HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-03; Planning Commission; ; PUD 94-02A - SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA•
July 3, 1996
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
PUD 94-02(A) -SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA
Attached are revised copies of the staff report and pages 1, 2, and 8 of Resolution No.
3950 for the above project correcting typographical errors. The document had to be re-
typed late in the initial review period, with inadequate time to thoroughly check for
inconsistencies. The changes are as follows:
Staff Report Entire report provided due to text shifting from one page to
another.
Page 2/No. 7, end of 1st line
somewhat to include ffi0f6 some single-story
Page 3 Development Standards Compliance Table
Minimum Front Yard Setback -column 3
5' (pvt dwys)
Street Widths Private -column 4
30-~ no pkg (B & F)
32 'pkg. 1 side (C,D,E)
Resolution No. 3950 Page 1 description -"A viara" spelling corrected in lines 4
½ and 5 ½.
Page 2 -4. b) -first word -"The" -capitalized. Same line,
date corrected to read August 14, 1990.
Page 8 -22. -line 2 corrected to read: "garages for Units
~ 1-10, ~29-35, ana 41 54 39-44 and 48-51.
Thank you for your patience during the computer software conversion. Hopefully the
major bugs will be ironed out soon.
~
BOBBIE HODER
Senior Management Analyst
Attach.
'e City of CARLSBAD Planning Departml
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: July 3, 1996
ItemNo. @
Application complete date: May 16, 1996
Project Planner: Elaine Blackbum
Project Engineer: Ken Quon
SUBJECT: PUD 94-02(A) -SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA-Request for approval of an
amendment to an approved PUD (PUD 94-02) for a multifamily development. The
proposed amendment would reduce the total number of units from 54 to 51 and
would reorient • some of the units and a private drive. The project site is located
within the Aviara Master Plan (Planning Area 15) at the southern end of Black Rail
Court in the PC Zone and within Local Facilities Management Zone 19.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3950
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of PUD 94-02(A), based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to a previously approved Planned Unit
Development (PUD 94-02). The original PUD (for a 54-unit townhouse style multifamily
development) was approved by City Council in February, 1995, along with a Tentative Tract Map
(CT 94-03). The proposed amendment involves a reduction in the number of units and the
reorientation of some units and a private drive. (A detailed discussion of the specific changes
proposed can be found in Section III "Project Description and Background" of this report.)
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project site is located at the southern end of Black Rail Court. It is a 23.3 acre site, of which
7 .09 acres constitute the developable area. It is on a terrace with up-slopes to the east and down-
slopes to the west and south. The site is surrounded on the west, south, and east by the A viara Golf
Course. Alga Road is just north of the site.
The original PUD for this project was approved by City Council in February, 1995, along with a
Tentative Tract Map (CT 94-03). That project was for 54 dwelling units. The applicant is now
requesting to amend PUD 94-02. The specific changes proposed are as follows:
1. The total number of units drops from 54 to 51. The deletion of three units was
necessary in order to achieve the reorientation of units desired.
2. Driveway "C", and the adjacent units, are reoriented. Driveway "C" is being rotated to
the north. This allows the reorientation of the adjacent units to provide better views for
some of the units.
PUD 94-02(A) -SEA CO.TRY AT AVIARA
JULY 3, 1996
PAGE2
•
3. There is an increase in the total recreation area provided. The reduction in the number
of units and the reorientation allow an increase in the total open space provided in
private yards. The amount of common recreation area remains as originally approved.
4. The cluster mix changes slightly. The current plan includes 3 fourplexes and 13
triplexes. The previous design included six fourplexes, 8 triplexes, and 3 duplexes.
5. The new plan includes fewer retaining walls. The design changes eliminate the need
for some of the walls included in the previous plan.
6. The parking spaces for the recreation area have been relocated off the central street
(Street "A") to a private drive. This change is beneficial from an engineering
standpoint.
7. The architectural elevations have been revised somewhat to include some single-story
elements. Staff also considers this a desirable change as it will provide greater
architectural variety.
This project is subject to the following regulations:
1. General Plan RM (Residential Medium Density) Designation);
2. Aviara Master Plan (MP 177(P)) and Planned Unit Development regulations
(Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
3. Inclusionary Housing requirements; and
4. Growth Management regulations (Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code).
IV. ANALYSIS
A. General Plan
The Aviara Master Plan allows a maximum of 192 multifamily dwelling units in Planning Area 15.
The currently approved Tentative Tract Map (CT 94-03) and Planned Unit Development Permit (CT
94-02) show provision of 54 townhouse style multifamily dwelling units. The General Plan
designation for the site is RM (Medium Density Residential). This designation is intended to be
developed with low density multifamily developments, including duplexes, triplexes, apartments,
and small-lot single family projects. The proposed amended project is consistent with the General
Plan and the Master Plan.
B. Master Plan MP 177(P) and (PUD) Planned Unit Development Regulations
The proposed amended project is consistent with the Aviara Master Plan and the City's PUD
regulations (Chapter 21.45). The project meets or exceeds all of the applicable minimum standards
of the PUD regulations. The Development Standards Compliance Table, below, calls out the
applicable development standards from both the A viara Master Plan and the PUD regulations, and
PUD 94-02(A) -SEA CO.TRY AT AVIARA
JULY 3, 1996
PAGE3
indicates how the design of the proposed project complies with the standards.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPLIANCE TABLE
STANDARD MASTER PLAN PUD PROVIDED
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS
Max. Density 192 dus Per underlying zone 51 units
Min. Lot Size n/a n/a n/a
Max. Lot Coverage n/a n/a n/a
Max. Building Height 30' n/a 30'
Min. Front Yard 20' 20' SF (may be varied Min. 20' (St. A)
Setback to 15' ave. w/ 10' min.)
5' (pvt dwys) Min. 6' (pvt dwys)
Min. Side Yard n/a n/a lO'(comer lots)
Setback n/a (other lots)
Min. Rear Yard n/a n/a n/a
Setback
Min. Slope Setback 20' n/a Min. 20'
(adj. To golf course)
Min. Dist. Bit 20' 1 O' I-story units Min. 20'
Structures 15' 1 & 2-story
20' 2-story
Resident Parking per Code (Ch. 21.44) 2 full-size cov' d sps/du 2 full-size cov' d sps/du
Visitor Parking n/a 10 sps on-street 29 sps on-street
Recreational Space n/a 10,200 sf total (in 45,550 sf Total
1. Private Private & Common) Private: 41,400 sf
2. Common Common 4,150 sf
R.V. Storage n/a 1020 sf (20 sf:du) through A viara MP
Storage Space n/a 392 cf:du 392 cf:du
Street Widths Private n/a 30' -no parking Pvt Dwys-B,C,D,E,F
32' -parking 1 side 30' no pkg (B & F).
36' -parking 2 sides 32' pkg. 1 side (C, D,E)
St. A-36' pkg 2 sides
C. Inclusionary Housing Requirements
The City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that 15% of the total number of proposed units
be made affordable to low income households. This project's 15% inclusionary housing requirement
is 7 .65 dwelling units. The developers of the A viara Master Plan have already entered into an
Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide their share of required affordable units by
purchasing credits in the Villa Loma Housing Development.
D. Growth Management
This project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 19. There are no special
development requirements in the zone plan which apply to the proposed . amended project. All
necessary improvements will be provided prior to or concurrent with need. The impacts created by
PUD 94-02(A)-SEA colTRY AT AVIARA
JULY 3, 1996
PAGE4
this development on public facilities, and the project's compliance with adopted performance
standards, are summarized in the Growth Management Compliance Table below.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
STANDARD IMPACTS ' COMPLIANCE
City Administration 177.31 sf Yes
Library 94.57 sf Yes
Waste Water Treatment .355 ac Yes
Parks .355 ac Yes
Drainage n/a Yes
Circulation 408ADT Yes
Fire Stations 2 and 4 Yes
Open Space n/a Yes
Schools Carlsbad Yes
Sewer Collection System 51 EDU Yes
Water 11,220 GPO Yes
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project has been reviewed under CEQA , and has been determined to be a Subsequent
Project. The proposed project does not involve any environmental impacts which were not
considered in previous environmental reviews, including MEIR 93-01 (the Master EIR for the City's
General Plan Update) and the Negative Declaration for CT 94-03/PUD 94-02 (the environmental
review conducted for the previously approved project design for this site). The original mitigation
measures required for the Aviara Master Plan included provisions for open space, noise, air quality,
and aesthetic and other impacts. These mitigation measures remain in place, and none of these
measures are affected by, or need be revised by, this proposed amendment. The Master EIR for the
City's General Plan Update included a statement of Overriding Considerations for air quality and
circulation impacts. In addition, a new Environmental Impact Assessment Part II was completed for
the proposed amendment. This document resulted in no new or revised mitigation requirements.
Since all previous environmental review still applies to the proposed amended project and no new
circumstances have arisen which would require additional review or mitigation, the Planning
Director determined that the proposed PUD Amendment is in compliance with all previous
environmental documentation and is a Subsequent Project. All applicable mitigation measures for
air quality and circulation have been incorporated into the amended project.
SUMMARY
Staff has concluded that the proposed amended project satisfies all applicable requirements and
regulations. The conditions of approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3950
supersede previous conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3736 (PUD
94-02).
PUD 94-02(A)-SEA CO.TRY AT AVIARA
JULY 3, 1996
PAGES
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3950
2. Location Map
3. Disclosure Statement
4. Background Data Sheet
5. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
6. EIA Part II
7. Reduced Site Plan
8. Exhibits "A" -"Q", dated July 3, 1996
June 25, 1996 EB:kc
•
•■■11111111• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • =-----·-= : : .......... : : , ..... : :
• • • • • • • • • • •
1,111111111 • • • • • • • • • • • • •
•
1, ••• ,
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 111111111■• : • • • • • • • 1111111111:
Fl)
•
•II • • .... .... .. • • .. • J,111111111: .. . ... • • • • • • : 1 ... ~ • • .• .. .
BA11Qll]TOS LAGOON
ALDEA II -AVIARA P.A. 15
PUD 94-02(A)
~ LLI a:
City of Carlsbad
... , 6 i, 11111¥-l•ZA •fi, ii, ef40 I
DISCLOSl'RE STATEMENT
.l.P"LJCJ.NiS Si A re~eNT OF DISCLOSURE OF CEFIT A.IN OWNEFISHtP 1NTeFIESTS ON Al.LAPPUCA ilONS Wt-4tCH w,u. ;IEQl..iFlE
::SCFlETIONARY ACTION ON n-.e PART OF 1rie CITY COUNC:L. OR ANY .t.PPOINTEO BOMIO. COMMISSION OR CCMMlr.'cf.
The following information must be disclosed:
Applicant
List tne names and addresses of all persons having a financiaJ interest in the application.
SeaCountry Homes, Inc.
95 Argonaut, Suite 210
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
2. Owner
List tne names and addresses of all persons having any ownership imarast in the property involved.
Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership
c/o Hillman ProF_~ties West, Inc.
2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206
Carlsbad, CA 92009
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporllan or partnership, list the names
addresses of aJI individuats owning more than 10% of the shares in thl corporation or owning any partner:
interest in the partnership.
Robert S. Bennett, President
Seacountrv Homes, Inc.
Alban M Moreoa1 Vice President Operations
SeaGountrx Homes Inc
Bruce W, Gladi Bh Exesutixe }Ti re President
SeaCountry Homes Inc.
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit cxpnization or a trust, list the names
addresses of any persan seNing • officer or director of the non-proacrgfiiiZation ar as trustee or benefic ~ . . . ot the trust. • ___________ RECEIVE.D ______ a ____ ,.____1,
N/A
APR 1 2 1996 ---------------------------------------------Cil,,i,iil,,l§TY.....i OF CAWU.S~!.i;.ln'llliiA.D11-----------
FRM 13 4/91
r£5~ I -\'; ! '· -;•, i. •. , .'}J"'J"
Ii ~,111~'IJ••"''boo ....,,_., B •
Page 1 of 2
207S L.-Palm-Orive • Carlabad. Catitornia a2~e • (819) 43~-11e1
•
Disclosure Stat•ment
5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Soares
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes _ No _2-. If yes, please indicate person(s) _________________ _
;,9,,on ,1 defined u: 'Any 1ndiv1dual. firm. co,::iam,e,.nio. jo,ntventure. uaoc:iation. social club. frltemal orqa,,ization. cor00r1tion. ntate. ir~st.
~-syna,cate. m,a ana arrv oa,e, coumv, city and couffl'(, crty mu11ic1pa11ty, a,atnct o, oa,., po11tica1 subdiv111011. or arrv ott,e, ;ro1.10 or
:omt11nat1on 1c:t1nc; u • unit.'
(l'\/0~. Artacn additional pages as nec:NSal'f.)
Roberts: Bennett, President
Print or type name <:A owner Pnnt or type name <:A appucant
FRM 13 4/91 Page 2 of 2
e
City of Carlsbad _. Abf ,,,;;,t. i•lY •fi iii,,t41i i
DISCLOSL'RE STATEMENT
.1,;:ic:1uCANT"S STAT'EMENT OF OISCLCSURE OF CERT.I.IN OWNEl=ISl-41P tNT'El=IESTS ON AU.APPllCATlONS 'Nl-41Cl-4 Wll.L. .aeQl..i~E
:1sc~ETIONARY ACTION ON n-.e PART OF ~e err, COUNC:L OR ANY APPOINTED ~-COMMISSION OR CCMMlr.'Ee.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. Applicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financiaJ interest in the application.
SEA COUNTRY HOMES, INC,
95 Argonaut. Ste. 210
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of ail persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Aviara Land Assoc. Limited Partnership
2011 Palomar Airport Road, Ste. 206
Carlsbad, CA 92009
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names
addresses of ail individual& owning more than 10% of the shara in the corporation or owning any partner:
interest in the pannersnip.
4. If any person identtfled pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-proftt ~ization or a trust, list the names
addresses of any person serving • officer or director of tM non-pr~ or;,niu~ or as trustH or benefic
of the trust. • '
l •
FRM13 4/91 Page 1 of 2
207!5 L-Palm-Orive • Cart•bad. California 92009-459 • (619) 43~-1161
Disclosure Statement Page 2
5. Have you had mare than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, 3car~s
Commissions, Committees and Councirwithin the past twelve mcntlis?
Yes_ No_ If yes, please indicate person(s) _____________________ _
=~r,cn ,a defined u: • Any individual, firm. cocarttier1hip. joint verm.ire. association. social club. fraternal cri;ani:aticn. cori;iorat1on. estate. '.r'..:st.
~r. syndicate, tl'li1 and any ctl'ler county, crty and county. crty muni<:11),&lity, di1tn<:t er otr'le< p<ilitical 1ubdiv111cn. er 1ny otl'ler ;ro"'c er
ccmo,nat1on acting u a unrt.'
(NOTE: Anach additional pages as necessary.)
Owner:
Aviara Land Associates Limited
Partnership, a Delaware limited
partnership
pany, a Delaware
eral Partner
Applicant:
Sea Country Homes, Inc.
By: ----------
Date: -----------
-BACKGROUND DATA SHEET -
CASE NO: PUD 94-02{A)
CASE NAME: Sea Country At Aviara
APPLICANT: Sea Country Homes (Al Moreno)
REQUEST AND LOCATION: An amendment to an approved 54-unit multifamily project with
gated entry and recreation area. The amendment will reduce the number of units to 51 and reorient some
units and a private drive.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 6 of Parcel Map No. 16451, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County on April 15, 1991, in the City of Carlsbad, State of California.
APN: 215-612-20 Acres: 23.3 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: ~9/~5-=-1 ____________ _
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: =RM=----------------------------
Density Allowed: 8.2 du/ac (192 units) Density Proposed: 2.19 du/ac (51 units)
Existing Zone: ~P=C _________ Proposed Zone: _P~C _____________ _
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning Requirements)
Site
North
South
East
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
Zoning Land Use
Undeveloped
Alga Road
Golf Course
Golf Course
Golf Course
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): ~5~1 ___________________ _
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: ~A=-=p=ri=-=-1 =2=0,'-'1=9-=-9-'-4 _________________ _
ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT ASSESSMENT
D Negative Declaration, issued ______________________ _
D Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated _________________ _
IZ! Other, Subsequent Project
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMP ACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Sea Country At Aviara-PUD 94-02(A)
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 12 GENERAL PLAN: =RM==-------
ZONING: "'-PC=---------------------------
DEVELOPER'S NAME: =S=ea:::....C=-o=u=n=try:....--=H=o==m=e=s ________________ _
ADDRESS: 95 Argonaut, Suite 210. Aliso Viejo. CA 92656
PHONE NO.: (714) 452-1180 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: =21=5-'-6=1=-2--=2-=--0 ______ _
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 23.3 ac/7.09 ac
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:N "-'=IA-=-----------------
A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 177.31 sf
B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = 94.57 sf
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) .355 ac
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = NIA
E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = NIA
Identify Drainage Basin = D
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
F. Circulation: Demand in ADTs =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4&2
H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = NIA
I. Schools: NIA
(Demands to be determined by staff)
J. Sewer: Demands in EDUs 51
Identify Sub Basin = NIA
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: Demand ih GPD =
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM-PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Sea Country At A viara
2. APPLICANT: Sea Country Homes, Inc. (Al Moreno)
CASE NO: PUD 94-02(A)
DATE: May 24, 1996
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 95 Argonaut, Suite 210, Aliso Viejo,
CA 92656, (714) 452-1180
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: "-'A"""pr=il:....:1=2 ...... , 1=9"""9""-6 ___________ _
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTON: An amendment to an approved PUD for 54 multifamily units with
gated entry and recreation area. The proposed amendment will reduce the number of units to 51
and will reorient some of the units.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
D Land Use and Planning
D Population and Housing
D Geological Problems
D Water
[:8:1 Air Quality
~ Transportation/Circulation
D Biological Resources
D Public Services
D Utilities & Service Systems
D Energy & Mineral Resources D Aesthetics
D Hazards
D Noise
D Cultural Resources
D Recreation
D Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
D I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
~ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master
Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01) and Project Negative Declaration (CT 94-03)
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01), including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior
Compliance has been prepared.
Planning DirectsSignaure Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
"No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#2:Pg 8)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#2:Pg 8)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#2:Pg 8)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations ( e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#2:Pg 7)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? ()
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#2:Pg 8)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly ( e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#2:Pg 8)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ()
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#1:Pg 5.1-5; #2:Pgs 6-7)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#1:Pg 5.1-12; #2:Pgs 6-7)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1:Pg
5.1-12; #2:Pgs 6-7)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1:Pg 5.1-9)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#1:Pg 5.1-11; #2:Pgs 6-7)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( #2:Pgs 6-
7)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#1:Pg 5.1-11; #2:Pgs 6-7)
h) Expansive soils? ( #2:Pgs 6-7)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#2:Pgs 6-7)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? ( #2:Pg 6)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ( #2:Pg 6)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#2:Pg 6)
5
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rev. 03/28/96
-Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ( #2:Pg 6)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ( #2:Pg 6)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ( #2:Pg 6)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#2:Pg 6)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#2:Pg 6)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#2:Pg 6)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#1 :Pg 5.3-
4)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#1 :Pg 5.3-4)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#2:Pg 6)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#2:Pg 6)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#1:Pg
5.7-10)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#2:Pg 9)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
( #2:Pg 9)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#2:Pg
8)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#2:Pg
9)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#2:Pg
9)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#2:Pg 9)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#2:Pgs 7, 8)
b) Locally designated species ( e.g. heritage trees)?
(#2:Pgs 7, 8 )
c) Locally designated natural communities ( e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#2:Pgs 7, 8)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
6
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
PotentiaJly
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Rev. 03/28/96
-Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(#2: Pgs 7, 8)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#2:Pg 7, 8)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#1:Pg 5.12.l and 5.13.1)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#1 :Pg 5.12.1-4)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#1:Pg 5.13-5)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#2:Pg 8)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#2:Pg 9)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? ( #2:Pg 8)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#2:Pg 8)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#2:Pg 8 )
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#2:Pg 8)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#2:Pg 8)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#1 :Pg 5.12.5-3)
b) Police protection? (#1:Pg 5.12.6-2)
c) Schools? (#1:Pg 5.12.7.4)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(#2:Pg 8)
e) Other governmental services? (#1:Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg
5.12.4-1)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
\
a) Power or natural gas? (#1 :Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg 5.12.4-1)
b) Communications systems? (#2:Pg 8)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#1:Pg 5.12.2-5)
7
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Rev. 03/28/96
-Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1:Pg 5.12.3-4)
e) Storm water drainage? ( # 1 :Pg 5 .2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#1:Pg 5.12.4-2)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#1 :Pg 5.12.2-5)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#2:Pg 9 )
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#2:Pgs
6, 9)
c) Create light or glare? (#2:Pg 8)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#2:Pg 7)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( #2:Pg 7)
c) Affect historical resources? (#2:Pg 7)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#2:Pg 7)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#2:Pg 7)
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#1 :Pg 5.13.8-5)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#2:Pg 9)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
8
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Rev. 03/28/96
-XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
--DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project is an amendment to an approved PUD development for 54 multifamily
units with gated entry and recreation area. The amendment would reduce the number of units
from 54 to 51, and would reorient some of the units on the lots and one of the private drives.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
1. Land Use and Planning
The proposed amendment will not result in any conflict with the General Plan designation or
zoning or any environmental plans or policies. The project involves only site design changes.
The use will remain multifamily as originally approved. There will also be no incompatibility as
a result of the amendment. The site is not currently used for agricultural operations. There is no
existing established community.
2. Population and Housing
The proposed amendment will not result in unanticipated growth and will not displace existing
housing. The amendment will reduce the number of dwelling units by 3 from the previously
approved project.
3. Geologic Problems
The proposed amendment involves relatively minor changes to an approved site plan. There is
no significant change to the building pads. The mass grading for the site has been completed in
compliance with the previously approved Tentative Map. The finish grading will be required to
be substantially in conformance with the approved exhibits for the project.
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
5. Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
10 Rev. 03/28/96
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air
quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
6. Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
-III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(619) 438-1161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Environmental Impact Assessment Part II (amended) for CT 94-03/PUD 94-02, dated
December 13, 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
"'MAJOR AMENDMENT"'
JUN 1 2 1996
C~'t '-,;/ (3G;'
r-·~ _ _f. ,l':j.~ ~.fl [ )~{Ji
PUD 94-02 CA)
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
SITE PLAN
AVIARA
PLANNING AREA 15
CITY OF CARLSBAD
SEA COUNTRY
CI'rY OJ' CAJI.LBBAD APPBOVALB
PLANtflNG DIUCTOB•
:LAND USB BBVIIIW DGINB'BK•
D.6.TB•
CITY BNGINNIIB•