HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-01-07; City Council; Resolution 92-1-?
G-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
00,
a>m swm
$E2 gang 0; g 2 goa5 ,-dz 0,sK mGoB
SWCnO
gUU0 zoss
>:%
U a Q?
ZJ
~rn~
>5s5
0 kO
13
14
15
16
17
18
19.
20
21
22
23
24
25 I1
26
27
m e
RESOLUTION NO. 92-1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (CT
90-36) FOR A 99 LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON 47 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF BATIQUITOS DRIVE AND KESTRAL DRIVE.
CASE NO: CT 90-36
APPLICANT: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 26(S)
WHEREAS, on October 16, 1991 the Carlsbad Plan
Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to considc
proposed Negative Declaration and Tentative Subdivision Map C?
36 for a 99 lot single family residential project and ado:
Resolutions Nos. 3304 and 3305 respectively, recommending to
City Council that the Negative Declaration and Tenta.
Subdivision Map CT 90-36 be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
December 17, 1991 held a public hearing to consider
recommendations and heard all persons interested in or opposec
CT 90-36; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was issued on June
1991 submitted to the State Clearinghouse for a 30 day re
period. All comments received from that review period are f.
incorporated into the conditions of approval for the tentative
and other project approvals. These conditions will be revic
through a monitoring program set up for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct
2. That the negative declaration on the above referel
28
T ll w W
”
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
om SWm w>z $E&
olL%m ooaa Z>jZ ol”-rr mg>o nu
gwwoo >mu
gE$o go$$
>k3 p2
Go
gpg
U ‘<I
13
14
15
16
17
l8 II
project is approved and that the findings and conditions of
Planning Commission contained in Resolution No. 3304 marked Exh
A attached hereto are the findings and conditions of the
Council.
3. That the tentative subdivision map of this pro
(CT 90-36) is approved and that the findings and conditions of
Planning Commission contained in Resolution No. 3305 marked Exh
B and attached hereto are the findings and conditions of the
Council.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of
City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 7th day of Jan
1992, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Larson, Stanton and NI
NOES: None
ABSENT : None
19-11 ATTEST:
20
21 Z, City Clerk
nt City Clerk 22 (SEAL)
23
24
25 II 26
27
28
? It w *
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
.17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 i 28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3304
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR PLANNING AREA
26(S) OF THE AVIARA MASTER PLAN.
CASE NAME: AvlARA PLANNING AREA 26(S)
CASE NO: CT 90-36
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of October, 1991, hc
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 2
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, a
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered
factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE9 BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planni
Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration accordi
to Exhibit "ND", dated June 20, 1991, and "PII", dated June 14, 1991, attach
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
FilldiIl5?S:
1.. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project m
have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the propos
project.
3. The proposed project site has already been reviewed under Master P1
EIR 83-2(A) and the Mitigated'Negative Declaration for the Aviara Phase I1 Mas,
Tentative Map (CT 89-37) and as designed, the project implements (
recommended mitigation measures of said EIR 83-2(A), and Mitigated Negati
Declaration.
II
- I/ w w I/ 4. The project will preserve in open space the previously deed restricted and
" habitat areas.
1
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the P 2
3
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of October
4 Ii by the following vote, to wit:
5
6
AYES: Vice-Chairrnan Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, SC:
Savary, Noble & Hall.
7
8
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Holmes.
9
10
ABSTAIN: None.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
ATTEST:
%L
TOM ERWIN, Vice-chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMI5
.d{L&&fgi%& ..
MICHAEL J. HOLZMIL ER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
23 1i 24
25
26 PC RES0 NO. 3304 -2-
27 11
28 I!
W
-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LO~LYI'ION: The ,458 acre project site is located at the northeast
COmer of the intersection of Batiquitos Drive and Keseal Drive.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Tract Map to create 95 minimum 7,500 square foot
single family residential lots and three open space lots.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please , Chris DeCerbo in the
Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4445.
DATED: JUNE 20,1991 tM/dW
fh I"? HOLZMILLE~ CASE NO: CT 90-36 Plannin Director
"
APPLICANT: AVLARA PA 26(S)
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 20,1991
cDc:rvo
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 (619) 438-1 161
-.
"
0 W ENvlRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 90-36
BACKGROUND
DATE: June 14. 1991
1. CASE NAME: Aviara PA 26CS)
2. APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2011 Palomar Aimort Road. Suite
Carlsbad. CA 92009
(619) 931-1190
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMIlTED: December 4, 1990
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Subdivision Mar> and mdina for eventual constructi
95 sinnle familv. detached residential units.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City condu
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environ
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This cht
8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed projec
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Envirom
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the projl any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO' will be cb
to indicate this detennitlation.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substktial evidence that any aspect (
project may cause a sidcant effect on the environment. The project may qual@ for a Ne1
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be de
insirmificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sig" and 'YES-
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts Ad the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form I
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discu
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
w
" PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
2. Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
6. Result in substantial changes in air '
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
7. Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
8. Mect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
10. Use substantial amounts " of fuel .or energy?
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
-2-
w
YES YES NO
big) (insig)
- - - X
- - X -
- - X -
- - - X
- - X
- - X
- X - -
X - -
X
X
- -
- -
X - -
w W
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
"
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECXY OR INDIRECTLY:
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the noma1 replenishment of 7
existing species?
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance? .
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
16. Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
YES
(si&
-
-
-
-
-
HUMANENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES Oid
YES (insig)
-
-
-
-
-
YES (insig)
NO
X -
X -
X -
X -
X -
NO
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area? "
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services?
- - X -
- - - X
-3-
"
w
HUMANENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems?
20. Increase existing noise levels?
21. Produce new light or glare? .
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
23. Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
27. Impact existing transportation system or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
29. tncrease traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
"
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
32. Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
4-
w
YES
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
-
YES NO (sip) (insig)
- .x
- X
- X -
- X
- X -
X
X
- -
- -
X -
X
X
-
-
X -
X - -
X - -
X - - -
9- W w MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
".
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
33. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, ca,use 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 en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory.
34. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
35. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively con-
siderable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable " fume projects.)
YES YES NO
big) (insig)
- - - X -
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on huh beings,
either directly or indirectly?
- - X -
- -
- -
X
X -
-5-
" 0 w
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project involves the finish grading (28,200 cubic yards) of a previo& mass-graded sj
construction of residential streets, drainage and other infrastructure, and tentative subdivision of plann.
Area 26(S) of Aviara Phase 11. The tentative map includes 95 single family residential lots on minimum 7,:
sq. ft. lot areas. Three open space lots are also proposed over the 45.8 acre site.
The area proposed for finish grading has been previously graded per subdivision map (3' 89-37.
encroachment into previously designated open space areas are proposed by the project. It is located in an 2
anticipated for residential development per the City's General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program for
affected area.
For this environmental analysis, staff conducted several field trips to the subject property and reviewed
Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR 83-2(A)) and
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Aviara Phase 11 Master Tentative Map which already covered this prop(
In that: (1) the proposed project site has already been reviewed under the Master Plan EIR 83-2(A) ant
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Aviara Phase 11 (CT 89-37), (2) as designed, the project implemenl
recommended mitigation measures of EIR 83-2(A) and the Phase I1 Mitigated Negative Declaration, ant
the project will preserve in open space the previously deed restricted coastal habitat areas, no environmc
impacts are anticipated. There were no public comments received in response to the Notice for a Neg
Declaration.
Physical Environment
1. The project is a previously graded site *containing no unstable earth conditions as discussed in the
Report for CT 89-37.
2. Relatively minor topographic changes will result from the project. Only 28,200 cubic yards of bal
earthwork are proposed. This equates to approximately 615 cu/yds of soil movement per gross
Such minor topographic changes are not considered to be significant.
3. Drainage and erosion control facilities will be incorporated into the project to adequately r
potential soil erosion impacts. A downstream permanent desiltation basin has been construc
Planning Area 28.
4. Potential erosion impacts to Batiquitos Lagoon will be adequately mitigated as discussed in re:
#3 above.
"
5. Construction emission and minor hgitive dust generation impacts associated with project grad:
considered short term and insignificant. Dust generation can be adequately controlled through W;
operations. Air quality impacts associated with future development of housing upon this are2
considered significant in itself. Long term full mitigation of regional air quality impacts will req&
dependence upon the automobile be reduced regionally and statewide.
6. In that no structural development is proposed at this time, impacts to air movement are not antic
Air quality impacts from dust generation can be adequately controlled through watering opt
during project grading.
-6-
._ w w
-DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, EVALUATION cont'd
7. This project will not change the course or flow of water as no streams are located in the immedia
and all drainage waters will be handled by proposed drainage facilities.
8. Development of this project (tentative map grading and road construction) will create imp surfaces which would reduce absorption rates and incrementally increase runoff velocities. Ha
to accommodate this increased runoff, drainage facilities will be incorporated into this projc
future residential development upon the site, thereby mitigating this concern.
9. No inordinate depletion of any natural resources is anticipated by the subdivision, gradir
construction of infrastmcture proposed by this project.
10. No significant impact as discussed in #9 above.
11. A thorough archaeological testing of the area was conducted in 1987 as part of EIR 83-2(1
prehistorically or historically significant sites were discovered within the project area. An archac
and a paleontological expert will be present during grading to monitor operations in an e
preserve any uncovered objects.
12. Surface disturbance and grading for the project will not encroach into any native habitat area 2
not affect the onsite coastal deed restricted biological areas.
13. No impacts to the above mentioned coastal deed restricted areas are anticipated in that
landscaping proposed adjacent to this habitat shall be required to be compatible and non-inv;
14. As stipulated in the Master Plan, the conversion of agricultural lands shall be permitted upon p
of agricultural conversion fees. In accordance, the project applicant has already paid to tk
Coastal Conservancy agricultural mitigation fees required for the development of the project !
15. As discussed in #12 above, the previously deed restricted coastal sage habitat will be maint;
open space. Accordingly, no significant impacts to habitat or species are anticipated.
16. No new animal species or migration barrier will occur as a result of the project, as further d
in #12 above.
Human Environment "
17. Development of this project will be consistent with the General,Plan, Master Plan 177 and tk
I LCP. The land uses proposed will be internally compatible as well as being compatible with i
uses.
18. As discussed in the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan, with the. payment of all fees
implementation of all improvement conditions (i.e. upgrading of the Batiquitos sewer pump
construction of Alga Road and Batiquitos Drive), all public facilities and services will be ava
meet the demands of the future development of 95 single family residences proposed on the pro
No adverse impacts should result.
-7-
0 W
,I!XUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont'd
9. Although this Tentative Map does not propose any actual residential development, any subseque
dwelling unit construction onsite shall not be permitted until the Batiquitos Sewer Pump Station
upgraded.
0. Construction of the project (grading and road development) may result in minor short term insignific;
construction noise impacts upon surrounding existing and proposed residences. Otherwise, the futl residential uses on,the subject property will be acoustically compatible with surrounding existing 2
future residential uses. No traffic noise impacts from surrounding streets are anticipated.
.I. Future lighting utilized onsite d be directed so as to not impact adjacent future views.
32.
!3.
!4.
!5.
!6.
!7.
28.
!9.
30.
31.
32.
Because this is a residential project, it will not involve a significant risk of an explosion or the rele
of hazardous substances.
The proposed density of the project results in 2.07 ddac. This is in compliance with the Master P1
anticipated 2.35 du/ac.
The project will provide additional housing units to meet existing demand.
A total of 950 average daily vehicle trips will be generated by the project which will not significa
impact the circulation system as discussed in EIR 83-2(A) and LFMP 19.
The demand for parking facilities created by this project will be satisfied onsite. Two garage spaces
be provided for each unit and adequate on street guest parking will be provided throughout the prc
The additional 950 ADT generated by the project will be accommodated by the existing and pla
circulation network. This minor increase in traffic is not considered significant.
The'project site is outside of the Airport Influence Area for Palomar Airport.
The project, as designed, will not cause conflicts at its intersections withBatiquitos Drive.
The project will not interfere with emergency response plans.
Manufactured slopes created through the already approved Phase I1 mass grading (which include
site) will be fully lan-&aped consistent with approved plans. Otherwise, the finish grading (2t
cubic yards) of the subject property would not result in a visual impact.
The project will have no effect whatsoever on existing recreational opportunities.
-8-
" a w
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
"
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development,
d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now,
f) alternate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
a) The project scale, 95 residential lots, is not of a size where phased development wo1
beneficial.
I
b) The project has been designed consistent with the Aviara Master Plan and all City ordinance
open space areas are avoided.
c) The project is designed at slightly less scale (density) than allowed by the Master Plan for tht
d) The project is in conformance with the City's General Plan and the Master Plan. Alternat
would require amendment of these documents.
e) The proposed project involves subdivision and grading of the site only. Development of tl
will occur only if facilities are guaranteed.
f) The proposed project is the envkonmentdy preferred project for the site.
g) The "no project" alternative is not in conformance with the General Plan/Master Plan desig
for the site, therefore, it is not environmentally preferable.
"
-9-
” w v
DE,TERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
- X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGA
- I find that the proposed’project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, becaus
DECLARATION will be prepared.
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is reqt Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a Significant effect on the environment, rherl
not be a significant+effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attachec
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
- + I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONME:
IMPACT REPORT is required.
6- P\-q r. Lw .hG, b
Date
64~~4‘1
Date
CDC:rVO
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE1
”
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-10-
.- w w
- .YPLIMT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
”
-11-
*. W w
" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3305
1
2
3
4
5
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE 'TRACT MAP FOR AVlARA
PLANNING AREA 26(S) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE
BATIQUITOS DRIVE/KESTRAL DEUVE INTERSECTION.
CASE NAME: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 26(S)
CASE NO: CT 90-36
6 /I WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
7
a
Portion of Sections 27, 28, and 34 in Township 12 south,
Range 4 west, in the City of Carlsbad
g has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; a:
10 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by'
I1 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
l2 /I WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 16th day of October, 1
13
14
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; an(
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testiI 15
16 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considerc
17
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Cod 18
factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map.
19 I/ as follows: I 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at. the public hearing, the Commj
recommends APPROVAL of CT 90-36, based on the following findings and SI
to the following conditions: ....
....
....
27
28
/I
7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
I
W w
Fhdin~:
1. The project is consistent with the City‘s General Plan and MP-177 sin
proposed density of 2.10 du’s/acre is within the density range of 04 du
specified for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General pk
is at or below the growth control point of 3.2.
2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development p
through Master Plan 177.
3. The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition 1
project, ensured that the final map will not be approved unless the City (
finds that sewer service is available to serve the project. In addition, the PI
Commission has added a condition that a note shall be placed on the final m;
building pennits may not be issued for the project unless the City Er
determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur wit1
project unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning Commis
satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the Gener;
have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
4. School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Cz
School District.
5. Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
6. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be requi
conditions of approval.
7. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an apprc
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and pa
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be aw
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
8. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land use5
surrounding properties are designated for single family residential developm
open space on the General Plan.
9. This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts an
Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on June 20,
and RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL by the Planning Commissio
October 16,1991. In approving this Negative Declaration the Planning Corn
has considered the initial study, the staff analysis, all required mitigation me
and any written comments received regarding the significant effects this 1
could have on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 3305 -2-
~ 1
~
"
I/ w - "
1
2
3
4 A*.
10.
11
If
5
The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee,
new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by 2
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepa:
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Cari- Jad Municipal Code. This will ens
continued availability of public facilities and will mieigate any cumulative imp2
created by the project.
This project is consistent with the City's Growth Management 0rdinanc:e as it been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the LC
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 19.
6 12. As discussed in the staff report, the gxading for Cl' 90-36 sibstanti
complies with the mass grading approved on the Aviara Phase: II' Ma 7
9
Tentative Map (CT 89-37).
Subdivision Ordinance and the State Map Act.
8 13. The Tentative Tract Map, CT 90-36, satisfies all requirements of Ti.tle 21,
10
11
14. As discussed in the staffreport, the design of CX 90-36 is consistent with the ir
12 15. The project C" 90-36, is in compliance with the underlying Mdo I and
13
14
1. Approval is granted for CT 90-36, as shown on Exhibits "A"-"1", ( 15 September 14, 1991, incorporated by reference and on file in the Pla~
16 Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless othe
noted in these conditions.
17
2. The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24" x 36, mylar c( 18 the Tentative Map as approved by the Planning Commission. The Tentative
19 shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The Map copy sh
submitted to the City Engineer prior to building, grading or improvemen
of Master Plan 177.
Batiquitos Lagoon Local Coastal Programs.
Conditions:
20 submittal, whichever occurs first.
21
22
3. A 500' scale mylar map of the subdivision shall be submitted to the P~P
Director prior to the recordation of the final map. Said map shall show all IC
23
streets within and adjacent to the project.
4. This project is approved upon the express condition that the final map shall
24 approved unless the City Council finds as of the time.of such approval that
25
26 PC RES0 NO. 3305 -3-
service is available to serve the subdivision.
27 /I
28
I1 w w
"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5. This project is also approved under the express condition that the applicant pa
public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 and as ame
from time to time, and any development fees established by the City Co
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other or&
adopted to implement a growth management system or facilities and improve plan and to fulfill the subdivideis agreement to pay the public facilities fee (
December 3,1990, a copy of which is on file with the City 'Clerk and is incorpo
by this reference. If the fees are not paid this application will not be consistenl
the General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
6. The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval (
final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code 1
previously excluded by the Parks Agreement between the City and Aviara
Assodates dated June 1,1989.
8 7. The applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions of overcrowd
in effect at the time of building permit application. All or a portion of said fa 9
10
part of building permit application. These fees shall be based on the fee sd
be waived subject to the approval of the Carhbad Unified School District.
I' 8. Water shall be provided to this project pursuant to the Water Service agrf
12 between the City of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District,
May 25, 1983.
13 9. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation required by Mast 14
15
177 and the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan apprcved by the City (
on December 22,1987, incorporated herein and on file in the Planning Depa
16
and any future amendments to the Plans made prior to the issuance of b
permits.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
10. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities,
payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by
this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provi
Government Code Section 65913.5. If any such condition is detenninec
invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines t
project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
11. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the
Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of 1
permit issuance.
i
12. The applicant shall annex the Aviara Planning Area 26(S) open space areas
Aviara Master homeowner3 association concurrent with the recordation of
=P-
PC RES0 NO. 3305 4-
I/
II w w
"
1
2
3
4
13. The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall
submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of gradj
or building permits, whichever occurs first.
14. A master plan of the existing onsite trees shall be provided to the Planning Direc
as part of the final grading plan to determine which trees shall be required to
preserved prior to the issuance of a grading permit or a building permit, whiche
'occurs first. i I 5' 15.
6
7
8
16.
9
10
11
12
17.
13
14
15
16
18.
19.
17 20.
18
19
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, f
from weeds, trash, and debris.
Existing onsite trees shall be retained wherever possible and shall be trimr
and/or topped. Dead, decaying or potentially dangerous trees shall be approved
removal at the discretion of the Planning Department during the review of a Ma
Plan submitted showing the existing onsite trees. Those trees which are apprc
for removal shall be replaced on a tree-for-tree basis as required by the Plam
Department.
The developer shall install street trees at the equivalent of "foot intervals a]
all public street frontages in conformance with City of Carlsbad standards.
trees shall be of a variety selected from the approved Street Tree List.
Preliminary landscape plans shall be submitted.
All landscape plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Guide1
Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in
Planning Department.
Landscape plans shall be designed to minimize water use. Lawn and other Zo
plants (see Landscape Guidelines Manual) shall be limited to areas of special v:
importance or high use. Mulches shall be used and irrigation equipment and de
shall promote water conservation.
,
2o II 21. All herbicides shall be applied by applicators licensed by the State of Califon
21
22
23
24
25
22. The applicant shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as require
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
23. As part of the plans submitted for building pedt plan check, the applic'ant
include a reduced version of the approving resolutiodresolutions on a 24" :
blueline drawing. Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of
applicable Coastal Development Permit and signed approved site plan.
26 I/ PC RES0 NO. 3305 -5-
27 /I
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
w W
24. Prior to finaI map approval for (X 90-36, the project applicant or their SUCC~
interest shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide the Avim 2
Plan's proportionat share of the Citfs total obligation for very low, 101
moderate income housing units.
25. This project is approved subject to the condition that a Site Development ~h
be approved by the City, prior to the issuance of any residential building p
within this subdivision.
26.. The applicant shall establish a homeowner's association and correspr
covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&R's shall be submitted t
approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. The CC&R''
include provisions specifying Master homeowners dation or .PA
neighborhoodhomeownersassociationmaintenanceresponsibilityforallnatul
manufactured project open space areas.
27. The applicant shall submit a street name list consistent with the City's street
policy subject to the Planning Director's approval prior to final map approv
28. This project is approved subject to the condition that all project lands
proposed on Exhibits "F"-"I", dated September 14, 1991 shall be irrigate(
reclaimed water.
29. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map the owner of record
property within the boundaries of this tentative tract map shall prepare and :
a notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of a
operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport in a manner meeting the approval Planning Director and the City Attorney. The applicant shall post airnaft
notification signs in all sales andlor rental offices associated with tht
development. The number and locations of said signs shall be approved 1
Planning Director.
30. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or the recordation of the final IM
project applicant shall receive a Coastal Development Pennit that ap]
development that is in substantial conformance with this City approval. The C
Permit shall be required to be submitted to the City Planning Department for 1
prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
31. Prior to final map approval or the issuance of a grading permit for CI' 90-3
Aviara Phase II Tentative Map (Cr 89-37) must be recorded as a final map.
32. This project currently shows no retaining walls. This project is approved sub
the condition that no retaining walls greater than 2 feet in height within tht
or sideyard setback areas shall be permitted,
PC RES0 NO. 3305 -6-
w w
" 33. This project is approved subject to the condition that grading proposed as pa
any future Site Development Plan over the subject property shall be in substa
conformance with the grading approved through this tentative map. 1
2
3
4
5
34. This project is approved subject to the condition that those portions of hts
26-27,4345,474,51,54-55,59-62,74-77,84-89, and 94-99 which are la within coastal commission deed restricted areas, shall be required to be pl
under an open space easement which shall prohibit any encroachmen1 development in perpetuity. Any future site development plan processed for 1
lots shall be required to locate project fencing outside of the deed restricted ;
6
35. This project is located within the Mello I and East Batiquitos Local Coastal 1 7
I3wineerj.n~ - Conditions:
a All development design shall comply with the requirements of that plan.
9
10
36. Unless a standard variance has been issued, no variance from City Standa~
authorized by virtue of approval of this tentative map.
37. The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design require1 11 of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project.
I.2
39. Prior to final map approval of this subdivision, the City Engineer shall approvf 14
Telephone, and Cable TV authorities. 13
38. The developer shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.& E., P
15/1
line modification between Lots 5 and 6 of CX 89-37. ~~
16
17
41. This project is approved as two (2) recordation units. Any construction ph 18
cf the City Engineer.
40. Prior to final map approval, the tract map for CX 89-37 must be recorded an
mass grading for tX 89-37, lot 5, shall be complete and finaled to the satisfi
19 I contingent upon the approval of a phasing plan by the city Engineer.
20
21
22
23
24
42. All grading shall occur at one time with recordation of the first unit. No g~
may be allowed prior to the recordation of the first unit unless approved 1
Community Development Director, Planning Director and City Engineer.
43. The applicant shall provide an acceptable means of maintaining the p
stormdrain facilities within open space Lot 49 and within the easement shol
Lot 30. Adequate provision for such maintenance shall be included with the C
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
25 /I
26 /I PC RES0 NO. 3305 -7-
27
28
//
/I w W
"
1
2
3 I
44. The applicant shall defend indm and hold haxmless the City and its a1
officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City
agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or null an approval t
City, the Planning commission or City Engineer which has been brought again
City within the time pexiod provided by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivisior Act.
4 45. Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire twenty-four (24) months fro
. date of City Council approval unless a final map is recorded. An extension IT
discretion of the City Council. In approving an extension, the City Counci
6 impose new conditions and may revise existing conditions pursuant to S
7 20.12.110(a)(2) Carlsbad Municipd Code.
5 requested by the applicant. Said extension shall be approved or denied .;
a
9 Master Drainage Plan Update.
46. Prior to approval of the final map the developer shall enter into an agreemen
the City to pay any drainage area fees established as a result of the forthc
10
11
47.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
24
48.
49.
The subject properly is within the boundaries of Assessment District No. 88-1
Road). Upon the subdivision of land within the district boundaries, the ap1 may pass through assessment to subsequent owners OnlJr if the applica executed special Assessment District Pass-through Authorization Agreement
Agreement contains provisions regarding notice to potential buyer of the amc
the assessment and any other provision and require the applicant to have ea&
receive and execute a Notice of Assessment and an, Option Agreement. In tht
that the applicant does not execute the Authorization Agreement, the assessfi
the subject property must be paid in full bv the aDDlicant mior to any SUM
of the land.
As required by state law, prior to the recordation of a final map over any
subject property, a segregation of assessments must be completed and recon
all subdivided lots. By applying for a segregation of assessments, the ap
agrees to pay the fee to cover the costs associated with the segregati
segregation is not required if the applicant pays off the assessment on the
property prior to the recordation of the final map- In the event a segrega
assessments is not recorded and property is subdivided, the full ma
assessment will appear on the tax bills of g& new lot.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shc
the tentative map, a grading pennit for this project is required. Prior to is
of a building permit for the project, the applicant must submit and receive a]
for grading plans in accordance with City codes and standards, be issued a :
pennit and complete the grading work in substantial conformance w
approved grading plans.
26 /1 PC RES0 NO. 3305 -8-
27 li
20
II .I w
"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
50. No grading shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision unless a grading or s
easement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties. If the develc
is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, he must either amend
tentative map or charge the slope so grading will not OCCUT outside the project
in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved tentative ma]
determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
51. Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shal
provided or installed prior to the issuance of grading or building permit as ma required by the City Engineer.
52. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all improvements shal
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to approval of the final
in accordance, with City Standards the Developer shall install, or agree to ir
and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements show
the tentative map and the following improvements:
A. Full public street improvements for Black Swan Lane, Kingbird Terrace,
Sandpiper Place
B. Public stonn drain and sewer facilities.
53. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of final
approval and/or improvement plan approval, whichever occurs first.
54. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner
give written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundari
the site plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscs
District No. 1. The form shall be provided by the City during the improve]
plancheck process.
55. The applicant shall comply with'the pennit requirements of the National Poll1 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide
management practices to reduce dace pollutants to an acceptable level pri
discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved b
City Engimer prior to approval of the final map or issuance of grading pe
Whichever occuls first.
56. AU open space lots (Lots 49,50, and 102) shall be owned in fee and maintain
the Aviara Master Association.
57. Concurrent with final map recordation, all lots with sight distance comdors
record a "Notice of Restriction on Real property" for restricting height of lanb
and structures to 30" above the street.
PC RES0 NO. 3305 -9-
II w w
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
58. Any encroachment through construction into deed restricted or undisturh
space for the purpose of grading wiU require an amendment to the tentatit and approval of the California Coastal Commission. A note to this &a.
appear on the final grading plan.
59. Prior to the commencement of any grading activities, the developer shall fa
' the deed restricted and undisturbed open space to the satisfaction of th
Engineer and the Planning Director. A note to this effect shall appear on th
grading Plans-
Fire Conditions:
60. Additional onsite water mains and public hydrants are required. ,
61. Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which d
location of required, proposed public water mains and fire hydrants. Thc
should include offsite fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
62. An all-weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service ve:
shall be provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion (
Fire Chief, the access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weatl
other reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety, require that constm
operations cease until the condition is corrected.
63. All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurtenances shall be operational
to combustible bdding materials being located on the project site.
64. Native vegetation which presents a fire hazard to structures shall be modifit
removed in accordance with the specifications contained in the City of Carl
Landscape Guidelines Manual. Applicant shall submit a Fire Suppression plan t
Fire Department for approval.
.)
65. All security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be equipped wj
"Knox", key operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall contact the
Prevention Bureau for specifications and approvals prior to installation.
66. The applicant shall provide a street map which conforms to the follo1
requirements: A400 scale photo-reduction mylar, depicting proposed improvem
and at least two existing intersections or streets. The map shall also clearly dt
street centerlines, hydrant locations and street names.
67. Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways
traffic circulation for Fire Department approval.
PC RES0 NO. 3305 -10-
II v *
" I/ Carlsbad Munia~al Water District:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
~
22 21
I
23 ~
24
25
26
l 27
1 ,
68. The entire potable and non-potable water systems for subject project shal
evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity and pressure for domestic, I
potable and fire flow demands are met.
69. The Developer's Engineer shall schedule a meeting first with the City Fire Mar
and then with the District Engineer to review the preliminary water system laJ
prior to preparation of the water system improvement plans.
70. The Developer will be responsible for all fees and deposits plus the major fac
charge which will be collected at time of issuance of building permit.
Developer shall pay a San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge which
be collected at issuance of application or meter installation.
71. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will
be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district sen
the development determines that adequate water and service is available at the 1
of application for water dce and will continue to be available until tim~
OCCUpanCy.
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
PC RES0 NO. 3305. -1 1-
28
II W 0
._
1
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pla
* Ii Co-ssion of the city of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of October, 195 2
3
4
5
6
7
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Vice-Chairman Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, SC~
Savary, Noble and Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Holmes.
a ABSTAIN: None.
9
10 kL"L TOM ERWIN, Vice-chairman 11 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTEST:
-.
4 !r t *' *. & 1 bl&..3u -
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILL+R
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 3305 -12-
w
" APPLICxfION COMPLETE DATE:
April 25. 1991
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1991
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
of
0
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CI' 90-36 - AVIARA PLANNING 26(S) - Request for a Tentative Tract Map
to include 99 single family residential lots (minim= 7500 square foot) and.
3 open space lots on a 47 acre site located at the northeast comer of the
intersection of Batiquitos Drive and Kestral Drive, in Local Facilities
Management Zone 19.
r. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3304
APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3305 APPROVING CT 90-36, based on the findings and subject
to the conditions contained therein.
11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
This project is a Tentative Tract Map to create 99 single fwy residential lots (minimum
7500 SF) and 3 open space lots (21.82 acres) upon the southern half of Planning Area 26
of the Aviara Master Plan. Planning Area 26(S) is located at the northeast comer of the
intersection of Batiquitos Drive and Kestral Drive. The 47 acre subject property is zoned
PC and is under a combination General Plan designation of RLM/RM/OS/RC/N. The
project .would have a density of 2.10 du/ac. This density is consistent with the Planning
Areas maximum permitted density of 2.35 du/ac. The property is also located within the
Coastal Zone (Mello I and East Batiquitos Lagoon) and will require a Coastal Pennit issued
by the California Coastal Commission.
As shown on Exhibit "B" the project would be accessed via Kestral Drive, which is located
along the northern perimeter of the property. Two 60 foot wide Local Streets (Black Swan
Lane and Kingbird Terrace) would be constructed to intersect with Kestral Drive, to provide
access to the project's residential lots. The project has been designed to double load all
project residential lots along the internal cul-de-sac street system.
Proposed project grading includes 28,200 cubic yards of cut and fill to be balanced onsite.
This minor amount of grading is regarded as finish grading for this site which is in the
process of being graded consistent with the previously approved Aviara Phase I1 tentative
map (CT 89-37).
@
CT 90-36 AVIARA P LP ..JING AREA 26 0 OCTOBER 16, 1991
PAGE 2
This project proposes no encroachment into the previously Coastal Commission deej
restricted open space lots approved through the Aviara Phase I1 Master Tentative Mag
These open space lots are vegetated with Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation.
The project site is surrounded by future single family residential to the north (PA 26N
South (PA 271, and west (PA 29 and 30), and by the Aviara Golf Course to the east.
Since the project is not proposing structures at this time, a Site Development Plan will b
required to be processed subsequent to the development of the planning area.
rn. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1. Does the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map satisfy all requirements of the Zoninj
"
\
Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and the State Map Act?
2. Is the design of the proposed subdivision consistent with the intent o
Master Plan 177?
3. Does the proposed project grading substantially comply with the mass gradin4
approved through the Aviara Phase 11 Master Tentative Map (CT 89-37)?
4. , Is the proposed project in compliance with the Mello I and East Batiquitos Lagoor
Local Coastal Programs?
5. Is the proposed project consistent with the Zone 19 Local Facility Managemen
Plan?
DISCUSSION
The 47 acre, 102 Lot Tentative Map for Planning Area 26(S) satisfies all requirements 01
the R-1-7500 zone, Carlsbad's Subdivision Ordinance and the State Map Act. All proposec
residential lots will front on publicly dedicated streets and meet the minimum developmenl
standards of the R-1-7500 zone. Specifically, all lots are:
1. A minimum of 7500 square feet in area;
2. A minimum of 60 feet in width;
3. A minimum of 90 feet in depth; and
4. Do not exceed a depth to width ratio of 3:l.
All lots have also been designed to drain adequately.
W CT 90-36 AVlARA PLA\LdING AREA 26 w
OCI'OBER 16,1991 PAGE 3
Tentative Map CT 90-36 has also been designed to be consistent with the concept plan for
Planning Area 26, as identified in Master Plan 177. The southwest comer boundary of
Planning Area 26(S) has been relocated southward into Planrling Area 27. This minor
amendment is a consequence of the redesign of the internal sweet system (Black Swan
Lane) as a looped cul-de-sac, The original concept plan for Planning Area 26(S) identified
Black Swan, Lane as a through connection to Planning Area 27 to the south. This street
redesign was implemented to mitigate potential traffic nuisance impacts to' Planning Area
27.
The grading for the project (28,200 cu. yds. or 600 cu. yds./acre) substantially complies
with the grading approved through the p;viara Phase 11 Master Tentative Map. This minor
amount of grading is necessary to create internal streets and finished residential lots.
This project is in compliance with all policies of the Mello I and East Batiquitos Local
Coastal Programs as implemented through Master Plan 177. Specifically, all portions of
the property which were placed under open space deed restriction by the California
Coastal Commission (Lot 48, 50, and 102) are being preserved in open space.
The project is located in Local Facilities Management Zone 19 in the southwest quadrant.
At the project dwelling unit count (99 units) the proposed project is 11 dwelling units
below that allowed per Local Facilities Management Zone 19. All public facilities and
services will be available to senre the project. The impact on public facilities created by
the proposed project, and compliance with adopted performance standards are summarized
below:
Parks
CT 90-36 AvlARA PdING AREA 26 m
OCTOBER 16, 1991
PAGE 4
Iv. ENVLRONMENTALREVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this project will not have a significant impact
on the environment and, therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration on June 20, 1.991.
The environmental analysis, along with the field checks by stalff, identified that because:
(1) the project site has already been reviewed with the Aviara Master Plan EIR .(83-2(A) and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Aviara Phase I1 Tentative Map (a 89-37),
(2) as designed, the project implements all recommended mitigation measures of these two
environmental documents, and, (3) the project preserves in open space all previously deed
restricted coastal habitat areas, no environmental impacts are anticipated. There were no
public comments received in response to the Notice for a Negative Declaration.
"
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3304
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3305
3. Location Map
4. Background Data Sheet
5. Disclosure Form
6. Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form
7. Exhibits "A" - "I", dated September 14, 1991.
CDD:lh:vd:lh
September 11, 1991
-
pUTIcE WB CUMPLETLUN
Hail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth t, RIA. 121, Sscrammto, U 95814 - 916/4s. *
" r-1 sa m Bciou:
Projat Title: Aviara PA 26(S)
Lead Agency: City of Carlsbsd Contact Person: Chris DeCerk
Street Address: 2075 Las Palms Drive Phone: (619) 438-1161, ext. 4445
City: Carlsbsd Zip: 92009 Ctnnty: San Dieso
PROJECT LOUTICM:
-
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""."""""""""""""""~.
Cwty: Sen Diego Ci ty/Nurcst Cmi ty! Carlsbad
Cross Streets: Batiauitos Drive/Kestrsl Drive Total Acres: 45.8
Assessor's Parcel No. 214-170-51 215-040-23 216-111-08 Section: "_ Tup. --- Range: --- Base:
Within 2 Miles: State Hwy 0: 1-5 Waterways: Batiwitos Lanoon
Airports: , Palcmer Railways: --- Schools: Carlsbd
"1 TIPE
..............................................................
EM: - NW - Supplmnt/Subscqucnt YEPA: - NO1 OTHER: - Joint Docrmcnt - - Final D0c-t - Early Cons - EIR (Prior SCH No.) EA X Neg Dec - Other - Draft EIS Other
Draft EIR - - FOWSI "______""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".."""""""""""~"""". -
LOUL ACTIOY TYPE
- - -
General Plan Update - Specific'Ptan - Rezone Amexat i on
General Plan Amcnctnmt - Master Plan - Prezone - Rcdeveloprrot
General Plan Element - Planned Unit Development - Use Permit Coastal Permit Comnunity Plan - Site Plan - X Land Division (Subdivision, - Other
-
-
Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.)
DoIELop(EIT TYPE
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".."""""""""""""""~
- X Residential: Units 95 Acres 45.8 Water Facilities: Type - Off ice: Sq: Ft. - Acres Enpl oyees Transportation: Type - "
Camncrcial: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees Mining: Mineral Industrial: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees - Power : Type matts ,
Rureatiml - - Hazardous Uaste: Type
- - - - - Educations1 Uaste Treatment: Type - - Other: - ______________"__""""""""""""""""""""""""~""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
PRQlECT ISSUES DISQISSU) IN DOCUENT
- X Aesthetic/Visual - Agricultural Land - Air Quality - X Archatological/Historical - X Coastal Zone - Drainage/Absorption - Ecmi c/ Jobs - Fiscal
- Flood Plain/Flooding - Schools/Universities - Forest Land/Fire Hazard - Septic Systems - X Geologic/Seismic -Smr Capacity
Minerals - X Soil Erosion/Carpactim/Grading
X Noise - Solid Waste
Population/Housing Balance -
- - - - Toxic/Hazarb - Prrblic Scrvices/Facilities X Trrffic/Circulation - Rurcation/Parks - X Vegetation
Present Lad Uu/zoning/knarrl Plm Use
"""_""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".*"""""
- Uater Quality - Uater Supply/
- X Uctland/Riparial - X Wildlife - Growth Inducing - X Landuse - Cunulative Effec - Other
Grand Uater
""""""""""-
Vacant and graded/P-C (Plamed Connnity)/RLM-RM
Projat Dacriptiar
Tentative Tract Map to create 95 minim 7,500 square foot single family residential lots and three opcn space Lots.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".
MUTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification mrs for all new projects. If a SCH nurkr already exists for a project fram a Notice of Preparation or previous draft docuncnt) please fill it in. Revised Octok
C
”
”
NEGATlvE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The 45.8 acre project site is located at the northeast
corner’of the intersection of Batiquitos Drive and Kestral
Drive.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Tract Map to create 95 minlimum 7,500 square fool
single family residential lots and three open space lots.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projecl
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Erwiromental Quality Acl
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of sail
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will1 not have a significanl
impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for thi!
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from tht
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department withix
30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please ’ Chris DeCerbo in thc
Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4445.
DATED: JUNE 20,1991 g/df
*
’ CASE NO: CT 90-36 %i wwY* Plannin Director HoLZMILLE
APPLICANT: AVIARA PA 26(S)
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 20,1991
cDc:rvo
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4869 (619) 438-1 1’
-. e
-. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PMtT 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTM:ENT)
CASE NO. CT 90-36
,ACKGROUND DATE: June 14. 1991
1. CASE NAME: Aviara PA 266)
2. APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates Limited PartnershiD
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2011 Palortzar kort Road. Suite 20
Carlsbad. CA 92009
(619) 931-1190
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 4.1990
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Subdivision Map and nradin.n for eventual construction
95 single family. detached residential units.
NVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
TATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct
Anvironmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environmc
'he Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This ched
> identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacte,d by the proposed project ;
rovides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Enviromer
rnpact Report or Negative Declaration.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the projecl
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO' will be checl
to indicate this determination.
An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substktial evidence that any aspect of
project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negal
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deen
insinnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-ins
respectively.
i discussion of potential impacts &d the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form unc u. Particular attention shiould be given to discuss:
nitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
.. 0
PHYSICAL ENVlRO~ __ WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
2. Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils t
either on or off the site?
4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
6. Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
7. Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
-2-
0
YES YES
big1 (insig)
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
NO
X -
X I_
X -
X -
X -
X -
X -
X -
X
X
-
-
X -
w U
.. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
TILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
2. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
3. Introduce new species of plants into an area, ,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
4. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
3. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
5. Introduce .new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
YES (si&
-
-
-
-
-
HUMANENVIRONMENT
'ILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
7. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
YES (si&
-
3. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services? -
YES (insis]
-
-
-
-
-
YES (insip)
-
-
-3-
NO
X -
X
X -
X
X -
NO
X -
X -
r- W
-c HUMANENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems?
20. Increase existing noise levels?
21. Produce new light or glare?
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
23. Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existhg parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
27. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
29. Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
31. , Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
32. Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
-4-
W
YES YES
big)
- "
- -
- -
- "
- -
- "
- "
- "
- "
- "
- "
- "
- "
- "
NO (insig)
,
X -
X
X
-
-
X -
X -
X
x
-
X -
X
X
-
-
X
X -
X
X -
"
"
W w
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
VIU THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
:3. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce t??e 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 en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory.
#4. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will .
endure well into the future.)
YES YES NO
(si@ (wig)
- - X
- - X
5. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively con-
siderable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual 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.)
16. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X -
X - -
-5-
w
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
”
w
The proposed project involves the finish grading (28,200 cubic yards) of a previously mass-graded
construction of residential streets, drainage and other infrastructure, and tentative subdivision of Pla:
Area 26(S) of Aviara Phase 11. The tentative map includes 95 single family residential lots on minimum ’
sq. ft. lot areas. Three open space lots are also proposed over the 45.8 acre site.
The area proposed for finish grading has been previously graded per stabdivision map a 89-37
encroachment into previously designated open space areas are proposed by the project. It is located in 3
anticipated for residential development per the City‘s General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program fi
affected area.
For this environmental analysis, staff conducted several field trips to the subject property and reyiewf
Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan? Environmental Impact Report (EIR 83-2(A)) an
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Aviara Phase I1 Master Tentative Map which already covered this pro
In that: (1) the proposed project site has already been reviewed &der the Master Plan EIR 83-2(A) a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Aviara Phase I1 (CT 89-37), (2) as designed, the project impleme~
recommended mitigation measures of EIR 83-2(A) and the Phase I1 Mitigated Negative Declaration, ar
the project will preserve in open space the previously deed restricted coastal habitat areas, no environn
impacts are anticipated. There were no public comments received in respo:nse to the Notice for a Ne:
Declaration.
Physical Environment
1. The project is a previously graded site containing no unstable earth conditions as discussed in thr
Report for CT 89-37.
2. Relatively minor topographic changes will result from the project. Only 28,200 cubic yards of bal
earthwork are proposed. This equates to approximately 615 cdyds of soil movement per gross
Such minor topographic changes are not considered to be significant.
3. Drainage and erosion control facilities will be incorporated into the project PO adequately x
potential soil erosion impacts. A downstream permanent desiltation basin has been construc
Planning Area 28.
4. Potential erosion impacts to Batiquitos Lagoon will be adequately mitigated as discussed in res
#3 above.
5. Construction emission and minor fugitive dust generation impacts associated with project gradi
considered short term and insignificant. Dust generation can be adequately controlled through wa
operations. Air quality impacts associated with future development of housing upon this area
considered significant in itself. Long term full mitigation of regional air quality impacts will requir
dependence upon the automobile be reduced regionally and statewid.e.
6. In that no structural development is proposed at this time, impacts to air movement are not antici]
Air quality impacts from dust generation can be adequately controlled through watering oper
during project grading.
-6-
W W
" )ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont'd
7. This project will not change the course or flow of water as no streams are located in the immediate :
and all drainage waters will be handled by proposed drainage facilities.
9. Development of this project (tentative map grading and road constnzction) will create impervj
surfaces which would reduce absorption rates and incrementally increase runoff velocities. Howe
to accommodate this increased runoff, drainage facilities will be incovorated into this project
future residential development upon the site, thereby mitigating this concern.
9. No inordinate depletion of any natural resources is anticipated by .the subdivision, grading,
construction of infrastructure proposed by this project.
0. No significant impact as discussed in #9 above.
1. A thorough archaeological testing of the area was conducted in 1987 as part of EIR 83-2(A).
prehistorically or historically significant sites were discovered within the project area. An archaeolc
and a paleontological expert will be present during grading to monitor operations in an effor
preserve any uncovered objects.
2. Surface disturbance and grading for the project will not encroach into any native habitat area and
not affect the onsite coastal deed restricted biological areas.
3. No impacts to the above mentioned coastal deed restricted areas are anticipated in that prc
landscaping proposed adjacent to this habitat shall be required to be compatible and non-invasiv,
4. As stipulated hi the Master Plan, the conversion of agricultural lands sh'all be permitted upon pap
of agricultural conversion fees. In accordance, the project applicant has already paid to the S
Coastal Conservancy agricultural mitigation fees required for the development of the project site.
5. As discussed in #12 above, the previously deed restricted coastal sage habitat will be maintaine
open space. Accordingly, no significant impacts to habitat or species are anticipated.
6. No new animal species or migration barrier will occur as a result of the project, as further discu
in #12 above.
4uman Environment
7. Development of this project will be consistent with the General.Plan, Master Plan 177 and the M
I LCP. The land uses proposed will be internally compatible as well as king Compatible with adjal
uses.
8. As discussed in the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan, with the payment of all fees and
implementation of all improvement conditions (i.e. upgrading of the Batiquitos sewer pump stat
construction of Alga Road and Batiquitos Drive), all public facilities and services will be availabl
meet the demands of the future development of 95 single family residences proposed on the project
No adverse impacts should result.
-7-
w w
DSCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont'd
19. Although this Tentative Map does not propose any actual residential development, any subsel
dwelling unit construction onsite shall not be permitted until the Batiquitos sewer Pump Stat
upgraded.
.-
20. Construction of the project (grading and road development) may result in minor short term hi@
construction noise impacts upon surrounding existing and proposed residences, Otherwise, he f
residential uses on the subject property will be acoustically compatible with surrounding exis&,
future residential uses. No traffic noise impacts from swounding streets are anticipated. .
21. Future lighting utilized onsite will be directed so as to not impact adjacent future views.
22. Because this is a residential project, it will not involve a significant risk of an explosion or the re
of hazardous substances.
23. The proposed density of the project results in 2.07 ddac. This is in campliance with the Master 1
anticipated 2.35 du/ac.
24. The project will provide additional housing units to meet existing dernand.
25. A total of 950 average daily vehicle trips will be generated by the project which will not si&c
impact the circulation system as discussed in EIR 83-2(A) and LFMP '19.
26. The demand for parking facilities created by this project will be satisfied onsite. Two garage space!
be provided for each unit and adequate on street guest parking will be provided throughout the prc
27. The additional 950-ADT generated by the project will be accommodarted by the existing and pla
circulation network. This minor increase in traffic is not considered significant.
28. The project site is outside of the Airport Influence Area for Palomar Airport.
29. The project, as designed, will not cause conflicts at its intersections with Batiquitos Drive.
30. The project will not interfere with emergency response plans.
31. Manufactured slopes created through the already approved Phase II mass grading (which includes
site) will be fully landscaped consistent with approved plans. Otheritrise, the finish grading (28
cubic yards) of the subject property would not result in a visual, impact.
32. The project will have no effect whatsoever on existing recreational opportunities.
-8-
w w
ahLysrs OF WLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH&
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development,
d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now,
f) alternate sites for the proposed, and
g) no project alternative.
a) The project scale, 95 residential lots, is not of a size where phased development would
beneficial.
b) The project has been designed consistent with the Aviara Master Plan and all City ordinances.
open space areas are avoided.
c) The project is designed at slightly less scale (density) than allowed by the Master Plan for the a
d) The project is in conformance with the City's General Plan and the Master Plan. Alternate 1
would require amendment of these documents.
e) The proposed project involves subdivision and grading of the site only. Development of the
will occur only if facilities are guaranteed.
f) The proposed project is the environmentally preferred project for the site.
g) The "no project" alternative is not in conformance with the General Plan/Master Plan designat
for the site, therefore, it is not environmentally preferable.
-9-
”. 0 e
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
,- On the basis of this initial evaluation:
- X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a signiiicant effect on &e environment, and a NE(
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, beca
DECLARATION will be prepared.
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunctic previously certified environmental documents and no additional en.vironmental review is re
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment., tb not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attacl
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
- I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONIb
IMPACT REPORT is required.
6- IL\-?\ cA,~ .hG&
Date
6-w?/
Date
cDc:rvo
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-10-
w W
PF~~ANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MIT1GATI:NG MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date - Signature
-1 1-
.. W """"""" """ "ILIdL w
CASE NO.: CT 90-36
CASE NAME: AVIARA PA 26(S)
APPLICANT: AVIARA LAND ASSOCMTES
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Tentative Tract Map to create 99 minimum 7500 SF
Sinnle Family Residential Lots and 3 Open %ace Lots on a 47 acre site located
at the NW comer of the intersection of Batiauitos Drive and Kestral Drive.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portions of Section 27. 28 and 34 To~hi~ 12 South,
Range 4 West San Bernardino Meridian. City of Carlsbad. County of San Dieno.
APN: 214-170-51 / 215-040-23 / 216-111-08
(Assessois Parcel Number)
Acres 47 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 102/99
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RLM
Density Allowed 2.35 Density Proposed 2.1 0
Existing Zone PC Proposed Zone PC
Sunounding Zonhg and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site PC VACANT/GRADED
North PC VACANT/GRADED (PA-26N)
south PC VACANT/GRADED (PA-27)
East PC AvwtA GOLF COURSE
West PC VACANT/GRADED -(PA-30)
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District CARLSBAD Water District CARLSBAD Sewer District CARLSBAD
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 99
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated DECEMBER 3. 1990
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
- X Negative Declaration, issued June 20. 1991 - Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other, CDD:lh
“ - W PA 26 South
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPUCAWS STATEMENT Of OlSCLOSURE OF CmAlN 0H”IP -RESTS ON ALL APPUCATIONS WHICH WlLl REWIRE OlsCRmONARY ACTION ON THE PART of WE crrY COUNctL OFI ANY AP- eo-. COMMlSSlON OR COMMmE
(Please Print)
The following information must be disclosed:
1. Applicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Aviara Land Associates Limited PartnershiD
2011 Palomar Airport Rd., 1206
Carlsbad, CA 92009
..
2. Owner ” -. . . -.
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Avdrn -nv a neue
CO- a bllfau,la CO-
450 NewDort Center Driye, Suite 304 180 N. Riverview Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660 Suite 130 Anaheim, CA 92808
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the nal
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any pa
interest in the partnership. Henry Hillran Address: 450 Newport Center Drive Suite 504
Newport Beach, CA 92660-7f
4. If any person identifled pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the na
addresses of any person serving as olficer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or bc
of the trust.
N/A
rDUlwTt? n/m
w w
_..
Disciosura Statement
((
F
5. Have you had mom than $250 Worth of business transacted with any member of City i
Commissions, Committees and Councii within tho past Welve months?
Yes - No x If yes, please indicate penon(s)
- Pornon io dotinad u: 'Any indiidud. firm. eOOUmmkip. joirSv.n(un. UaddOn. -id dub. tru.md wg.nu.tlon. wrpaf8t~on. *at(
I.CO(VN. yndiC8t0, tkir ~d y othu couy. cq uld couy, w muni8iwW. 8i.md 01 Omw poWed wbdhmon, 01 any othor i
combin8tjon uting u 8 una'
-&+ L*",% .. , o, >;&vb /
(NO-: An ch addaional pages as necessary.)
11 3 90 11 38/90
Signature o norldao SiSMnrr plicun/dita
Aviara -Land Associates Limited Aviara Land-Associates Limited Partnership Partnership
Print or type name of owner Print or type rum0 of applicant
By: D. L. Clemens
5:
.. . By.:. -D. L. Clemens
Vice President Vice President
.. .
.;
. .. -. .. .- . .'
. .. .
-.
FRM00013 8/90
f’ w W
<=rTy OF CARISBAD
GROWTH MANAGE” PROGRAM
LOCAL FA(=ILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO.: AVIARA PA 26(S) - CT 90-36
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 19 GENERAL PLAN: FUM ZONING: PC
DEVELOPER’S NAME: AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES
ADDRESS: 2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD.. CARLSBAD. CA 92009
1
PHONE NO.: (619) 931-1190 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 214-170-51: 215-040-23: 216-111-0
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 47 AC/99 DU’S
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 366.94
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Library: Demand in Square Footage =
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =
Open Space: Acreage Provided -
Schools:
195.82
N/A
.733
N/A
N/A
990
2&4
N/A
N/A
(Demands to be determined by staff)
J. Sewer: Demand in EDUs -
Identify Sub Basin -
me
N/A
(Identify td line(s) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: Demand in GPD - - 21 78
L. The project is 11 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
CDD:lh
I' w w MINUTES ,.
Qp@
k .A,?
October 16, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION page 5 COMMISSIONERS % .- 1-
would be marketed as single family homes or
ums. He has concerns with some condominium ause setbacks and street sizes are less than e family zone.
Motion was dul , seconded, and carried to adopt
Planning Commies olution NO. 3299 approving the
Erwin
Schlehuber and 3302, approving and CP 91-02
Savary adopt Planning Comm 8. 3300, 3301,
Noble Negative Declarat io
Hal 1
conditions x Schramm .
numbering of the
Commissioner Schlehuber returned to the room.
2) CT 90-36 - AVIARA PLANNING 26(S) - Request for a
Tentative Tract Map to include 99 single family residential lots (minimum 7500 8.f.) and three open
space lots on a 47 acre site located at the northeast
corner of the intersection of Batiquitos Drive and
Kestral Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 19.
For the record, Vice-chairman Erwin stated that he had
received a letter from Paul J. Klukas, Aviara, dated October
10, 1991 which will be on file with the minutes in the
Planning Department.
Chris DeCerbo,'Senior Planner, reviewed the background of
the request and stated that the proposed project is a request for a Tentative Map for Planning Area 26 South, of
the Aviara Master Plan. Planning Area 26 South is located
at the northeast corner of the intersection of Batiquitos
Drive and Kestral Drive.
The project site is surrounded by future single family
residential to the north, south, and west, and the Aviara
Golf Course to the east. The Tentative Map includes 99
single family residential lots (7500 s.f.) and three open
space lots (21.82 acres) over the 47 acre planning area.
The open space lots are vegetated with coastal sage scrub
and are under deed restriction to the California Coastal
Commission. The project's density is 2.1 du/ac which is
well within the maximum permitted site density of 2.35. The
proposed project grading is 600 cubic yards per acre to be
balanced onsite. This minor amount of grading is necessary
to create internal streets and finished residential lots.
The grading substantially complies with the grading already
approved through the Aviara Phase I1 Master Tentative Map,
of which this subdivision is a part. In that this project
i6 not proponing any structures at thie time, a future Site
development plan shall be required to be processed by the
Planning Commission and City Council prior to any
residential developnent.
Staff analysis of the project focused on the project's
compliance with all developnent standards and requirements
of .the Aviara Master Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision
Ordinance, and the State Map Act. The project i6 consistent
with the LFMP Zone 19, the underlying Mello I, and the East
Batiquitoa Local Coastal Program. The project grading
complies with the grading approved through the Aviara Phase
I1 Master Tentative Map. Therefore, staff recommends
approval.
Mr. DeCerbo commented on the letter dated October 10, 1991
from the Aviara Land Associates. The letter addresses Condition #32 of Resolution No. 3305. The condition
r-
i-
w W
MINUTES
October 16, 1991 \$$ B 9&
PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 COMMISSIONERS % fj,
specifies that no retaining walls greater than 2' within the
front or side yard setback shall be permitted or approved on
any subsequent site development plan to be processed on this
property. The applicant has requested that the condition be revised to not allow any retaining walls unless specifically
approved by the Planning Commission during the subsequent
eite development review.
The letter is correct in that the primary purpose for
placing this condition on the tentative map is to alert
future merchant builders oflthis property that the use of
retaining walls for purposes of increasing the developable
area of lots in the neighborhood is discouraged. Staff's
justification for this condition is that the majority of the lots have a minimum width of 60'. In order to provide views
from these lots, they have been stepped 3-5' between
adjacent lots. An elevation difference of 5' between lots
would reduce the pad area by 10' if there is a 2:l slope
between lots. In addition, a structure developed on a lot
with this slope would be required to be set back 5' from the
slope toe for drainage purposes as well as meet the minimum
6' side yard setbacks on the other side of the lot. This
leaves only 39' of the lot left for the structure.
By allowing a 2' retaining wall which could be notched into
the manufactured slope, it would enable a structure of 43'
wide. The typical Aviara home is 40'. The benefits of
limiting retaining walls to 2' would be that the streetscape
would be enhanced and the height of the wall would not be as
visible. In addition, it could more easily be landscaped
with ground cover. The costs of deferring this decision on
retaining walls until a site development plan is processed
is that a future merchant builder may purchase the property
with unreasonable expectations regarding the size of house
the lots will accommodate. This would necessitate staff
having to renegotiate the problem. Another alternative.
would be to redesigmthe project and widen the lots beyond
the 60' width.
Vice-chairman Erwin opened the public testimony and issued
the invitation to speak.
Larry Clemens, Hillman Properties, 2011 Palomar Airport
Road, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he
is concerned about the removal of retaining walls higher
than 2 ft. from Planning Area 26(S). He feels it will set a
precedent throughout the Aviara project. He would like the '
option for the Planning Commission to approve a higher wall
if a builder desires it. Hillman Properties is not the
builder. He feels the height of the wall should be between
the builder and the Planning Commission. He is more
concerned about the quality of the finished product and does
not want to hinder the architectural design by prohibiting a
wall that is higher than 2'. Mr. Clemens believes that the
approval or disapproval of a retaining or decorative wall
should be done in conjunction with the product design. He
requested the Comission's consideration. .
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if Mr. Clemens found
an+hing objectionable in Mr. DeCerbo's comnts. He
replied that one of the comments referred to putting the
restriction on at this point in order to protect the
streetscape. Since this is only the engineering phase,
there is no streetscape to protect. Mr. Clemens referred to
Planning Area 8 where a 40' home is located on a 6,000 s.f.
lot. The home hae been very well received and the
streetscape ie very beautiful. The proportions in Planning
Area 8 are very similar to Planning Area 26(S). His major
I-
8 .. - MINUTEIS
d' \ \\
r October 16, 1991 PLANNING COMXISSION Page 7 COMMISSIO
concern is that sometimes there are special circumstances
which may require a higher wall. He feels that restrictions regarding walls and streetscape should be made at the time
of the site design because then you have a visual product to
work with.
Commissioner Schramm inquired if Mr. Clemens would coneider
dropping four unit8 to allow lot footagg. He replied that
he could not make that decision at this point because the
product has not yet been designed. It should be left up to
the Planning Commission and the developer.
I
Commissioner Schramm inquired if we go with the condition as
it is written, can the 2' wall be changed later when we see
a product design. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, replied that if this condition becomes a note on the final map, it cannot be changed without an amendment to the final
map. Normally what is done is to record a notice of
issuance of permit. The builder would be taking it subject
to all of the conditions that are approved tonight. Mr.
Ball feels it is unusual and would be difficult to bind
future Planning Commissions. The 2' wall can be approved
tonight but his recommendation would be to leave the note
off the final map. It would simply be a matter of revising Condition C32 to delete the reference to the note on the
final map as well as the portion of the sentence which
states that no subsequent site development plan processed on
this property.! Condition 132 would then read: "...This
project is approved subject to the condition that no
retaining walls greater than 2 feet in height within the
front or sideyard setback areas shall be prmitted."
Vice-chairman Erwin inquired if Mr. Billman is the only
person who owns in excess of 10%. Mr. Clemens replied that was correct.
Paul Klukas, Planner for Hillman Properties,.2011 Palomar
Airport Road, Carlsbad, addressed the commission and stated
that he is very concerned about the precedent being set.
The Master Plan was planned as a Mediterranean hillside cornunity and this envisions retaining walls. He is
concerned that the house size is now being dictated in
Aviara and, to his knowledge, thie has never before been
done in Carlsbad. Aviara is not a PUD; it is a standard
subdivision, and it meets all of the requirements. He is
concerned that this requirement is being dictated in the
engineering phase. He feels it is backwards planning.
Cormfssioncr Schlehuber inquired if staff plans to put this
condition on all future plans. Chris necarbo, Senior
Planner, replied that Aviara has had the luxury of
processing a master grading plan and tentative map which
shows the mass grading as well as the finish grading. Staff
will not receive a picture of the final project until the
very end. He feels that the incremental approach which
Aviara is using tends to erode the quality that was
originally envisioned. Therefore, staff would probably put
this condition on all projects with similar lot conditions.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, commented that
Area 26(S) may be somewhat unique but staff has also watched
this happen gradually to the other hillside areas in the
City. It tends to create a problem on aide yard setbacks
and fence heights because you end up with a 5' wall and a 6'
fence on top of it. He does not feel this condition is as
much a precedent as it is a notice to the developer to
carefully gage the stepping down on fill slopes.
I
1
.- .
+-
-
W W
MINUTES
$ 7%,
October 16, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 COMMISSIONERS % 6
Commissioner Hall inquired where a 5' wall and a 6' fence
has been placed in Aviara. Mr. Wayne replied that this was
done in the Republic development.
Paul Klukas continued his comments and stated that he would
like to request a change to Condition 140 to add the words
"Lot 5" on line 2 after CT 89-37 and before the word shall.
He believes that this has been approved by the City
Engineer. As far as the Republic development goes, Mr.
Klukas stated that Republic came in after the PUD/Site Development Plan process hat been completed. lie felt that
was wrong. The Planning Commission had already approved the
project when Republic tried to make their changes because
things wouldn't fit. The change Mr. Klukas is recommending
to Condition 132 of tonight's project should solve that
problem because it would require retaining walls to be shown
on the Site Development Plan.
There being no other persons desiring to address the
Commission on this topic, Vice-chairman Erwin declared the
public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion
among the Commission members.
Commissioner Schlehuber requested staff to comment on Mr.
Klukas' comments regarding Republic. Robert Green,
Principal Planner, replied that the Republic problem is what
staff is attempting to avoid with the wording in Condition
132. Anyone purchasing a site is fully aware up front what
they are faced with. Staff doesn't want to be put in the position of having to renegotiate the matter with the
builder. If Aviara doesn't plan to put up retaining walls
higher than 2' there should be no problem with the wording
of the condition. This particular subdivision is very tight
and staff is very concerned that there will be problems in
the future.
Commissioner Schlehuber reiterated Mr. Klukas' recommended
wording which states that "...no retaining walls within the
front or eideyard setbacks shall be permitted unless
specifically approved by the Planning Commission during the
Site Developaent Plan review." Mr. Green replied that the
comment "unless specifically approved by the Planning
Commission'' opens up the option for a builder to propose a
retaining wall.
Commissioner Schlehuber feels that Mr. Klukas'
reconmendation is more strict because it states that "no
retaining walls...shall be permitted...".
Commissioner Hall understands staff's thinking about putting
future builders on notice. However, he would prefer wording
which would allow the Planning Commission to approve a
retaining wall at a later date.
Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, stated that, in his
opinion, "no walls unless apgiroved by the Planning
Commission" would be more restrictive than allowing a 2'
retaining wall.
Vice-chairman Erwin inquired if Item #19 on page 8 of the
EIR assessment should be stated as a condition. Chris
DeCerbo, Senior Planner, replied that Condition 14 of
Resolution NO. 3305 says the same thing. The final map
cannot be approved until the City Council can find that
adequate sewer service is available.
The applicant indicated that' he is aware of this condition regarding sewer service.
y$ 4 4':
'. rc
nB
Y'
w MINUTE^
October 16, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 COMMlSSlO
Vice-chairman Erwin inquired if adding Lot IS to Condition
140 is acceptable to staff. Bob Wojcik, Principal Engineer,
replied that it is acceptable to Engineering. Ron Ball,
Assistant City Attorney, replied that it is acceptable to
him.
Vice-chairman Ewin asked staff to respond to the discussion
regarding the wording of Condition #32. Robert Green,
Principal Planner, replied that staff would like the most
restrictive wording possible.
Ron Ball, Assistant City'Attorney, recommended that
Condition #32 read as follows: "This project currently
shows no retaining walls. The project is approved subject
to the condition that no retaining walls shall be permitted
unless specifically approved by the Planning Comiss+on as part of the Site Development Plan process."
Commissioner SchSehuber would prefer the original staff recommendation which reads "...no retaining walls greater
than 2' in height within the front or eideyard setback areas
shall be permitted." He would like a period after the word
"permitted" and the verbiage past that stricken.
Vice-chairman Erwin would prefer the wording which states
that no retaining walls shall be permitted without approval.
He can also accept the change to Condition 140 as suggested by Mr. Klukas.
Comisaioner Schranmr inquired which version of Condition #32
would be the most flexible for staff. Mr. Green stated that
staff would prefer to restrict retaining walls completely,
however they could accept either version. The intent is to
regulate the retaining walls.
Commissioner Noble can agree with both arguments. He
believes that no retaining walls would probably be the best
version because the applicant is free to request what he
wants at a later date.
Mr. Ball suggested that the Comission might want to
consider separating out Condition #32 and making two
mot iona .
Vice-chairman Erwin made a motion to accept Condition #32 as
follows: "This project currently shows no retaining Walls.
The project is approved subject to the condition that no
retaining walls within the front or sideyard setback areas shall be permitted unless specifically approved by the
Planning Commission as part of the Site Developent Plan
process.1q The motion died for lack of a second.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to accept Erwin
Condition t32 as follows: "This project currently shows Hall X
no retaining walls. The project is approved subject to.the Noble
condition that no retaining walls greater than 2' in height savary
within the front or sideyard setback areas shall be Schlehuber
permitted. ID Schrsrnm
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Erwin X
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3304 approving the Hall
Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and Noble
adopt Planning Comission Resolution No. 3305 approving Savary
CT 90-36, based on the findings and subject to the Schlehuber
conditione contained therein, with the amendment to schramm
Condition 132 as previously approved and an amendment to add
Lot 5 to the wording of Condition #40.