easement.
ICITY OF VISTA
CITY OF VISTA
C A L I F 0 R N I A Aerial Photo Existing Uses
* * rolli, _
Proposed Zoning • - _ - _ Existing Zoning:
R-1-B (small lot i # A-1
development)o -
4V`.
- E��. xistin
Y �IM
Proposed '` •- {..�8 Designation: Rural ..a' , k
r
Designation: } ::. = all Residential (one Medium Density . du/ac)
Residential (10 _' �.,i � ,.►. #, • _ .. ri..
IP
du/ac)
CITY OF VISTA
CITY Of Land Use Zoning Map
tiJ ll
V .
Wl
I wM' ,
�d fLDf a B.] .I,._•
+++000Y , ,.� � 0
LD, 1 r
O A-I 4 , 1-;ry j
y g �a
ilk
(LD1
� Pl.in Na.17
(LD)
TA
y . CITY OF
!v"LD
CITY Of
Project
Site
.A� • �,\ �� < - � .
yr J r �� � - 40'
�w. / �/\ �� . - ' . } .}% _ _. � • . . � I t �
- - . 46
CITY
OF
s
CITY OF VISTA
CR L I F0 N N IR From N. Santa Fe Avenue
.10, F1
j r
f-
CITY OF VISTA
CITY OF VIS
Existing Conditions
�� �'• }�ij���y��� ..�.... _ •,ICI Al
21:37fd 'V,r •i-i' .� #,
27/. 1 _.
I
��•r,.Y.19�b�� ;4'yr� � ti 2'I 5 � �� 41, a•:=„� �..a 7 l� � .�_ .40
M1
... �� �i �. � �.•�� :�,a� '� 1'•1,�5� 2 471?1 ',s"1� "�I F
1�1:3:3'- .t 1979
01 ...;.. .: .:-. 2983
03 ? ,,,` � � ��a'��.,.'i!' 342F 2462 ,r05 2037 '.' 30F v 3s;:3 j• f-?"'= qs�';•• �. r+ 32 2433 302
' F.• 337.: - -1�y :3:3fi l i649 .2028 029 - 3;1•;1. 334� rli
CITY OF
C A L I F 0 R N I A Tentative Subdivision Development , , ,
r
r
- F� �--. 'J .. �- � I � �� � I ;ail •• - - I` �'�' :r,�.. - _ '�� ti' J:� `' {k __ ._ _ II' tell _ .. Y" - ;. ,.- Il,w '. ��; = '•.. .::
-.- -- I „+ - -- - _ - - III •. k II`I
y�� •f AI .. .. - . . I1� .} �yl •j�'Z ,r III _.. ,•`�� a ;'� . 46 U16m.& gam_
Comnion4nsable open space a ea A
i i •
CITY OF VIS
C A L I F 0 R N I Existing Recorded Easements — Camino Largo
EXISTING EASEMENT EXHIBIT
CAMINO LARGO
� s �
i
1 � k , p
LEGEND
1 ' I •I ' �+r�ti�orr ecr..�uur—
CITY
f
m�.«rr�zro-ox ac r�•µ
o,i o�i ego �.• OF
�}Project Site �'� Ir !• }rye � f� � Jl Parcel C,Upen Space Space Easement Brea - ti��' +.� ••F y/ ,y��t i'� €xis[ing 2il-foot Access€asement -- �. � f _ Y.,� ^/:d -f•�,��. �'�• Y �J
CITY OF VISTA
C A L I F 0 R N I A Existing Easements Exhibit
M
' Existing 56-foot Easement with CUI-de-sac , r �'��`I Existing Drainage Easement
r* �= Iit
•�
-- R R � Ltd b�-ii.�L•• .� !
p'
A.
Q A �
� L
Existing Easements Overlay
t� CITY OF VISTA
CITY OF
C A L I F 0 R N I A Summary Vacation Exhibit
EXHIBff 'B' SHEET 7 OF 2
® OPEN SPACE EASEMENT AREA TO BE VACATED 12325 SQUARE FEET (R) INDICATES A RADIAL BEARING
700 50 0 i00 POB INDICATES POINT OF BEGINNING I SCALE., 1" = 700'
APN 159-240-061 APN 159-240-05
APN 159-240-07 L1
L3—
k66 28 T 2D
N g�L EXISTING EDGE OF PAVED ROAD
POB IN RING DISTANCE
�1 PARCEL "C" DOC# L f S 88'25 46 . 90.97
1 �A��3ti1� APN 159-240-10 APN0459-240-31 L3 N 89'583� W 50. 00 7 2 74 S 97'2 009 W 30.46
20' L5 5 78'3350 W 76.55
L6 S 67'40 26 w 50.00
L7 S 65'39 22 W 738.03
L8 S 67'1303 W 50M
APN 759-240—7 7 L9 S 65'34 12 W 4 L,53
710 S 66'7325 W 38.i5
PARCEL B" DOC# L 7 7 S 66'5 f 29 W 3 7.9 7
2009-045 1 798 L 7 2 S 64'44 23 W 33.58
APN 159-240-33 L73 S 66'1938 W 34.74
L14 S 86'40 49 W 37.27
L15 N 23'4523 W 1 22.66
p LAND
ARuwA a
land planning, clvil engineering, surveying5115
NO. LS 594!
Suite Lvenido Encinos �r � A04AND A. MAR
C.l nia 920Q8-1387 dt S P.C.S. 5947
(780) 931-8700 DATE. d ■ OF
CITY OF
C A L I F 0 N N I A Proposed Road Improvements
L S1GRA+K$w W.rr7 r` - - f t AC PAPEIMNF a" "R?Iff'A14f5 x cY1I1EYP} C7 ASS 2 9LIE
PER mesa ra PROPOSED MVATE S'
fXiSTxNO:r5'r,9r�fAE!?�^.A^&UFktTY EASEA+E^;- (PR ME) $' P dGTll NENF y' NOT tR SCALE
NwTfm dF f-WT 20 t
R7 8E QWFLY.WkYJ EnST-MER
¢• €A iE1,T
SOEO r qT LME T.?AT
R MVP pRgAy OF EWF
EA,ITIEW TO QCEFNW M BF CLC7t'J 4MV
AWPOSfd wt rC r' P9'urFr, - y FF7£S(29'-387
077d.t CASEIi�ENT S• 7e' 'lAH,�S'fry'-22')
AC FA l¢ItFh'±2: a
_v'F2
§}'J.5'S 1 BASt
f£A4:E
MAX _
AMK
fffi788 e1F 5'9Q•.FMK PER A. Eki57blG LRGGP�O SO=C-7 7'
8'CYgt&�ai7TEf7 �
PER 51x45D ? �PVRTM C€lkl4M PA Of NT Ti}BE ANN.rdEO- Y PR65D75ED ABC SHALL MET 57RUCWAL S&LA%REIX.�FS
0'tl0 YRLP4EA'AC OYFl7 8 PG4'CU55 7 SE 10.P'FR SL17S fh24a=fR W' PUBLIC lfT1LfTY EASE]AE}!T 03 20 PER (k0) Ad$FA) EJZM?G 0.IIt1 TEO Mr AW AS APPROKD BY M 6M OF ICSTA.2 A� RfW wlw FOr£gr p AOSCAFf 50' PRNA7E SMEET EPSE4IEHT MAOSCAFf PER(J 1M C.AMINOL LARGO wx77nr 8' na' CJIRB 70 CURB 6' (F YeA7L-NO PAHKM,
nnr TO suit. S' �a' 2;a' 6' S'
2 ? r
MAX - Ad".
5'BALK PER LAC PA FEhF OEM5 $ 7l7K PEB
SYARSD fr 7 c7 A.SS 7 ee SDR5D fr 7
6'am d'cyrTFR 6"LYAFB 8 4;LeT7ER
PER MUD G--2 PROPOSLID PRIVATE STREETS AIN MR-W G--2
7 EASEMENT (7WWAT)
:Ai WNT $' NOT fR SCALE
CITY OF VISTA
Proposed and Sight
at N. Santa Fe Ave.
}�`' JJrr SIGHT DISTANCE EXHIBIT NORTH SANTA FEAVE:@ CAMINO LARGO ry�t� I
'. '� '.� `• 0 LOT LOT I_ — �¢' - `x'•: , \ k LOT L4T LST 6 x
APN
ZZ 1 c � $ i 159-240—St
i
SroRM LOT wnTER -
_ � 400' SITE DISTANCE
LOT. Basin ` I` II` 7 q5i 45 MPH DESIGN SPEED sr. _ - —
_
UTYJJ2fil=- AIL
CITY OF VISTA
CITY OF VISTA
Landscape PlanLandscaping: meets
requirements of the
landscape ordinance
T \\ for small lot
development: street
. trees, parkway
1s
landscaping, slope
erosion control. Use
of native and non-
L�.x =GA'1'LOVAMNAIW=ANCRM0M5
native plant materials
��h to conserve water.
•`44! �r in''irry wr-Z,
1 CITY
OF
CITY OF
0;�
C A L I f 0 N N I Sections
IV
141AW:rn>= - - ------- --- - -
`'' KEY MAP RIK SEX.MN11.4E4 �5.1�7 l� o.�ccaoaw SJE�O A-A
CALWONO LARGO
DR om a Famver F)LHi Fi r
I�lr21 l
irn ro
SEM
wo�oocar.xi
*+'* rmnwaww
C B-B
:.r:3r
CITY OF VISTA
'CA LIFOR N�I J SectionA
Camino Largo
WALK
SECTION
CalifornlaWesti� CITY OF VISTA
CITY OF
Architectural Elevations
Two-story residences, 3 different plans for each architectural style Maximum height of 29 feet
Setbacks per small lot development standards
3 distinct exteriors (Santa Barbara, Farmhouse, Spanish Ranch) with different color variations/materials for each style 6 p
,-TA.A 1A
SANTA EA-A
r
AN,A aARaARA
-
=PAN sH RAH—
FARMHOUSE S AHISH RANCH
w
li Y AN 3
PLAN i �
CAMINO LA-
FARMHOUSE SPANISH RANCH
PLAN 2
OF
S
CITY OF VISTA
C A L I F . . N I A
Proposed Floor Plans
. an an .
optionalts) bedroom
■J — ill C i ® Ilal �1®�®.
II■ ___ ,z � i I n
g I ® I,I o ■� IIII 1 YIIII� �� ®� 9I� i■ �0 ® .��� ' �� ° r. I e IIIII �� �tll I II�,� ■ ■ . _ L__ IIII ■IIII �■ yR Y ---- L m � IIII �■.I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII� IY �� it 11■�nllullll �Illllln �„ �1111111111 ®- Y 1111111111
Ei �
111111111 � IIII •■ ii�■I ■ l■
CITY OF VISTA
CITY OF VISTA
Camino •
• Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and available for public review May 11, 2022 *,rough May 30, 2022 (five comment letters received and responses prepared/addressed). • Final IS/MND package at that time was presented to the Planning Commission on July 19, 2022. • July 15, 2022, comment letter was submitted by Delano & Delano on behalf of the Guajome Alliance for Responsible Development (GuARD). The comments in the July 15, 2022 letter did not trigger the recirculation of the Draft IS/MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 • City decided to recirculate portions of the Draft IS/MND as a Revised IS/MND to provide the public an opportunity to review the additional analysis:
— Air quality attainment plan in the Air Quality section, — Clarification to the language in the Land Use and Planning, and Population and Housing sections: City's intent to provide housing on underutilized sites, and that the project would assist in helping meet the City's overall housing needs under the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
• RECIRCULATION: 20-day public review period from September 14, 2022 to October 3, 2022.
Twelve comment letters were received on the Revised IS/MND, responses prepared/addressed.
CITY OF VISTA
CITY OF VISTA
Camino •
General Plan/Development Code Conformance
— Proposed density of 4.95 dwelling units per acre is below the maximum proposed of 10 dwelling units per acre permitted by the General Plan with approval of a GPA.
— Project meets the requirements of small lot development within the R-1 -B zone.
CITY OF VISTA
Down Payment Assistance Program
• California West Communities, developer of the proposed project, is proposing to financially sponsor a First-Time Homebuyer program • First-Time Homebuyer program: assist five income qualifying prospective homebuyers with purchasing a home in their development, i.e. through down payment assistance.
— The proposed program will be administered by a nonprofit agency, who will work directly with the applicant and first mortgage lender. — The City will not be involved in servicing the loan. — Preference given to eligible buyers who have lived/worked in Vista for the past two years.
CITY OF VISTA
Planning Commission Recommendation
On July 19, 2022, adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-13 (Exhibit 7 in the staff report), recommending City Council denial of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Plan to develop a 46-lot single-family residential subdivision located at 2123 N. Santa Fe Avenue.
CITY OF VISTA
City Council Options
Approve the Project:
Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2022- , approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 46 single-family homes located at 2123 N. Santa Fe Avenue (APN 159-240-07-00).
Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2022- , authorizing and approving the summary vacation of a portion of an open space easement on APN 159-240-31 .
Introduce and Adopt City Council Ordinance No. 2022- , approving a Zone Change to allow for 46 single-family homes on a 9.3-acre site located at 2123 N. Santa Fe Avenue (APN 159-240-07-00).
Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2022- , approving a General Plan Amendment, Site Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map for 46 single-family homes located at 2123 N. Santa Fe Avenue.
OR
Deny the Project:
Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2022- , denying a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map for 46 single-family homes located at 2123 N.
Santa Fe Avenue.
CITY OF VISTA
CITY OF VISTA C A L r F 0 2 9 J A
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site
Development P1an,Tentative Subdivision Map,
Summary Vacation
CAMINO LARGO
P21 -0300
City Council Public Hearing
November 15, 2022
� -1Y r •- EGIH MEN
ONE
n
NINE
ilping
•u r =4�Z C IN 11l
■■ ■Q■ 1 I�rill■ _ 11
� � � ■ a
IN 0
±�i 111111 ti
FI, - � _, ••h i y1111111111
...........
.-..-...
�+ � ■Ire 'S�-3 _ � �,{ - - -
111 u■I` 7„
tine;•_, .:. L �f II
_ 1 2
EXISTING OFFSITE PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT EXHIBIT
CAMINQ T.ARGO
20171MAGE OVERLAY
AIN
��y-Isfl-iti _ E
AO'
SL'dV]fVlS1UN WUM1'UARY � � _ -
•IV
i
- pp
Aw C'..4MIIJ0 LARGO(PRIYATE) .ruanrvrsravr�uvnArer sk f59-7i[�3
LEGEND
ensaG ao'wnx ezytirr soAo e� rrr bhh_nw'.o...r u�.o 7b AFN 159-21�-O.x COS,r3&fi
® OPEN VA I')-'TO W VA CA MF
[�071 Y31-!NG
EXISTING OFFSITE PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT EXHIBIT
CAMINO LARGO
2018IMAGE 0VERLAY
AaN .r
1�S-1af]-iti
AI- • �* r 4 SUWNVlSHAVWUM1'rJARY • _ - • m ►� Y .r -
99-
i
CAWINO LARGO(PR rVATE) suaDnasrnvmw.vnAxr AAA'
�59-2aL`p5
� 'R7 dP.k�f,`,.9-248-05,•76� 13�k'VId�
159-24�3. fw YN
0-3
i n
LEGEND
E437M 20'WCE PRIVATE RON EA-V4FWT bNglnc,•.
J�
!o nr5v 199-24�aS r>G,rs&!s -
® OPEN SPACE TO BE VACA7E0
EXISTING OFFSITE PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT EXHIBIT
CAMINO T-ARGO
2019IMAGE 0VERLAY
ORO-
JL
SL'&lHYfSIUl'WVM1'UARY ,'1 AF*'
f59-200-P:
Y t�� .. •;� ` y tom+► ?tr Y, S9-1i�-2J J
y CAMINO LARGO(PRIVATE) sr:nnfv.rrav
:j i4& A
•I A �� + f.SY?e(.�.I3 f59-7Ea3 A
LEGEND
Ex'; uV PRIVATE&W EXELOW bh
f(1 AJYf l�9-l1P-D.x 06,f.7&Ii �
® WIEN 9-ACE TO W VACAME
I>s�]93�—lA]9euw
EXISTING OFFSITE PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT EXHIBIT
CAWNO ARGO
2020IMAGE OVERLAY
AP.N
i�Y-2Sf7-7fi 1� x! �y
_ .� SUWHVlSl(ANWUM1'UARY � -
�9-2aO-21
* , - C'.AMINO LARGO(PRIVATE) .ruaDTmsrov�uxuArer _ z •_ r AP�4 �59-2aC-a'
T7 APJ fS9-249-0.�1QB.
A➢M1' - ai•N ;.'.
- 159-2a�3 f.59-74L�3 -01
Id
'.59-76f�.17
ti
Nq
LEGEND 6
EYMM 20'WOE PRIVATE RON EAWWWF me��InC•.nVr+a....� M APNf 159 290-05,M 13&14
® LNEN 5➢ACY TO W VACATED
I'�1 obi-e�oo
EXISTING OFFSITE PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT EXHIBIT
CAMIxv LARGO
2021 IMAGE 0VERL AY
ras-i=i.�:F
AI
.S9-2dri-,7A
SL't vjsN WUA' Rr A
59-74Q-O7
OIL
� r
a � ,
L
CAMWO LARGO(PRIVATE) susofvrsravrmuvnAxr I` 1 AP4 159-2aQ-gg
i ti i
'07 A N 159-241-- 06. i3 dr iC
S W YN
'J9-24(�-3 759-74f�.Z f.59-71frS Yr q"r
hA
.LEGEND
C.M.STM 20'WGE PRIVATE ROM EAWWWF
M AAV 159-21 05,06,1.3&fi
® Q0.N VA[Y 70W VACAIFO Imo1 ISM emawu-wael
SE'y 1067 MAP r ' -I, Stt 1068 MAP s �' 7:4
Itm RD
MASON RD ��tiF p
&j f"/\t •!3]9 r LAyE U1 [ p �P NISr V yLLCLUB ' M \ ,T214 �t. J . '� }' - .l^k _ �' coaAE I cHSHibr .• if -P CO iYTR " W� - --y�-_k1•`j'}RO - ,r -A?o `� ..� J f ••`• - Ii }imp' �IJ 'S - I,'it DEL fah+
`V p.' i �5BORhfE $T l OSBORNE ST --- 41 100 N � �� �� '0 1 `a Ego a. ON -i�D �3 el BARSBY ioD^'Bafl s 'w� ✓ �g I �Y u m �w /� �I +r OR RANGi0 ,iii7 V RI �� i !ENGINE F 7�7 V CRE l N _ 1 _ All: -• l.__ 1 L 1 'S' ,p1 y ,vn '_x WlfjA oa- J 1 oQ m=• .I :yti PARK is I �._� sc !A CT z�400_ 4
SUNCLow s"; N,ID Cr` ao.. -' 1 -�`e- rih L ^� 'rtv •_j.. VVV� a Ct �rii. �r Pp� TAYLOR .jai ?:viaR.-r •- d .., GE- MAWIN tea"
AV r ..•�.--r. i� -..-1: t = K.
Ni :. fY'i �> o-- P .
� •`-:-�-----erg �'_ _ a—_�,
- MYNAH. t Y i 1 g SJA LIMnt!I.E Z 1 _ ^a I ar AQ _ 1.,. 3 CT CT Ht�N o MDN�E IISP P.O.Box 635 - FDA Tod' DORSEY WY 3 CiR Cs 1$. MONTE Mq .R ,:taa _. acrrixn ''i00 —O''t PHIL CHURCH Carlsbad, CA 92018 S. 618D DR 200 GANNET DI{ W c."' At' -` .P {'\ 6 CAP, .
Es 6 49 w Ippl o w y. ,N�:� 'pd ¢ o. (760)742-3713 [email protected] ;4'I OR t PUfis wrl i kOC�J CAiil�E1+ 3,yy �c� E � p� OR ea 'G1 ry fe � xl,u�� t RD �.�zl� Nreo+ �R
st+x KEL EN ,o
�. I,IBD ���
q .,;, .r[. SIR. H?O':.�Jl 1900 zlDo r� f - DR
✓ AU ns a�£A b t 3 A9�•-''Iilir [ dLLD tN�' i1 - Q .y. I `�a0 f r;� ' .ST,�'' C 4C.' a 3{70R1,1 9y Ov a �/pky p fj - 3 w�inn ,k`r' cv 1-
EDGEHILL_
�..- �. ✓io y o RD
' MOUNTAIN' VIEW .. �. E EASE ..,�],S'd�O'•. LE O y GIIf ' KARENA CT � s -iq' A7 - hF f _LOi'VStiv'-Lit VISTA �P[INi PL KhRfto DR L YWw K^ " n vf( I" .� BF&IS — ^nb = i" 3 _EQGEHILI GATE ! °ACIFIG LONA "WA 51 � p E SbIITH
V ALTA. '.: TER � s.Q Kin 6NGEL` 240 Q""" *;;;i, C yy rJ yg - PSNR �� BUNA PL ��'. C•- Rtfyfy �" 1. iD1,4.7- �4�`c. t.PL ''..
LOFTY GROVE yctlrs J LwEt"-' i IDD r ti 'YF:' �e�Rr *r I °WNGLE k7 tici[ Sim uw - c� K1GFkl,AMD' OR % 1 fix. tlf gE. '� �`$: �P G IW'. TERRACE S`': arrs wv ROSE DR ' j CIO yr rc �.: �. � t PARK VINE CI�, � 2898'� 4U DR >6 a gp,CV`'' '�- l^' '90Lt?-9ewim,JWII¢ a EATUii NY � �'-' RULY pf C .+1,- MDNiD ' - '�1 �'' �. _ I, uft.q tiw ¢ TER M hOO IGHT s DR, .,Sf JBM- "r- 4 TiA `-• ti, - r �..r to > AaEt +r; �� '�ir.sw �rsR vt ,s .. fiAIAI I _ AV- rrt� °ti� _ l I �1#ST R. y NEVADA AP: nr "y_ aN Pfr a G - } ti m v f a:xr: r :uacL to c�. [ et4 i z xw.. t �� a f l S •g. 1. � a art o" ©, _ �F �, �,a 4 TASIl, w '. Z Y, T ��S •z AFq � rnrEi'prYa;; ;5, �� � rdR 7'� �` l MOSSBERG LT I :•.A. 'a, n f Ci{p' W AY '.\,'Mlnl• �C[ W _ Ex- r•- o. s ...P i. Y S B ly. ILY,t °p lTU r e �(y - $ ` la, LIB o +�z.�, n :a 51 E:. e1,q, ep� :1 ti� ! o v �1 rr� rAll1G PD I G rr �� J Ili' 0
' a 4 S AF �4 , r �' VO LN Q4 . DDRS
rR r' v! .{. ¢ r' S 9 _A d P r w F� T n CRESi7H17 _
S q �: o o x OAVI F_ rA• t S6.- •� P.� ` Li AV r C L v.;CUES ti� I GO �,DE,UN � q �C ¢ �� � i 5. �� ti� � ��, C'I RD 2 I ..as,rnr° a r ¢ ►Qe+ av q, F. x `' i �? TIERRR SHA E a 'il''�r'OR t[p �iAHiCIi .:'< t sic s: w• `'..! �'" 2iO0 .-, `�� wi "• r 3: e,•is L 's: `i[RIu 4' C I R
•i �` �.` a N �1't[ y.s r- d 4• ff P •r •� NWELL EUCALYPTUS LN 4 • L 7 � �.Dus:'' y �,z A �� a�� •, `+•'�fw, FCC °n,F. � , `�+br ae cam°wv o a. x R!!'ti.3.1 fry x AVjSZP•« 9r �(� DR ! �i EY r\
_, L r Q[L •q. A ''��v` .�,,' 4, LOCH t �- Ct Wr 77D1i } TER E AVD t
_ w o- 'Li $ - ++I '' 1 • v S ..k1CIENDA � °�+* �' �I vZ• ti �`� I' ;,q. �t � r�,� � ,°, :Syr"' KATERRI i}}� �•- �•F nli[As xiLLI 1 --•8 -- - - �! 4 J CT ` NI V AL Lyd' ,f'Y At. PO �,. .r I ,s cai DR i Ff iro �r.•
SEE 1107 MAP 0 .125 .25 .375 Y.5 0 .125 .25 .375 .5 SEE �lb� MAP miles 1 in.-19D0 Ft. miles 1 in. =1900 ft.
I 1