HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-15; Planning Commission; ; MP 177P|LCPA 95-11|CT 90-09A|CP 95-01| AVIARA PA 5 WESTERN PACIFICP.C. AGENDA OF NOVEMBER 15, 1995 I Application complete date: September 20,1995
Project Planner. Eric Munoz
Project Engineer. Jim Davis
SUBJECT:
PACIFIC - Request for a revision to an existing tentative map approval for
Planning Area 5 in the Aviara Master Plan which allows 147 multi-family
dwelling units on the pre-graded 24 acre site. The revision request proposes
a clustered single family product type with a total of 131 dwelling units. Also
involved is a new condominium permit, a major master plan amendment and
a local coastal program amendment. The Aviara Master Plan is located in P-
C (Planned Community) zoned property located west of El Camino Real,
north of the Batiquitos Lagoon in the Southwest Quadrant of the City, in the
Coastal Zone, within Local Facilities Management Zone 19.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3833,3834,
3835 , and 3836, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Master Plan Amendment MP 177(P),
Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 95-11, Tentative Tract Map Revision CT 90-
09(A), and Condominium Permit CP 95-01 respectively, based on the findings and subject
to the conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The subject site is already approved for 147 multi-family dwelling units (CT 90-09). This
project proposes to change the product type and develop the site with 131 clustered,
detached single family units. The new air space ownership product type complies with most
of the applicable standards of the Planned Development Ordinance, however, the allowance
for a 24 foot wide driveway to serve each 4 unit cluster is central to the design of the
proposed product type and requires specific development standards to be written into the
Aviara Master Plan for this planning area. Changes to the master plan text and graphics
will address the project issues as summarized below:
e
e
e
0
Allowed use/product change from multi-family to clustered single family;
Specific development standards for new product type established for PA 5;
Master Plan trail segment in adjacent SDG&E easement is triggered by PA 5; and
Clean up of graphics to accurately depict the boundary between PA 4 and 5.
MP 177(P)/LCPA 95-11/cr dW(A)/CP 95-01
AVIARA PA 5, WESTERN PACIFIC NOVEMBER 15,1995 PAGE 2
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The site for PA 5 is currently mass graded into three pad areas and certain improvements
are already in place including the Alga Road (site's northern edge), Batiquitos Drive (site's western edge), Hummingbird Road (bisects southern portion of site) and Rock Dave Street
public street systems. Sidewalks and the required noise attenuation wall along Alga Road
are also currently in place. In the eastern portion of the site is the SDG&E easement with
the existing development of Planning Area 4 located beyond. The three graded pads that
comprise PA 5 are located as follows: two pads adjacent to Batiquitos Drive on the west
perimeter of the site and a third pad separated from the other two by a large slope
containing native vegetation and nine (9) large oak trees. These oak trees were conditioned
to be retained with the current approval of PA 5 and that same condition has been placed
on this amended project (Condition No. 20 of Resolution No. 3835).
This project proposes a new product type for Planning Area 5 with new development
standards written into the master plan specifically for this planning area. The new product
type is a clustered, detached single family concept where a 32 foot wide internal private street system serves the planning area (in addition to the existing public streets). Guest
parking is allowed on one side of this internal private street. Coming off of the 32 foot
private street are 24 foot wide courtyardddriveways which access a maximum cluster of four
units. Each of these four unit clusters are typically separated on the site plan by a unit that
faces directly out onto the 32 foot wide private street. These units have garages that observe
a 20 foot private street setback measured from the back of the sidewalk. A typical four unit cluster layout is provided on Exhibit "D" while the site pldtentative map exhibits, Exhibits
"B" and "C" depict the entire site layout.
The new development standards and product type provisions are proposed via master plan
text changes and the introduction of a graphic depicting the typical four unit detached
cluster product type for the Planning Area 5 chapter of the Aviara Master Plan. These
proposed master plan text changes are attached to Planning Commission Resolution No.
3833, as Exhibit "X", dated November 15, 1995. Other components of the master plan
amendment include: a clarification of the trail construction requirement for the SDG&E
powerline easement located within PA 5; and a correction of existing graphics within the
Aviara Master Plan (SDG&E powerline easement is inaccurately shown within PA 4).
Since a coastal zone master plan is involved, the change to the master plan requires a change to the Local coastal Program which is being proposed via LCPA 95-11. The new
air space ownership product type requires a condominium permit (CP 95-01) and the
existing tentative map must be amended (C" 9@09(A)).
*
Three plan types are proposed ranging in size as follows: Plan 1,2,290 square feet (sq. ft.); Plan 2,2,350 sq. ft.; and Plan 3,2,716 sq. ft. All units have a two car garage. Contemporary
concrete tile and stucco wall architecture is proposed with adequate articulation and roof
line variation. Maximum building height proposed is 26 feet. The proposed building elevations for the three plans are shown on Exhibits "E" - "J". The proposed floor plans for
the three plans are shown on Exhibits "K" - "M".
1
MP 177(P)/LCPA 95-11/CA &W(A)/CP 95-01 AVIARA PA 5, WESTERN PACIFIC NOVEMBER 15,1995
PAGE 3
Each unit features a 15 by 15 foot minimum rear yard area. Several units exceed this minimum. The common active recreation area requirement for this project is satisfied via
the two proposed active recreation areas. As shown on the tentative map (Exhibits "B" and "C") and landscape exhibit (Exhibit "0"), one active area provides a shuffleboard court and another active area provides a swimming pool. Exhibit "N" depicts the propused elevations
and floor plans for the pool equipment room/restroom facility.
A balanced, finish grading concept is proposed for the development of the mass graded site
which involves 25,900 cubic yards of cut and fill. Affordable housing requirements for the
development of this planning area have already been satisfied at a master plan scale.
The project is subject to the following analysis and/or regulations:
A. Is the proposed master plan amendment and related product type and development standard modifications consistent with Chapter 21.38 (Planned Community Zones,
which require master plans) of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the intent and purpose of the Aviara Master Plan?
B. Is the proposed local coastal program amendment consistent with the City's coastal
regulations and local coastal program segments?
C. Is the proposed tentative map revision consistent with Title 20 (Subdivision
Ordinance), the Aviara Master Plan and the City's General Plan?
D. Is the proposed condominium permit consistent with Chapter 21.45 (Planned
Development Ordinance) of the City's Zoning Ordinance?
E. Is the proposal consistent with the City's Growth Management Program?
A. Master Plan Amendment - MP 177(P)
A master plan amendment is required because a new product type (clustered single family)
and new development standards for PA 5 are proposed. Currently up to 189 multi-family
dwelling units are allowed; 131 clustered single family units are proposed. The new
development standards appear as master plan text changes which are attached as Exhibit "X"
to the resolution for MP 177(P), Planning commission Resolution No. 3833. These development standards allow the proposed product type.
The allowance for a 24 foot wide driveway to serve four units or less is a departure from
current Planned Development Ordinance allowances, yet has been allowed in the City in
certain master plan areas. This is consistent with the code because, where a conflict in
regulation occurs, the regulations specified in the approved master plan shall control per Chapter 21.38.030(d). All other Planned Development standards and guidelines apply. The
components of the new standarddproposed master plan amendment are summarized below:
-
MP 177(P)/IXPA 95-ll/C~ A-O9(A)/CP 95-01 AVIARA PA 5, WESTERN PACIFIC
NOVEMBER 15,1995 PAGE 4
The allmance for a 24 foot wide courtyard/driveway to serve a maximum of four
units (30 feet is the current minimum drivewayhtreet width per the PD Ordinance).
The requirement of a 15 by 15 foot minimum dimensioned private passive recreation
area per unit.
A 32 foot wide private street with guest parking allowed on one side (currently
allowed by PD Ordinance).
Establishment of setbacks and building separation requirements (consistent with
Planned Development provisions).
Elimination of attached multi-family residential units as an allowed use.
Elimination and reduction of 35 foot height limit to 30 fee@ stories for the single
family style product type proposed.
Clarification of PA 5’s trail construction requirement relative to the granting of
occupancy for units in PA 5.
Correction of location maps for PA 4 and 5 in the Aviara master plan; the SDG&E
powerline easement currently is incorrectly shown as a part of PA 4. This master
plan amendment will correct this and show the SDG&E easement within PA 5.
In addition, a graphic is proposed for the master plan text (also attached to Resolution No.
3833) which depicts a typical four unit single family cluster layout.
The proposed master plan amendment qualifies as a major master plan amendment per
Chapter 21.38 (PC Zone) of the Zoning Ordinance. All applicable provisions of the PC
zone are complied with. The intent and purpose of the Aviara Master Plan with regards to
PA 5 was to accommodate up to 189 multi-family residential units; the existing approval is
for 147 multi-family units. The proposal still involves a residential development at a similar
density (147 vs. 131 units). The primary change is the product type shift which is more
desirable to the property owners; and acceptable to staff as proposed and conditioned.
Therefore, the basic intent and purpose of the Aviara Master Plan for residential
development at the proposed density on PA 5 is maintained by the proposed project and related master plan amendment.
B. Local Coastal Program Amendment - LCPA 95-11
Located within the Mello I segment of the City’s LCP, the project site has already been
approved for development. coastal Deed Restricted areas area noted on the tentative map
exhibits and no encroachment or grading into these areas is proposed/allowed. No changes
to coastal zone goals, policies or objectives are proposed; only development standard
changes to PA 5 to allow the new product type. An amendment to the LCP is required
MP 177(P)/LCPA 95-ll/C1 Au)9(A)/CP 95-01
AVIARA PA 5, WESTERN PACIFIC
NOVEMBER 15,1995 PAGE 5
since the Aviara Master Plan, as a coastal zone master plan, is the implementing ordinance
for this segment of the LCP. The product type change and new development standards for
PA 5 to allow the proposed detached, clustered single family product type qualifies as an
amendment to the LCP to maintain consistency with the City Zoning Ordinance (Aviara
Master Plan) and General Plan. After final City approval, the project will be submitted to
the Coastal Commission for processing of the LCP amendment.
C. Tentative Map Revision - CT 90109(A)
The proposed subdivision of PA 5 involves 20 residential lots, two active recreation area lots,
and eleven open space lots. The 20 residential lots will accommodate 131 air space
ownership units. The residential lots as shown on Exhibits "B" and "C equate with a
potential phasing of development with each lot typically containing at least one cluster of
four units. The open space lots mer SDG&E easement area, and common open space and
slope areas. Maintenance for these areas is the responsibility of either the planning area
Homeowners Association (HOA) or the Aviara Master Plan Master HOA as noted on the
water conservation plan exhibit, Exhibit "P". As proposed, the tentative tract map
amendment meets the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance - Title 20, and all
applicable Engineering standards.
The development of PA 5 with 131 residential dwelling units and the proposed product type
will be consistent with the Aviara Master Plan (pending concurrent approval of this project's
master plan amendment, MP 177(P)). By implementing an approved master plan, this
project is therefore inherently consistent with the City's General Plan. Continued buildout
of the Aviara Master Plan is a goal of General Plan.
D. Condominium Permit - CP 95-01
A condominium permit is being proposed for the development of 131 air space ownership
units pursuant to the City's Planned Development (PD) Ordinance. The project complies
with the applicable regulations of the PD Ordinance including residential parking
requirements, guest parking requirements, building height, private street widths, setbacks,
building separations and recreation area requirements as noted in the Master Plan analysis
section. One standard is different from the PD Ordinance with regards to a
courtyard/driveway to sewe a four unit cluster which can be 24 feet in width. This is a
primary component of the new development standards proposed for PA 5 and is cavered
in the master plan amendment discussion above in Section A.
The design criteria of the PD Ordinance is satisfied because vehicle and pedestrian
circulation is accommodated while not proping a dominant internal street system.
Recreation facilities are located to be accessible to all residents. The overall site design
implementing the four unit cluster in addition to the proposed landscape concept is appropriate for the site. The provision for required parking is made and guest parking
spaces are adequately dispersed throughout the project to serve all units. Being a part of
an approved master plan, there will be no disruptive elements introduced into the
MP 177(P)/LCPA 95-ll/CI A-W(A)/CP 95-01 AVIARA PA 5, WESTERN PACIFIC NOVEMBER 15,1995
PAGE 6
community by the proposed project. Architectural harmony can be achieved and maintained
within the planning area and master plan in general and the proposed development will be
compatible with existing and planned surrounding developments in the Aviara Master Plan.
E. GmwthManagement
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 19 in the
Southwest Quadrant. The impacts created by this development on public facilities and
compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows:
FACILITY IMPACTS COMPLIANCE
City Administration 485 square feet Yes
Library 259 square feet Yes
Waste Water Treatment 131 EDU Yes
Parks NIA Yes
Drainage NIA Yes
Circulation 1310 ADT Yes
Fire Station Nos. 2 & 4 Yes
Open Space NIA Yes
Schools CUSD Yes
Sewer Collection System 131 EDU Yes
Water I 28,820 GPD I Yes
The project is 13 dwelling units below the Growth Management Growth Control Point
allowance and 58 units below the maximum allowed by the master plan for PA 5. Required
facilities and seMces will be available to serve the build-out of the Aviara Master Plan
including the development of the subject planning area. All required Growth Management
findings are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3835 for CI' 90-09(A).
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed revisions to the approved development project within Planning Area 5 were
reviewed with respect to their potential environmental impacts, pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines, and Title 19 - the City's
Environmental Protection Ordinance. The project site has undergone two previous
environmental reviews: the certified Environmental Impact Report for the Aviara Master
Plan and master tentative map for Aviara Phase I, CI' 85-35, Unit C (EIR 83-02(A)), and
the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 147 unit, multi-family development currently
-
MP 177(P)/LCPA 95-ll/Cl AO9(A)/CP 95-01 AVIARA PA 5, WESTERN PACIFIC
NOVEMBER 15,1995
PAGE 7
approved for Aviara Planning Area 5 (m 90-09/PUD 90-12).
Upon review of the current proposal, it has been determined that this is a reduced project
and that there will be no additional significant effects that were not analyzed in the previous
environmental reviews. The current proposal conforms to the parameters established
through the previous reviews and all adjustments necessary to reduce impacts to a level of
insignificance have already been implemented or are incorporated into the project design.
Therefore, no mitigation measures are required with this proposal.
With regard to air quality and circulation impacts, the City's MEIR found that the
cumulative impacts of the implementation of projects consistent with the General Plan are
significant and adverse due to regional factors, therefore the City Council adopted a
statement of overriding consideration. The project is consistent with the General Plan and
as to these effects, no additional environmental document is required.
Considering the adequacy of the previous environmental review on the site, the project
qualifies as a subsequent development as identified in Section 21083.3 of the California
Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Prior
Environmental Compliance on September 27, 1995, a copy of which is attached to this
report and on file with the Planning Department.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3833
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3834
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3835
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3836
Location Map
Environmental Impact Assessment Form, Part I1 dated September 20,1995
Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance dated September 27,1995
Disclosure Form
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Reduced Exhibits "A" - "Q", dated November 15,1995 "A" - "C": TentativiMap Exhibits
"D": Typical Cluster Site Plan "E" - "J": "K" - "M":
"W:
"0": Landscape Concept Plan
npn. Water Commation Plan "Q" Wall and Fence Plan/Details.
Plan 1/2,/3 - Elevations
Plan 1/2/3 - Floor Plans
Pool Bldg. - Elevations/Floor Plans
ENM:BWH.MWC%Lr
October 17,1995
AVIARA PLANNING AREA 5
CT 90-09(A)/CP 95-01 /
LCPA 95-1 1/MP 177(P)
- c
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
("0 BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. Cl' 90-09(A)/CP 95-01/MP 177WLCPA 95-11
DATE: SeDtember 20. 1995
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Aviara Planning Area 5
APPLICANT Western Pacific/Culbertson. Adams & Associates
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 85 Argonaut. Suite 220. Aliso Vieio. California
92656: (714) 581-2888
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 14.1995: Complete amlication: SeDtember 19.1995
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment to an existine tentative mau for PA 5 in the Aviara Master Plan
to replace 147 multi-familv units with 131 detached. clustered sinele family units. To allow single family
residential with the Droduct tme Drowsed reauires a master ~lan amendment. Since a coastal zone master
plan is involved. a Local Coastal Proaam Amendment is also reauired. A new Condominium Permit is
also reauired for this Droiect. The Drowsed Droiect is essentially a Droduct tm change with a slightly
reduced density than what is already approved for the subiect site. The master plan currently allows up
to 189 dwelling units. The PA 5 site currently sits as a series of three pre-maded pads readv for
development: to be served bv existing and future infrastructure associated with the Aviara Master Plan.
Grading reauired for this Droiect involves amroximately 25.900 cubic vards of cut and fill. The existing
proiect E'" 90-09) was amroved with a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The only mitigathe measure
was the Drovision of a sound wall. This Droiect incomrates a noise wall into the design of the proiect
as reflected on the proiect's amroved - exhibits. The noise wall design is based on a detailed noise study
done for the amended PA 5 develoDment. Otherwise. this proiect has been adeauatelv designed andlor
conditioned so that no simificant imDacts to the environment will occur: and no imDacts beyond those
already assessed with the original approval of CT 90-09 will occur.
1 Rev. 3/28/95
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The SUnmacy 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.
- Land Use and Planning - X Transportation/Circulation - Public Services
- Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems
- Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics
- Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources
Recreation - X Air Quality - Noise -
- Mandatory Findings of Significance
2 Rev. 3/28/95
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared. a
I find that although the proposed project could have a signifkant 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. 0
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAm REPORT is required. 0
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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0
I frnd that although the proped 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 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance
has been prepared.
Date
E&
Planner Signature
Date
3 Rev. 3/28/95
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 infomation
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 infomation 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
si@icant.
Based on an “EM-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially si&icant effect on the
environment, but potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable stanhds 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 requird (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 signifkant effect on the environment.
4 Rev. 3/28/95
e 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.
e 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 ENWRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
5 Rev. 3/28/95
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #1 ) - -
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (Source #1) - -
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Source #l) - -
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? (Source #1)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (Source #1) - -
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source #1)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Source #1) - -
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source #1) - -
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the propod result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source #1) - -
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #l) - -
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefwtionf
(Source #1) - -
6
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #l)
Landslides or mudflows? (Source #l)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(Source #1)
Subsidence of the land? (Source #1)
Expansive soils? (Source #1)
Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #1)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runofT? (Source #1)
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Source #1)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
Surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #1)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (Source #1)
Changes in currents, or the coufse or direction of
water movements? (Source #I)
Change 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? (Source #l)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(Source #1)
Jmpacts to groundwater quality? (Source #l)
7
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
(Source #1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
#2) - X -
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source - -
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (Source #1) - -
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source #1) - -
VI. TRANSPoRTATION/CRCTION. Would the proposal
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or Wic congestion? (Source #2)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source #1) - -
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (Source #1) - -
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(Source #1) - -
e) Hazards or barriers for pedesaians or bicyclists?
(Source #1) - -
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Source #1) - -
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source #1) - -
Rev. 3/28/95
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare pies or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (Source #1)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Source #1)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #1)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Source #1)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Source #1)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (Source W1)
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? (Source
#1) **
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? (Source
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source #l)
- X
X -
X -
9
paentially
Sinifii
Potentirlly UdeSS LasThpn
Signifii Mitigation Significant No
rolpct lncorparated' Impact Impact
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? (Source #1) - - - - X
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
X - - - health hazards? (Source #1) -
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (Source #1) - X
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #l) X -
- X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source
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? (Source #1) X -
b) Police protection? (Source #1) - X
c) Schools? (Source #1) - X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(Source #1) X
- X
-
e) Other governmental services? (Source #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? (Source #1) X
- X
-
b) Communications systems? (Source #1)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (Source #1) X -
10
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #l)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source #l)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #1)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #1)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Source
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
(Source #1)
c) Create light or glare? (Source #1)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (Source #l)
Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #1)
Affect historical resources? (Source #1)
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (Source #1)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? (Source #1)
XV. RECREATION. Wouldthepmposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(Source #1)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(Source #1)
v
v
11 Rev. 3/28/95
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wild life 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?
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) - -
Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
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:
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. All
pertinent earlier analyses have been identified at tbe beginning of the Discussion of
Environmental Evaluation which follows on page 14. The Source Documents identified have
been cited as appropriate in tbe checklist and environmental discussion.
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.
Air Quality and Circulation Impacts: Statements of Overriding Considerations made
with the City's General Plan Master EIR (Source Document a).
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. NO mitigation measures
are involved with this project.
13 Rev. 3/28/95
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
SOURCE DOCUMENTS CITED (All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075
Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009; (619) 438-1 161).
1. Aviara PA 5, CT 90-09, Mitigated Negative Declaration published August 30, 1990 and corresponding
Environmental Impact Assessment Form Part II dated August 15, 1990.
2. City of Carlsbad General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01 as approved and certified by City Council Resolution
NO. 94-246.
PROJECT BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project site for PA 5 currently has an approval for 147 multi-family units. This project will amend the existing
tentative map, as well as the master plan and local coastal program to allow a detached, clustered single family
product type to be developed with 131 units. A balanced grading concept is proposed involving approximately
25,900 cubic yards of cut and fill. No sensitive environmental resources or conditions exist on the site which is
a series of three pre-graded pads. No environmental impacts will occur beyond those already assessed in
conjunction with the existing approval of CT 90-09 which included the approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The proposed project for PA 5, as designed and/or conditioned, will not have a significant effect on
the environment.
AIR OUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan
will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result
in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and
suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San
Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are
considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated
General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation
measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection
improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the
implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative
modes of transportation including mass -it 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
14 Rev. 3/28/95
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.
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
Oveniding 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.
15 Rev. 3/28/95
h
LIST 1) MI'TIGATIN APPLICA BLE
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (TF APPLICABLE)
16 Rev. 3/28/95
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Please Take Notice:
The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project described
below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental
documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of
determination will be filed.
Project Title: Aviara PA 5 - Western Pacific
Project Location: Planning Area 5 within the Aviara Master Plan
Project Description: Amendments to an existing tentative map Master Plan and Local Coastal
Program, and a new condominium permit to change an existing approval
of 147 multi-family units to 131 detached, clustered units on PA 5.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community
Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public
are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (30) days
of date of publication.
DATED:
CASE NO:
APPLICANT:
PUBLISH DATE:
SEPTEMBER 27, 1995
CT %@(A), CP 95-01,
MP 1770, LCPA 95-1 1
WESTERN PACIFIC
SEPTEMBER 27, 1995
EM:kc
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 @
D I SCLO SL RE ST.\E'! E37
-r,a fcllcwing information must be disclosed:
list the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
Aviara Land Associates Limited PartnershiD
2011 Palomar AirDort Road Suite 206
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Owner - 2.
3.
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Aviara Land Assoc'iates Limited Partnershin
2011 Palomar Airport Road
CA 97aa9
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or pmership, list the names and
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any pannershp interest in the partnership.
A
4. If any person idMed pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or diredor of the nongrofrt organization or as trustee or beneficiary
of the trust.
A
FRM00013 8/90
2075 Las Palmas Orive - Carisbad. Calitornia 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1167
isClOSur8 Statement
nave YOU Lad more than 5250 worth of hsiness transaced wltn any mernber of City staff. kzrzs
Cornm~ss~ons, Comninees and Cauncii'within the past twelve mCmhS?
yas - No - x If yes, please indicate perscn(s)
Owner:
Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership
By: AviaraLand o any, aDelaware
yq pd Partner
By:
'Scott M. Medansky/Asst. Stcre P
Applicant:
Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership
8/10/95 Date:
By: Republic Development Co., a
- BACKGROUND DATA SHEET -
CASE NO: CT 90-09(A)/CP 9541/LCPA 95-11/MP 177P)
CASE NAME: Aviara Plannine Area 5
APPLICANT Western Pacific Housing
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Promsal to amend the existine tentative man master ~lan and
1ocalcoaStalDrogJam amrovals - of a 147 unit multi-family Droiect to allow a detached. clustered
sinele family Droduct tm with a reduced unit total of 131 units. A new condominium Demit
is also reauired and being Drocessed.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 95.96.97 and 98 of Carlsbad Tract 85-35. Aviara Phase 1 Unit
C. in the City of Carlsbad. County of San Dieeo. State of California. accordinp to Map No.
12411. filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on June 29, 1989.
APN: 2 15-592- 12/13/14/19 Acres 24 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 33 lotdl31 units
(Assessor’s Parcel Number)
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RM
Density Allowed 4 - 8 du’dac Density Proposed 5.4 du‘dac
Existing Zone P-C ProposedZone P-C
Surrounding zoning and Land Use:
zoning Land Use
Site Pc VamtlGraded Pads
North Pc Alga Road
South Pc Single Family/Agriculture
East Pc PA 4 - Vacant Graded Pads
West Pc Batiquitos Drive
PUBLIC FACILlTIES
School District Carlsbad Unified Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 131 EDUs
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Aueust 10. 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
- Negative Declaration, issued - Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, A Notice of Prior Compliance was issued on SeDtember 27. 1995 with ~u~~orting
documentation on file in the Planning Demrtment.
- -
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: PA 5 - Western Pacific CT 9049(A)/CP 95-01LCPA 95-11/MP 177P)
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 19 GENERAL PLAN: RM
ZONING: P-C
DEVELOPERS NAME: Western Pacific Housing
ADDRESS: 18001 Cowan Street. Suite H. bine. CA 92714
PHONE NO.: (714) 442-6199 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 215-592- 12/13/14/19
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 24 acres/l31 du's
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
1.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 485
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 259
Park Demand in Acreage = N/A
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A
Identify Drainage Basin = C
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 1310
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 2&4
Open Space: Acreage Provided - NIA
Schools: N/A
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demand in EDUs - 131
Identify Sub Basin - NIA
Water: DemandinGPD - 28.820
The project is 13 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
AMENDED TENTATIVE MAP Ut CONDOMINIUM PLAN CT 9049(A) CP 95-01 AVIARA PLANNING AREA 5
OLNERAL NOTES THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
LEOAL OESCRtPTION
PARKING SUWARV
-,-
I",
11 " I - --
U '"
uc -... "-.-
I. <I ',
EXHIBIT "A"
NOVEMBER 15,1995
ell-
"-= SCALE I FEll
EXHIBIT "B"
EASEILWNT NOTES
0
0
Q
Q
0
Q
0
Q
EXHIBIT "C"
AVIARA- PA. 5
WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING
EXHIBIT “0”
. ." 1..
c
c
fi w
FRONT ELEV. 16
. ..
Plan 1 -
AVIARA- P.A. 5
WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING a A.-- .e I'I
z I
.... . ,.._' * '. ; .. ,.:._ ,
k m i X
. ..~. , j.. . . -1, . I,. . . . . . .;::, ,, 7 ..
RE 4R
Plan 1 -
AVIARA - P.A. 5
WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING 5 _. -.. -.. ._. .--- . ..I . .'
L
FR04T ELL'. 24 .-
FROhT ELEL. LC
Plan 2
.-LI
AVIARA - P.A. 5
WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING a
X w
w
LEFT *
f
RE4R
Plan 2 -
AVIARA - P.A. 5
WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING a _. - .
FROhT ELEL JB
Plan 3
I_L. AVIARA - P.A. 5
C.ST 2 3 19 WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING
1. a
A“ - ---
t !! X
I.
L
._ .
LEFT
RE4R
Plan 3 - AVIARA - P.A. 5
WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING @ A"--,.::.;
5 f x w
I 4
WESTERN PAC I F IC a ARCHITECTS
4
HOUSING
w
z 2
L
x w
I
m 1
-- PLAN 2
1930 SF
AVlARA- P.A. 5
WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING
-----. 5 ARCHITECTS i. 1.. I -p> -?
CST 2 3
Z 2
L
w
-
AVIARA - P.A. 5
PLAN 3
2293 Y
WESTERN PACIFIC MI ARCHITECTS
HOUSING -. ._- ...
.-
*' A .. .+ .A-
I 1
1 ,"... ,..- left
.. -.- Ill
AVJARA - P.A. 5 POOL BUILDNG WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING m
front
I II I
I.. I.... .11.1. .*.,,,. ,, .. .,...
.... -, ... .. ....I.
.- .I.II-LWWIY ....... I..._ .... ..... .......................... .... ..... ....... ...I... " ............ .......-. ". ... ..................
-I ._ . _. - ........ ........ ..... .- ... ....... ...... -.. .-. ...... ....... _. .... ..... ..... --. , _. ....... ...... ..... ... ... ......... ..... ...... . ... ... .- ..
.... I ..., -. ..... .... .... . ..
LI ll,.lll. , . ,. ..... ..... ..... ........ ...... ...... ...... .........
. .-.. . .- ........ ................ _^. ....... ..- " .. .. -....- ......... ^. .............. ... ...-... -.._- .... ...- .......... -. .... ........... -.- .........
AWARA WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
WESTERN PACIFIC HOMES
F X HlBlT "P"
1 I I! I I I I1 I I I I I Ill I[