HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUD 94-02A; Sea Country at Aviara; Planned Unit Development - Non-Residential (PUD)July3, 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 more some single-story
Page 3 Development Standards Compliance Table
Minimum Front Yard Setback - column 3
5 ' (pvt dwys)
Street Widths Private - column 4
32' pkg. 1 side (C,D,E)
Resolution No. 3950 Page 1 description - "Aviara" spelling corrected in lines 4
'/2 and 5 </2.
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
i.io, 3Q-& 29-35, and 11 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.
Tiie City of CARLSBAD Planning Departme?IbiTt
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
P.C. AGENDA OF: July 3,1996
Application complete date:
Project Planner:
Project Engineer:
May 16, 1996
Elaine Blackburn
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 Aviara 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.
com:PUD 94-02(A) - SEA COTOTRY AT AVIARA
JULYS, 1996
PAGE 2
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 Aviara Master Plan and the PUD regulations, and
PUD 94-02(A) - SEA CO
JULYS, 1996
PAGE 3
RY AT AVIARA
indicates how the design of the proposed project complies with the standards.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPLIANCE TABLE
STANDARD
Max. Density
Min. Lot Size
Max. Lot Coverage
Max. Building Height
Min. Front Yard
Setback
Min. Side Yard
Setback
Min. Rear Yard
Setback
Min. Slope Setback
(adj. To golf course)
Min. Dist. B/t
Structures
Resident Parking
Visitor Parking
Recreational Space
1 . Private
2. Common
R.V. Storage
Storage Space
Street Widths Private
MASTER PLAN
REQUIREMENTS
192dus
n/a
n/a
30'
20'
n/a
n/a
20'
20'
per Code (Ch. 2 1.44)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
PUD
REQUIREMENTS
Per underlying zone
n/a
n/a
n/a
20' SF (may be varied
to 15' ave. w/ 10' min.)
5' (pvt dwys)
n/a
n/a
n/a
10' 1 -story units
15' 1 & 2-story
20' 2-story
2 full-size cov'd sps/du
10 sps on-street
10,200 sf total (in
Private & Common)
1020sf(20sf:du)
392 cf:du
30' - no parking
32' - parking 1 side
36' - parking 2 sides
PROVIDED
51 units
n/a
n/a
30'
Min. 20' (St. A)
Min. 6' (pvt dwys)
10' (corner lots)
n/a (other lots)
n/a
Min. 20'
Min. 20'
2 full-size cov'd sps/du
29 sps on-street
45,550 sf Total
Private: 41,400 sf
Common 4, 150 sf
through Aviara MP
392 cf:du
Pvt Dwys-B,C,D,E,F
30' no pkg (B & F).
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 Aviara 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
JULYS, 1996
PAGE 4
corR TRY AT AVIARA
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
City Administration
Library
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water
IMPACTS
177.31 sf
94.57 sf
.355 ac
.355 ac
n/a
408 ADT
Stations 2 and 4
n/a
Carlsbad
51EDU
11,220GPD
COMPLIANCE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
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 COmiRY AT AVIARA
JULYS, 1996
PAGES
ATTACHMENTS;
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3950
2. Location Map
3. Disclosure Statement
4. Background Data Sheet
5. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
6. EIAPartll
7. Reduced Site Plan
8. Exhibits "A" - " Q", dated July 3, 1996
June 25, 1996EB:kc
LA
ALDEAII-AVIARAP.A. 15
PUD 94-02(A)
^ . •^^
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APBUCANTS STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP 'NTEPESTS ON AU.APPUCATIONS WHICH Wiu. SEO
SiSCBETlONAflY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CfTY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED 8OMQ. COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE.
The following information must be disclosed:
1 Applicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
SeaCountry Homes, Inc.
95 Argonaut, Suite 210
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership
c/o Hillman Properties West, Inc.
2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206
Carlsbad, CA 92009
3. if any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporaton or partnership, list the names
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partner
interest in the partnership.
Robert S. Bennett, President Alban M. Mm-pnr. v-ir-p Pr-p0-i,
SeaCountrv Homes. Inc. qparnimt-y^ Hnmpo Tr.^
Bruce W. Gladish^JExeciiirJjV-e-JLLce
SeaCountry Homes, Inc.
4. If any
addresses
of the trust
person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
sses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-proftorganizatipn or as trustee or benefic
trust
N/A
•APR 1 2 199T
' " V: iUf^/'Hli >JJ I) ^ » i/'o'-iai
FRM13 4/91 ' Page 1 of 2
2O75 Las P ml mas Oriv* • Carlsbad. California 92OO9-48S9 • (619) 438-1161
Disclosur9 Statement
(Over}
Page 2
5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Scares
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No x if yes, please indicate person(s)
n a«fin«d M: 'Any individual, ffmi. cop«/tn«f»nig. joint v«ntur«. «MOCi«Bon. social club, frattmal organization, corporation, sstatr trust.
••c«rv«r. syndicate, tnn and any oow county, city and county, city municipality, district <x oifiaf political subdivision, or any offltf ^rouo or
lomcmttion tcting aa a unit*
Anacn adCittonai pages as n«c«ssa/y)
Signarurt of Ownar/aat*
SEACOUN1 'ration
appiicanvaaj«r" ^
Robert S. Bennett, President
Print or ryp« namt of ownay Pnnt or type nvrm of applicant
FRM13 4/91 Page 2 of 2
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APOUCANTS STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP 'NTEPESTS ON AU APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL
SISCRETIONARY ACTION ON TH£ PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED 8OABO. COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE.
The following information must be disclosed:
1 Applicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
SEA COUNTRY HOMFS. INC.
95 Argonaut, Ste. 210
AT iso Vie.io. CA 92656
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of all 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 all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partner:
interest in the partnership.
N/A
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-croft organization or as trustee or benefic
of the trust
N/A ' a li
FRM 13 4/91 ' Page 1 of 2
2075 Las Palm** Oriv« • Carlsbad. California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161
Disclosure Statement
fCverj
Page 2
5. Have you had more than 3250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Scares
Commissions, Committees and Councii'within the past twelve months?
Yes No If yes, please indicate perscn(s)
I* d«fin«d *»: 'Any individual, firm. eop*rtn«r3nip. joint v«ntur«. association, jociai club. (rat«mai organization, corporation. «stat». trust.
r»c»iv«r. syndicate, tMi« »nd any otn«r county, city and county, city municipality, di»tnct Of atn«< politJeaJ »ubdivi»ion, or any otn«r jrouo or
comoination acting u a unit'
(NQTH: Anach additional pages as necessary.)
Owner:
Aviara Land Associates Limited
Partnership, a Delaware limited
partnership
'ompany, a Delaware
General Partner
Scott M. Medansky/Asst. Secretary
Date: AjP^ ( ID, l
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: 23J Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 9/51
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: PC Proposed Zone: PC
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site PC Undeveloped
North PC Alga Road
South PC Golf Course
East PC Golf Course
PC PC Golf Course
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 51
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: April 20, 1994
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
| | Negative Declaration, issued
| | Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
|5<] Other, Subsequent Project
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: Sea Country At Aviara - PUD 94-02fA)
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 19 GENERAL PLAN: RM
ZONING: PC
DEVELOPER'S NAME: Sea Country Homes
ADDRESS: 95 Argonaut. Suite 210. Aliso Vieio. CA 92656
PHONE NO.: (714)452-1180 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 215-612-20
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 23.3 ac/7.09 ac
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: N/A
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 = N/A
E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A
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 = N/A
I. Schools: N/A
(Demands to be determined by staff)
J. Sewer: Demands in EDUs 51
Identify Sub Basin = N/A
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: Demand in GPD =
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: PUD 94-02(A)
DATE: May 24. 1996
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Sea Country At Aviara
APPLICANT: Sea Country Homes. Inc. (Al Moreno)
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 95 Argonaut Suite 210. Aliso Vieio.
CA 92656. (714)452-1180
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 12. 1996
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.
| | Land Use and Planning
| | Population and Housing
| | Geological Problems
Fl Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services
Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems
Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics
Hazards I I Cultural Resources
| | Noise , | | Recreation
| | Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Q I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
| | 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.
| | I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
| | 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.
[><3 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.
PlanAeV Signature ' I " Date
Planning Director's Signature Date
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.
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.
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)? ()
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
n
n
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
n
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
n
n
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? ()
n
n
n
n
n
n
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pg 5.1-5; #2:Pgs 6-7)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pg 5.1-12; #2:Pgs 6-7)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pg
5.1-12; #2:Pgs 6-7)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pg 5.1-9)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l: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? (#l: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 )
D
nnn
naa
a
a
a
aa
aaa
a
aaa
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 )
n
a
a
a
a
a
a
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)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
n
n
n
a
aa
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
n
n
n
n
n
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
a
a
a
a
an
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l: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? (#l: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:Pg9)
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 )
n
a
a
a
a
n
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
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)?
n
n
n
n
n n E
n E
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?
(#l:Pg 5.12.1 and 5.13.1)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l: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? (#l:Pg 5.13-5)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
n
n
n
n
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 )
D
D
D
D
D
D
D.
D
D
D
D
D
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:
Fire protection? (#l:Pg 5.12.5-3)a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Police protection? (#l:Pg 5.12.6-2)
Schools? (#l:Pg 5.12.7.4)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(#2:Pg 8)
Other governmental services? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg
5.12.4-1)
Dnnn
D
n
n
n
n
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? (#l: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? (#l:Pg 5.12.2-5)
D
D
D D
nn
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-4)
e) Storm water drainage? (# 1 :Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l: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? (#l: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?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
a
a
a
a
aaaa
a
a
aa
a
a
a
a
aa
aa
a
a
a
a
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.
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) 43 8-1161, 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