HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-12-17; City Council; 11485; Aviara Planning Area 26(S). CITY ,f CARLSBAD - AGENDb -SILL v- @I
CT 90-36 - AVIARA PLANNING AREA 26fS)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Both the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council direct
the City Attorney to prepare documents APPROVING the Negative Declaration and CT
90-36, as approved by the Planning Commission.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On October 16, 1991, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and
approved (6-O) the Aviara Planning Area 26(S) tentative map, which is located at the
northeast corner of the intersection of Batiquitos Drive and Kestral Drive. The tentative
map includes 99 minimum 7500 square foot single family residential lots, 3 open space
lots (21.82 acres) and a local street system over the 47 acre site. Planning Area 26(S)
is one of 6 of the Aviara Phase II neighborhoods for which a Master Tentative Map was
approved by the City Council in February, 1991. The project: (1) meets all development
standards of the Aviara Master Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and State
Map Act, (2) is consistent with the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan, and the
Mello I and East Batiquitos Local Coastal Programs, and (3) the proposed grading
substantially complies with the grading approved through the Aviara Phase II Master
Tentative Map.
In recommending approval of this project, the Planning Commission revised conditions
No. 32 and 40 as follows:
32. The project currently shows no retaining walls. The project is approved
subject to the condition that no retaining walls greater than 2’ in height
within the front or sideyard setback areas shall be permitted.
Ei iz k a
This condition was revised for purposes of allowing the Planning Commission the
discretion of approving retaining walls greater than 2’ in height on any future site plan
processed upon this property, if warranted.
40. Prior to final map approval, the tract map for CT 89-37 must be recorded
and the mass grading for CT 89-37 (lot 5) shall be complete and finaled to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. /( %!?f~
This condition was revised to specifically reference lot 5, which exists as Planning Area
26(S) of CT 89-37 (the Aviara Phase II Master Tentative Map).
No major issues were identified. Please see the attached staff report to the Planning
Commission for specific details regarding this tentative map.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On October 16, 1991 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Negative
Declaration issued by the Planning Director on June 20, 1991.
FISCAL IMPACT
As discussed in the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan, because all required
improvements are to be funded by development, no fiscal impacts to the City will result
from this 99 dwelling unit tentative map.
Facilities Zone 19
Local Facilities Management Plan - 19
Growth Control Point 2.36 Du/Ac.
Net Density 2.10 Du/Ac.
Special Facility Fee N/A
EXHIBITS
1. Location Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3304 81 3305
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 16, 1991
4. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes dated October 16, 1991
p#W1111-
: : I
: .
I :
: .
: :
: : .
: :
City of Chad city of hIsbad
AVIARA PLANNING AREA 26(s) CT 90-36
*
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
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: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 26(S)
CASE NO: CT 90-36
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of October, 1991, hold
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 and
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as
follows:
A> That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according
to Exhibit “ND”, dated June 20, 1991, and “PII”, dated June 14, 1991, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may
have a significant impact on the environment.
The streets are adequate in size to handIe traffic generated by the proposed
project.
The proposed project site has already been reviewed under Master Plan
EIR 83-2(A) and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Aviara Phase II Master
Tentative Map (CT 89-37) and as designed, the project implements all
recommended mitigation measures of said EIR 83-2(A), and Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
.
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
-
4. The project will preserve in open space the previously deed restricted and coastal
habitat areas.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of October, 1991,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Vice-Chairman Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm,
Savary, Noble & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Holmes.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
TOM ERWIN, Vice-Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
I MICHAEL J. HGLZMILiER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 3304 -2-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The 45.8 acre project site is located at the northeast
comer of the intersection of Batiquitos Drive and Kestral
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, Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4445.
DATED: JUNE 20, 1991
CASE NO: CT 90-36 - -
APPLICANT: AVIARA PA 26(S)
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 20,199l
2075 Las Palmas Drive 0 Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 - (819) 438-l 161
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTI- 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 26(S)
2. APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnershin
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2011 Palomar Airnort Road, Suite 206
Carlsbad. CA 92009
(619) 931-1190
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 4. 1990
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Subdivision MaD and madinn for eventual construction of
95 single familv. detached residential units.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment.
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist
8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, “NO” will be checked
to indicate this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the
project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed
insizniiicant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings ‘YES-sig” and ‘YES-insig”
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
. -
PHYSICAL EiNvlRoNMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
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?
Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
YES
big)
YES NO
(insig)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-2-
.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sisl
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance? .
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HUMANENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? - -
18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services?
YES NO (insig)
x
x
x
YES (insig)
x
x
NO
x
x
-3-
.
HUMANENVIRONMENT 1
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDtRECTLY:
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems?
Increase existing noise levels?
Produce new light or glare?
Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
Generate substantial additional traffic?
Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? s -
Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
YES YES NO bittI (insig)
x
x’
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-’ x
x
x
4-
.-
.
MANDATORY FJNDINGS OF SIGNJFICANCE .
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO W (insig)
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, 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.
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 future projects.)
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
x
x
x
x
-5
--
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project involves the finish grading (28,200 cubic yards) of a previously mass-graded site,
construction of residential streets, drainage and other infrastructure, and tentative subdivision of Planning
Area 26(S) of Aviara Phase II. The tentative map includes 95 single family residential lots on minimum 7,500 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 CT 89-37. No
encroachment into previously designated open space areas are proposed by the project. It is located in an area
anticipated for residential development per the City’s General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program for the
affected area.
For this environmental analysis, staff conducted several field trips to the subject property and reviewed the
Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR 83-2(A)) and the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Aviara Phase II Master Tentative Map which already covered this property.
In that: (1) the proposed project site has already been reviewed under the Master Plan EIR 83-2(A) and the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Aviara Phase II (CT 89-37), (2) as designed, the project implements all
recommended mitigation measures of EIR 83-2(A) and the Phase II Mitigated Negative Declaration, and (3)
the project will preserve in open space the 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.
Phvsical Environment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The project is a previously graded site containing no unstable earth conditions as discussed in the Soils
Report for CT 89-37.
Relatively minor topographic changes will result from the project. Only 28,200 cubic yards of balanced
earthwork are proposed. This equates to approximately 615 cu/yds of soil movement per gross acre.
Such minor topographic changes are not considered to be significant.
Drainage and erosion control facilities will be incorporated into the project to adequately reduce
potential soil erosion impacts. A downstream permanent desiltation basin has been constructed in
Planning Area 28.
Potential erosion impacts to Batiquitos Lagoon will be adequately mitigated as discussed in response
#3 above. - -
Construction emission and minor fugitive dust generation impacts associated with project grading are
considered short term and insignificant. Dust generation can be adequately controlled through watering
operations. Air quality impacts associated with future development of housing upon this area is not
considered significant in itself. Long term full mitigation of regional air quality impacts will require that
dependence upon the automobile be reduced regionally and statewide.
In that no structural development is proposed at this time, impacts to air movement are not anticipated.
Air quality impacts from dust generation can be adequately controlled through watering operations
during project grading.
-6-
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
This project will not change the course or flow of water as no streams are located in the immediate area
and all drainage waters will be handled by proposed drainage facilities.
Development of this project (tentative map grading and road construction) will create impervious surfaces which would reduce absorption rates and incrementally increase runoff velocities. However,
to accommodate this increased runoff, drainage facilities will be incorporated into this project and future residential development upon the site, thereby mitigating this concern.
No inordinate depletion of any natural resources is anticipated by the subdivision, grading, ad
construction of infrastructure proposed by this project.
No significant impact as discussed in #9 above.
A thorough archaeological testing of the area was conducted in 1987 as part of EIR 83-2(A). No
prehistorically or historically significant sites were discovered within the project area. An archaeologist
and a paleontological expert will be present during grading to monitor operations in an effort to
preserve any uncovered objects.
Surface disturbance and grading for the project will not encroach into any native habitat area and will
not affect the onsite coastal deed restricted biological areas.
No impacts to the above mentioned coastal deed restricted areas are anticipated in that project
landscaping proposed adjacent to this habitat shall be required to be compatible and non-invasive.
As stipulated in the Master Plan, the conversion of agricultural lands shall be permitted upon payment
of agricultural conversion fees. In accordance, the project applicant has already paid to the State
Coastal Conservancy agricultural mitigation fees required for the development of the project site.
As discussed in #l2 above, the previously deed restricted coastal sage habitat will be maintained in
open space. Accordingly, no significant impacts to habitat or species are anticipated.
No new animal species or migration barrier will occur as a result of the project, as further discussed
in #l2 above.
HumanEnvironment _ _
17. Development of this project will be consistent with the General, Plan, Master Plan 177 and the Mello
I LCP. The land uses proposed will be internally compatible as well as being compatible with adjacent
uses.
18. As discussed in the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan, with the. payment of all fees and the
implementation of all improvement conditions (i.e. upgrading of the Batiquitos sewer pump station,
construction of Alga Road and Batiquitos Drive), all public facilities and services will be available to
meet the demands of the future development of 95 single family residences proposed on the project site.
No adverse impacts should result.
-7-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont’d
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Although this Tentative Map does not propose any actual residential development, any subsequent
dwelling unit construction onsite shall not be permitted until the Batiquitos Sewer Pump Station is
upgraded.
Construction of the project (grading and road development) may result in minor short term insignificant construction noise impacts upon surrounding existing and proposed residences. Otherwise, the future
residential uses on the subject property will be acoustically compatible with surmdhg ex.Mng and
future residential uses. No traffic noise impacts from surrounding streets are anticipated.
Future lighting utilized onsite will be directed so as to not impact adjacent future views.
Because this is a residential project, it will not involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances.
The proposed density of the project results in 2.07 du/ac. This is in compliance with the Master Plan’s
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 significantly
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 will
be provided for each unit and adequate on street guest parking will be provided throughout the project.
The additional 950 ADT generated by the project will be accommodated by the existing and planned
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 with Batiquitos Drive.
The project will not interfere with emergency response plans.
Manufactured slopes created through the already approved Phase II mass grading (which includes this
site) will be fully landscaped consistent with approved plans. Otherwise, the finish grading (28,200
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.
-a-
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
4
b)
cl
d)
4
f)
g)
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.
The project scale, 95 residential lots, is not of a size where phased development would be
beneficial.
The project has been designed consistent with the Aviara Master Plan and all City ordinances. All
open space areas are avoided.
The project is designed at slightly less scale (density) than allowed by the Master Plan for the area.
The project is in conformance with the City’s General Plan and the Master Plan. Alternate uses
would require amendment of these documents.
The proposed project involves subdivision and grading of the site only. Development of the site
will occur only if facilities are guaranteed.
The proposed project is the environmentally preferred project for the site.
The “no project” alternative is not in conformance with the General Plan/Master Plan designation
for the site, therefore, it is not environmentally preferable.
-9-
.- -
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 significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required.
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
__ I Ford that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
- I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
k- Ii\ -GI I’\ - -1 )
Date
I\ f- f l/k3ULwJ
. Signature / . A
6-/u-cl/
Date
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES IIF APPLICABLE1
A’ITACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM fIF APPLICABLE1
-lO-
.AWLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEA!XJRES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
-ll-
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3305
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAIUSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR AVIARA
PLANNING AREA 26(S) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE
BATIQUITOS DRIVE/KESTRAL DRIVE INTERSECTION.
CASE NAME: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 26(S)
CASE NO: CT 90-36
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
Portion of Sections 27, 28, and 34 in Township 12 south,
Range 4 west, in the City of Carlsbad
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 16th day of October, 1991,
hold 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
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A> That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of CT 90-36, based on the following findings and subject
to the following conditions:
. . . .
. . . .
c
.
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
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan ani MP-177 since the
proposed density of 2.10 du’s/acre is within the density range of O-4 du’s/acre
specified for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and
is at or below the growth control point of 3.2.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development permitted
through Master Plan 177.
The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this
project, ensured that the final map will not be approved unless the City Council
finds that sewer service is available to serve the project. In addition, the Planning
Commission has added a condition that a note shall be placed on the final map that
building permits may not be issued for the project unless the City Engineer
determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the
project unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning Commission is
satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan
have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad
School District.
Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as
conditions of approval.
The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for single family residential development or
open space on the General Plan.
This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a
Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on June 20,199l
and RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL by the Planning Commission on
October 16,199l. In approving this Negative Declaration the Planning Commission
has considered the initial study, the staff analysis, all required mitigation measures
and any written comments received regarding the significant effects this project
could have on the environment.
PC RESO NO. 3305 -2-
.
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
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
-
The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or
new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Cari. Jad Municipal Code. This will ensure
continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts
created by the project.
This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 19.
As discusd in the staff report, the grading for CX 90-36 substantially
complies with the mass grading approved on the Aviara Phase II Master
Tentative Map (Cr 89-37).
The Tentative Tract Map, CX 90-36, satisfies all requirements of Title 21, the
Subdivision Ordinance and the State Map Act.
As discussed in the staff report, the design of a W-36 is consistent with the intent
of Master Plan 177.
The project CT 90-36, is in compliance with the underlying Mello I and East
Ehtiquitos Lagoon Local Coastal Programs.
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted for CT 90-36, as shown on Exhibits “A’‘-“I”, dated
September 14, 1991, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning
Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise
noted in these conditions.
2. The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of
the Tentative Map as approved by the Planning Commission. The Tentative Map
shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The Map copy shall be
submitted to the City Engineer prior to building, grading or improvement plan
submittal, whichever occurs first.
3. A 500’ scale mylar map of the subdivision shall be submitted to the Planning
Director prior to the recordation of the final map. Said map shall show all lots and
streets within and adjacent to the project.
4. This project is approved upon the express condition that the final map shall not be
approved unless the City Council finds as of the time.of such approval that sewer
service is available to serve the subdivision.
PC RESO NO. 3305 -3-
.
I
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
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
--
This project is also approved under the express condition that the applicant pay the
public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 and as amended
from time to time, and any development fees established by the City Council
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance
adopted to implement a growth management system or facilities and improvement
plan and to fulfil1 the subdivider’s agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated
December 3,1990, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated
by this reference. If the fees are not paid this application will not be consistent with
the General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the
final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code unless
previously excluded by the Parks Agreement between the City and Aviara Land
Associates dated June 1,1989.
The applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as
part of building permit application. These fees shall be based on the fee schedule
in effect at the time of building permit application. Ail or a portion of said fees may
be waived subject to the approval of the Carl&ad Unified School District.
Water shall be provided to this project pursuant to the Water Service agreement
between the City of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, dated
May 25, 1983.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation required by Master Plan
177 and the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan approved by the City Council
on December 22, 1987, incorporated herein and on file in the Planning Department
and any future amendments to the Plans made prior to the issuance of building
permits.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the
payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on
this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in
Government Code Section 65913.5. If any such condition is determined to be
invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the
project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance.
The applicant shall annex the Aviara Planning Area 26(S) open space areas into the
Aviara Master homeowner’s association cowmen t with the recordation of the final
=P-
PC RESO NO. 3305
l
.
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
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of grading
or building permits, whichever occurs first.
A master plan of the existing onsite trees shall be provided to the Planning Director
as part of the final grading plan to determine which trees shall be required to be
preserved prior to the issuance of a grading permit or a building permit, whichever
occurs first.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free
from weeds, trash, and debris.
Existing onsite trees shall be retained wherever possible and shall be trimmed
and/or topped. Dead, decaying or potentially dangerous trees shall be approved for
removal at the discretion of the Planning Department during the review of a Master
Plan submitted showing the existing onsite trees. Those trees which are approved
for removal shall be replaced on a tree-for-tree basis as required by the Planning
Department.
The developer shall install street trees at the equivalent of 40-foot intervals along
all public street frontages in conformance with City of Carlsbad standards. The
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 Guidelines
Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the
Planning Department.
Landscape plans shall be designed to minimize water use. Lawn and other Zone 1
plants (see Landscape Guidelines Manual) shall be limited to areas of special visual
importance or high use. Mulches shall be used and irrigation equipment and design
shall promote water conservation.
All herbicides shall be applied by applicators licensed by the State of California.
The applicant shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
As part of the plans submitted for building permit plan check, the applicant shall
include a reduced version of the approving resolution/resolutions on a 24” x 36”
blueline drawing. Said blueline drawing(s) shah also include a copy of any
applicable Coastal Development Permit and signed approved site plan.
PC RESO NO. 3305 -5-
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
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
-
Prior to final map approval for CT 90-36, the project applicant or their successor in
interest shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide the Aviara Master
Plan’s proportional share of the Citys total obligation for very low, low and
moderate income housing units.
This project is approved subject to the condition that a Site Development Plan must
be approved by the City, prior to the issuance of any residential building permits,
within this subdivision.
The applicant shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding
covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&R’s shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. The CC&R% shall
include provisions qxifyiq Master homeowners association or PA 26(S)
neighborhood homeowners associationma.intenance responsibility for all natural and
manufactured project open space areas.
The applicant shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name
policy subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval.
This project is approved subject to the condition that all project landscaping
proposed on Exhibits “F’‘-“I”, dated September 14, 1991 shall be irrigated with reclaimed water.
Prior to the recordation of the first Enal tract map the owner of record of the
property within the boundaries of this tentative tract map shall prepare and record
a notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircmft
operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport in a manner meeting the approval of the
Planning Director and the City Attorney. The applicant shall post a&aft noise
notification signs in all sales and/or rental offices associated with the new
development. The number and locations of said signs shall be approved by the
Planning Director.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or the recordation of the final map, the
project applicant shall receive a Coastal Development Permit that approves
development that is in substantial conformance with this City approval. The Coastal
Permit shall be required to be submitted to the City Planning Department for review
prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Prior to final map approval or the issuance of a grading permit for CT 90-36, the
Aviara Phase II Tentative Map (CT 89-37) must be recorded as a final map.
This project currently shows no retaining walls. 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 permitted.
PC RESO NO. 3305 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
S
1c
11
12
12
14
1:
1E
1s
lf
1s
2c
21
2;
2:
24
21
2E
2'i
2E
33. This project is approved subject to the condition that grading proposed as part of
any future Site Development Plan over the subject property shall be in substantial
conformance with the grading approved through this tentative map.
34. This project is approved subject to the condition that those portions of hots 1-3,
26-27,4345,47-48,51,54-55,59-62,74-77,84-89, and94-99whicharelocated
within coastal commissi on deed restricted areas, shall be required to be placed
under an open space easement which shall prohibit any encroachment for
development in perpetuity. Any future site development plan processed for these
lots shall be required to locate project fencing outside of the deed restricted area.
Conditions:
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
This project is located within the Mello I and East Batiquitos Local Coastal Plans.
All development design shall comply with the requirements of that plan
Unless a standard variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is
authorized by virtue of approval of this tentative map.
The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements
of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project.
The developer shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.& E., Pacific
Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
prior to final map approval of this subdivision, the City Engineer shall approve a lot
line modification between Lots 5 and 6 of CT 89-37.
Prior to final map approval, the tract map for CI’ 89-37 must be recorded and the
mass grading for CX 89-37, lot 5, shall be complete and finaled to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
This project is approved as two (2) recordation units. Any construction phasing is
contingent upon the approval of a phasing plan by the City Engineer.
All grading shall occur at one time with recordation of the first unit. No grading
may be allowed prior to the recordation of the first unit unless approved by the
Community Development Director, Planning Director and City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide an acceptable means of maintaini.ng the private
stormdrain facilities within open space Lot 49 and within the easement shown on
Lot 30. Adequate provision for such maintenance shall be included with the CC&R’s
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
PC FESO NO. 3305 -‘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
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
- -
The applicant shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents,
officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the city or its
agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or null an approval of the
City, the Planning Commissi on or City Engineer which has been brought against the
City within the time period provided by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map
Act.
Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the
date of City Council approval unless a final map is recorded. An extension may be
requested by the applicant. Said extension shall be approved or denied at the discretion of the City Council. In approving an extension, the City Council may impose new conditions and may revise existing conditions pursuant to Section
20.12.110(a)(2) Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Prior to approval of the final map the developer shah enter into an agreement with
the City to pay any drainage area fees established as a result of the forthcoming
Master Drainage Plan Update.
The subject properly is within the boundaries of Assessment District No. 88-l (Alga
Road). Upon the subdivision of land within the district boundaries, the applicant
=Y pass ~wh assessment to subsequent owners & if the applicant has
executed special Assessment District Pass-through Authorization Agreement. Said
Agreement contains provisions regarding notice to potential buyer of the amount of
the assessment and any other provision and require the applicant to have each buyer
receive and execute a Notice of Assessment and an Option Agreement. In the event
that the applicant does not execute the Authorization Agreement, the assessment on
the subject property must be paid in full bv the am4icant prior to anv subdivision
of the land.
As required by state law, prior to the recordation of a Enal map over any of the
subject property, a segregation of assessments must be completed and recorded for
all subdivided lots. By applying for a segregation of assessments, the applicant
agrees to pay the fee to cover the costs associated with the segregation A
segregation is not required if the applicant pays off the assessment on the subject
property prior to the recordation of the final map. In the event a segregation of
assessments is not recorded and property is subdivided, the full amount of
assessment will appear on the tax bills of & new lot.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on
the tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. Prior to issuance
of a building permit for the project, the applicant must submit and receive approval
for grading plans in accordance with City codes and standards, be issued a grading
permit and complete the grading work in substantial conformance with the
approved grading plans.
PC RESO NO. 3305 -8-
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
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
No grading shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision unless a grading or slope
easement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties. If the developer
is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, he must either amend the
tentative map or charge the slope so grading will not occur outside the project site
in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved tentative map as determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be
provided or installed prior to the issuance of grading or building permit as may be
required by the City Engineer.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all improvements shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to approval of the final map
in accordance, with City Standards the Developer shall install, or agree to install
and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on
the tentative map and the following improvements:
A. Full public street improvements for Black Swan Lane, Kingbird Terrace, and
Sandpiper Place
B. Public storm drain and sewer facilities.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of final map
approval and/or improvement plan approval, whichever occurs first.
Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner shall
give written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of
the site plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping
District No. 1. The form shall be provided by the City during the improvement
plancheck process.
The applicant shall comply with the permit requirements of the National Pollutant
Dkharge Elimination System (NPDEZS) permit. The applicant shall provide best
management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to
dkcharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the
City Fngineer prior to approval of the final map or issuance of grading permit,
whichever occurs fiIst.
All open space lots (Lots 49,50, and 102) shall be owned in fee and maintained by
the Aviara Master Association.
Concurrent with final map recordation, all lots with sight distance corridors shall
record a “Notice of Restriction on Real property” for restricting height of landscaping
and structures to 30” above the street.
PC RESO NO. 3305
,
.
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
- -
58. Any encroachment through construction into deed restricted or undisturbed open
space for the purpose of grading will require an amfmhent to the tentative map
and approval of the California Coastal Commission. A note to this effect shall
appearonthefbalgradingplan.
59. Prior to the commencement of any grading activities, the developer shall fence off
the deed rest&ted and undisturbed open space to the satisfaction of the city
Engineer and the Planning Director. A note to this effect shall appear on the final
grading Plans-
Fire Conditions:
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
Additional onsite water mains and public hydrants are required.
Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts
location of required, proposed public water mains and fire hydrants. The plan
should include offsite fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
An all-weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles
shall be provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the
Fire Chief, the access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or
other reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety, require that construction
operations cease until the condition is corrected.
All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurtenances shall be operational prior
to combustible building materials being located on the project site.
Native vegetation which presents a fire hazard to structures shall be modified or
removed in accordance with the specifications contained in the City of Carlsbad
Landscape Guidelines Manual. Applicant shall submit a Fire Suppression plan to the
Fire Department for approval.
All security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be equipped with a
“Knox”, key operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall contact the Fire
Prevention Bureau for specifications and approvals prior to installation.
The applicant shall provide a street map which conforms to the following
requirements: A 400 scale photo-reduction mylar, depicting proposed improvements
and at least two existing intersections or streets. The map shall also clearly depict
street centerlines, hydrant locations and street names.
Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways and traffic circulation for Fire Department approval.
PC RESO NO. 3305 -lO-
-
.
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
Carlsbad Municipal Water District:
68.
69.
70.
71.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
The entire potable and non-potable water systems for subject project shall be
evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity and pressure for domestic, non-
potable and fire flow demands are met.
The Developer’s Engineer shall schedule a meeting first with the City Fire Marshal
and then with the District Engineer to review the preliminary water system layout prior to preparation of the water system improvement plans.
The Developer will be responsible for all fees and deposits plus the major facility
charge which will be collected at time of issuance of building permit. The
Developer shah pay a San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge which will
be collected at issuance of application or meter installation.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district sening
the development determines that adequate water and sexvice is available at the time
of application for water service and will continue to be available until time of
OCCUpanCy.
PC EtESON0.3305 -ll-
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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of October, 1991, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Vice-Chairman Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm,
Savary, Noble and Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Holmes.
ABSTAIN: None.
TOM ERWIN, Vice-Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
Al-TEST:
MICHAEL J. HOtZMILkR
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 3305 -12-
STAFF REPORT
APPLIC.I’ION COMPLETE DATE:
Amil25. 1991
DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1991 0 2
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CT 90-36 - AVIARA PLANNING 26(S) - Request for a Tentative Tract Map
to include 99 single family residential lots (minimum 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.
I. 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.
II. PROJJXI- DE!XRWTION AND BACKGROUND
This project is a Tentative Tract Map to create 99 single family 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 Permit 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 II tentative
map (CT 89-37).
CT 90-36 AVIARA PLA, ..dING AREA 26
OCTOBER 16, 1991
PAGE 2
This project proposes no encroachment into the previously Coastal Commission deed
restricted open space lots approved through the Aviara Phase II Master Tentative Map.
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 27), 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 be
required to be processed subsequent to the development of the planning area.
III. ANALYSIS
Pknninsr Issues
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Does the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map satisfy all requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and the State Map Act?
Is the design of the proposed subdivision consistent with the intent of
Master Plan 177?
Does the proposed project grading substantially comply with the mass grading
approved through the Aviara Phase II Master Tentative Map (CT 89-37)?
Is the proposed project in compliance with the Mello I and East Batiquitos Lagoon
Local Coastal Programs?
Is the proposed project consistent with the Zone 19 Local Facility Management
Plan?
DISCUSSION
The 47 acre, 102 Lot Tentative Map for Planning Area 26(S) satisfies all requirements of
the R-1-7500 zone, Carlsbad’s Subdivision Ordinance and the State Map Act. All proposed
residential lots will front on publicly dedicated streets and meet the minimum development
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.
-
.
.
CT 90-36 AvlARA PL,AL~ING AREA 26
OCTOBER 16,199l
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 corner boundary of
Planning Area 26(S) has been relocated southward into Planning Area 27. This minor
amendment is a consequence of the redesign of the internal street 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 Aviara Phase II 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 serve the project. The impact on public facilities created by the proposed project, and compliance with adopted performance standards are summarized
below:
t
I FACllIW IMPACl-
City Administration 366.94 SF YES
Library I 195.82 SF I YES
Waste Water I 99 EDU I YES
~ Parks
Drainage
.733 Acres
N/A
Circulation 990 ADT YES
Fire Station #2 & #4 YES
Schools N/A YES
Sewer Collection System 99 EDU YES
Water Distribution Svstem --7 2178 GPD
Open Space I N/A I YES
CT 90-36 AVIARA PLANJNG AREA 26
OCTOBER 16,199l
PAGE 4
Iv. ENVIRONMENTALREVIEW
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, 1991.
The environmental analysis, along with the field checks by staff, 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 II Tentative Map (CT 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 Fotm
6. Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form
7. Exhibits “A” - “I”, dated September 14, 1991.
CDD:lh:vd:lh
September 11, 1991
&lTICE OF COMPLETION -
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth eet, Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 - 916/4s T 513
* See NOTE Belw:
Project Title: Aviara PA 26(S) 1
suit
Lead Agency: Citv of Carlsbad Contact Person: Chris DeCerbo
Street Address: 2075 Las Palmas Drive Phone: (619) 438-1161. ext. 4445
City: Carlsbsd Zip: 92009 county: San Diego
-----------------------.-----------.---------------------.---------.--.---------..--------.-------...-------------------....---
PROJECT LGCATIOT:
comty: San Dieso City/Nearest Conksunity: Carlsbed
Cross Streets: Batiauitos Drive/Kestrel Drive Total Acres: 45.8
Assessorls Parcel No. 214-170-51 215-040-23 216-111-08 Section: --- Tup. --- Range: --- Base: __I
Uithin 2 Miles: State Huy b: I-5 Uateruays: Batiauitos Lagoon
Airports: Palomar Railways: --- Schools: Carl&ad
__-____-________---------------..-.--------------------------..----------------------------------------------------------.-----..
DamIT TYPE
a: -NOP Slqiplelnent/Slrbscqucnt YEPA: - NO1 OTHER:
Early Cons z
- Joint Docusent
)(Neg Dee
EIR (Prior SCH No.) - EA -FinalDctcunent
- Other - Draft EIS - Other
-Draft EIR -FONSI _______________.~~~~.~~~.~~~~~~.~~~.~~~~~~~.~~..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.----......~.~~~~~~~-----.~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...~~~~~~..~~
LOCAL ACTloW TYPE
General Plan Update Specific Plan - Rezone - Amexation
General Plan Amen&ent z Master Plan - Prerone - Redevelopmt
General Plan Element - Plannsd Unit Developsent Use Permit Coastal Permit
Cosmwiity Plan Site Plan )( Land Division (S&division, E Other Parcel Hap, Tract Hap, etc.) ________________------------------------...-...--------------.-----.------------------.-----------.--------.--------------------
DEE-TYPE
X Residential: Units 95 Acres 45.8 Water Facilities: Type m- - Office: Sq. Ft. Acres Enployees - Transportation:
z Mining: Type - Cwrcial: Sq. Ft. Acres Enployees Mineral
- Inrktstrial: Sq. Ft. Acres Enployees -Pobier: Type Uatts
- Educational - Yaste Treatment: Type
- Recreational - Hazardous Uaste: Type - Other:
---_____________------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
PROJECYISSUESDISaBSED IN DOClH%T
X Aesthetic/Visual
- Agricultural Land
Air Quality 7 Archaeological/Historical
X Coastal Zone - Drainage/Absorption
- Eccmcmic/Jobs
- Fiscal
- Flood Plain/Flooding - Schools/Universities
Forest Land/Fire Hazard
X Geologic/Seismic
- Septic Systems
Sewer Capacity
Minerals
x Noise
x Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading
- Solid Uaste
- Population/Housing Balance - Toxic/Hazardous
- Plrblic Services/Facilities X Traffic/Circulation
- Recreation/Parks X Vegetation
____________________________I___________----------------------------.---.----------------------------
PraentLmdUse/Zming/GcnacrlPlnUse
Vacant and graded/P-C (Plamcd Camwnity)/RLM-RM
Uater Quality
= Uater Supply/
Groud Uater
X Uetland/Riparian
x Uildlife
Growth Inducing
XLarkbse
- Cumulative Effect
- Other --__-------_-----___-------
__________-________.____________________--------------------.-.--.-.--------------------------.---------------------------------
Project Description
Tentative Tract Map to create 95 mininun 7,500 swre foot single family residential lots and three open space lots.
IKIYE: Clearinghouse will assign identification nurrkrs for all new projects. If a SCH nuber already exists for a project (e.g. from a Notice of Preparation or previcus draft docusent) please fill it in. Revised October 1989
CDC:rvo
-
NEGATIVE DEcLARATlON
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The 45.8 acre project site is located at the northeast
comer of the intersection of Batiquitos Drive and Kestral
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, Chris DeCerbo in the
Planning Department at 438-l 161, extension 4445.
DATED: JUNE 20, 1991
CASE NO: CT 90-36
APPLICANT: AVIARA PA 26(S)
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 20, 1991
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (819) 438-l 161
BACKGROUND
.- .
ENWRONMENTAL ITWACI- ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 90-36
DATE: June 14. 1991
1. CASE NAME: Aviara PA 26(S)
2. APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates Limited Partner-shin
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2011 Palomar Airport Road. Suite 206
Carlsbad. CA 92009
(619) 931-1190
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 4. 1990
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Subdivision MaD and madinn for eventual construction of
95 single familv, detached residential units.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment.
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist
8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, “NO” will be checked
to indicate this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the
project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed
insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings “YES-sig” and ‘YES-insig”
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
.
-
PHYSICAL E!iNvIRo-
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. 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?
-
YES YES NO
(Sk) (insig)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-2-
,
BIOLOGICAL lZJWRONMF.NT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRFXTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sisl
-
NO
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLYz
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
x
x
x
E YES NO
S (in&)
x
x
-3-
-
. -
HuMANENvrRoNMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems?
Increase existing noise levels?
Produce new light or glare?
Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
Generate substantial additional traffic?
Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
YES YES NO W (insig)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
4-
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
33.
34.
35.
36.
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, 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.
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.)
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.)
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
x
x
x
-5-
.
DISCUSSIONOF ENVIRONMENTALEVALUATION .
The proposed project involves the finish grading (28,200 cubic yards) of a previously mass-graded site,
construction of residential streets, drainage and other infrastructure, and tentative subdivision of %nning
Area 26(S) of Aviara Phase II. The tentative map includes 95 single family residential lots on minimum 7,500
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 CT 89-37. No
encroachment into previously designated open space areas are proposed by the project. It is located in an area
anticipated for residential development per the City’s General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program for the
affected area.
For this environmental analysis, staff conducted several field trips to the subject property and reviewed the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR 83-2(A)) and the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Aviara Phase II Master Tentative Map which already covered this property.
In that: (1) the proposed project site has already been reviewed under the Master Plan EIR 83-2(A) and the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Aviara Phase II (CT 89-37), (2) as designed, the project implements all
recommended mitigation measures of EIR 83-2(A) and the Phase II Mitigated Negative Declaration, and (3)
the project will preserve in open space the 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.
Phvsical Environment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The project is a previously graded site containing no unstable earth conditions as discussed in the Soils
Report for CT 89-37.
Relatively minor topographic changes will result from the project. Only 28,200 cubic yards of balanced
earthwork are proposed. This equates to approximately 615 cu/yds of soil movement per gross acre.
Such minor topographic changes are not considered to be significant.
Drainage and erosion control facilities will be incorporated into the project to adequately reduce
potential soil erosion impacts. A downstream permanent desiltation basin has been constructed in
Planning Area 28.
Potential erosion impacts to Batiquitos Lagoon will be adequately mitigated as discussed in response
#3 above.
Construction emission and minor fugitive dust generation impacts associated with project grading are
considered short term and insignificant. Dust generation can be adequately controlled through watering
operations. Air quality impacts associated with future development of housing upon this area is not
considered significant in itself. Long term full mitigation of regional air quality impacts will require that
dependence upon the automobile be reduced regionally and statewide.
In that no structural development is proposed at this time, impacts to air movement are not anticipated.
Air quality impacts from dust generation can be adequately controlled through watering operations
during project grading.
-6-
- -
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont’d
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
This project will not change the course or flow of water as no streams are located in the immediate area
and all drainage waters will be handled by proposed drainage facilities.
Development of this project (tentative map grading and road construction) will create impervious
surfaces which would reduce absorption rates and incrementally increase runoff velocities. However,
to accommodate this increased runoff, drainage facilities will be incorporated into this project and
future residential development upon the site, thereby mitigating this concern.
No inordinate depletion of any natural resources is anticipated by the subdivision, grading, and
construction of infrastructure proposed by this project.
No signikant impact as discussed in #9 above.
A thorough archaeological testing of the area was conducted in 1987 as part of EIR 83-2(A). No
prehistorically or historically significant sites were discovered within the project area. An archaeologist and a paleontological expert will be present during grading to monitor operations in an effort to
preserve any uncovered objects.
Surface disturbance and grading for the project will not encroach into any native habitat area and will
not affect the onsite coastal deed restricted biological areas.
No impacts to the above mentioned coastal deed restricted areas are anticipated in that project landscaping proposed adjacent to this habitat shall be required to be compatible and non-invasive.
As stipulated in the Master Plan, the conversion of agricultural lands shall be permitted upon payment
of agricultural conversion fees. In accordance, the project applicant has already paid to the State
Coastal Conservancy agricultural mitigation fees required for the development of the project site.
As discussed in #l2 above, the previously deed restricted coastal sage habitat will be maintained in
open space. Accordingly, no significant impacts to habitat or species are anticipated.
No new animal species or migration barrier will occur as a result of the project, as further discussed
in #I2 above.
Human Environment
17. Development of this project will be consistent with the GeneralPlan, Master Plan 177 and the Mello
I LCP. The land uses proposed will be internally compatible as well as being compatible with adjacent
uses.
18. As discussed in the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan, with the payment of all fees and the
implementation of all improvement conditions (i.e. upgrading of the Batiquitos sewer pump station,
construction of Alga Road and Batiquitos Drive), all public facilities and services will be available to
meet the demands of the future development of 95 single family residences proposed on the project site.
No adverse impacts should result.
-7-
-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont’d
19. Although this Tentative Map does not propose any actual residential development, any subsequent
dwelling unit construction onsite shall not be permitted until the Batiquitos Sewer Pump Station is
upgraded.
20. Construction of the project (grading and road development) may result in minor short term insignificant
construction noise impacts upon surrounding existing and proposed residences. Otherwise, the future
residential uses on the subject property will be acoustically compatible with surrounding existing and
future residential uses. No traffic noise impacts from surrounding streets are anticipated.
21.
22.
Future lighting utilized onsite will be directed so as to not impact adjacent future views.
Because this is a residential project, it will not involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances.
23. The proposed density of the project results in 2.07 du/ac. This is in compliance with the Master Plan’s
anticipated 2.35 du/ac.
24.
25.
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 significantly
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 spaces will
be provided for each unit and adequate on street guest parking will be provided throughout the project.
27. The additional 950 ADT generated by the project will be accommodated by the existing and planned
circulation network. This minor increase in traffic is not considered significant.
28.
29.
30.
31.
The project site is outside of the Airport Influence Area for Palomar Airport.
The project, as designed, will not cause conflicts at its intersections with Batiquitos Drive.
The project will not interfere with emergency response plans.
Manufactured slopes created through the already approved Phase II mass grading (which includes this
site) will be fully landscaped consistent with approved plans. OtherSvise, the finish grading (28,200
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-
- .
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: .
a>
cl
4
d
f)
s)
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.
The project scale, 95 residential lots, is not of a size where phased development would be
beneficial.
The project has been designed consistent with the Aviara Master Plan and all City ordinances. All
open space areas are avoided.
The project is designed at slightly less scale (density) than allowed by the Master Plan for the area.
The project is in conformance with the City’s General Plan and the Master Plan. Alternate uses
would require amendment of these documents.
The proposed project involves subdivision and grading of the site only. Development of the site
will occur only if facilities are guaranteed.
The proposed project is the environmentally preferred project for the site.
The “no project” alternative is not in conformance with the General Plan/Master Plan designation
for the site, therefore, it is not environmentally preferable.
-9-
-.
.
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) .
x
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required.
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
6 I, \ 01 - I “\ - ‘I 1
Date
Date
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-lO-
- .
APPLICANT 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
-ll-
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET --
CASE NO.: CT 90-36
CASE NAME: AVIARA PA 26(S)
APPLICANT: Am LAND ASSOCIATES
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Tentative Tract MaD to create 99 minimum 7500 SF
Single Familv Residential Lots and 3 Onen Snace 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 TOW&~D 12 South, Range 4 West San Bernardino Meridian. Citv of Carlsbad. Countv of San Diego.
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 2.10
Existing Zone PC Proposed Zone PC
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
zoninq Land Use
Site PC VACANT/GRADED
North PC VACANT/GRADED (PA-26N)
South PC VACANT/GRADED (PA-271
East PC AVIARA 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
-
PA 26 South
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT _'
APPUCANTS STATEMENT of OISCLCSUAE OF CEFFTAIN OWN~IP lm=s’TS ON AU. APPtJCAmNS WHICH WIU REQUIRE
OISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART- OF THE Cll?’ COUNCIL OR ANY AP- BOARD, COMMlSSlON OR CCMM~E.
(Please Print)
The following information must be disclosed:
1. Aoallcant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnershin 2011 Palomar Airport Rd., 11206
Carlsbad, CA 92009
2. Owner ---. . -.
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
bviarn -V a new e
XtCenter 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 names and
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership. Henry Hillran Address: 450 Newport Center Drive Suite 304
Newport Beach, CA 92660-7640
4. if any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit orgenitation of a trust, list the names and
addresses of any person sewing as officer or director of the non-profit orgenization or as trustee or beneficiary
of the trust.
. .
DiecIoaure Statement
- -
(Over)
Page 2
5;
5. Have you had more than $250 Worth Of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boarc
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No x If yes, please indicate person(s)
roco~of. ynbicato, this and any 0th~ county, city and county. city munkipdity. dimMat oWr pdi(M o&d&i&n. 01 my omar o,oup o,
combimtion acting u l unk’
additional pages as necessary.)
p ‘. 11/30/90
Signature oMGni;ild~e
Aviara Land Associates Limited Aviara Land-Associates Limited .. Partnership Partnership
.Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant . . . -_ By: D. L. Clemens - By,:. -D. L. Clemens
Vice President Vice President
. . .
-’ .-
CTIY OF CARISBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACRJTIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECTIDENTITYANDIMPACTASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO.: AVIARA PA 26(S) -CT 90-36
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 19 GENERAL PLAN: BLM ZONING: PC
DEVELOPER’S NAME: AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES
ADDRESS: 2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD.. CARLSBAD. CA 92009
PHONE NO.: (619) 931-1190 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 214-170-51: 215-040-23: 216-111-08
QUANTITYOF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT(AC.,SQ.FT.,DU): 47AC/99 DU'S
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
City Adnurustratrve Factitres: Demand 111 Square Footage = 366.94
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
CDD:lh
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 195.82
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) N/A
Park: Demand in Acreage = .733
Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A
Identify Drainage Basin = N/A
(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:
990
2&4
-ML
N/A
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demand in EDUs -
Identify Sub Basin - N/A
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: ’ Demand in GPD - 2178
The project is 11 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
. MINUTES
October 16, 1991 PLANNING CCMMISSION Page 5 COMMISSIONERS \t
8 would be marketed as single family homes or
He has concerns with some condominium
e setbacks and street sizes are less than
e family zone.
Motion was ied to adopt
approving the
ing Director, and
3300, 3301,
and 3302, a
based on th
contained t Exhibits fr
and CP 91-02
conditions
numbering of the
Commissioner Schlehuber returned to
2) CT 90-36 - AVIARA PLANNING 26(S) % Request for a
Tentative Tract Map to include 99 single family
residential lots (minimum 7500 s.f.) and three open
space lots on a 47 acre site located at the northeast
corner of the intersection of Batiguitos 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 Batiguitos
Drive and Kestral Drive.
The project site is surrounded by future single family
residential to the north, south, and weat, 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 lote.
The grading substantially complies with the grading already
approved through the Aviara Phase II Master Tentative Map,
of which this subdivision is a part. In that this project
is not proposing any structures at this time, a future site
development plan shall be required to be processed by the
Planning Commission and City Council prior to any
residential development.
Staff analysis of the project focused on the project's compliance with all development standards and requirements
Of,the Aviara Master Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision
Ordinance, and the State Map Act. The project is consistent
with the LFMP Zone 19, the underlying Mello I, and the East
Batiguitos Local Coastal Program. The project grading
complies with the grading approved through the Aviara Phase
II 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 132 of Resolution No. 3305. The condition
Erwin
Hall
Noble
Savary
Schlehuber
Schramm
-
MINUTES
October 16, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 COMMISSIONERS \
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
site 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 of this 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 walla 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 redesign the project and widen the lots beyond
the 60' width.
Vice-Chairman Erwin opened the public testimony and issued
the invitation to speak.
Larry Clemens, Eiillman 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 Commission's consideration. .
Conmissioner Schlehuber inquired if Mr. Clemens found
anything objectionable in Mr. DeCerbo's coanaents. 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 has been very well received and the
streetscape is very beautiful. The proportions in Planning
Area 8 are very similar to Planning Area 26(S). His major
-
MINUTES
October 16, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION
\
.. \
% .
Page 7 COMMISSIONERS ’
:oncern is that sometimes there are special circumstances
rhich 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 stork with.
Commissioner Schramm inquired if Mr. Clemens would consider
dropping four units to allow lot footage. He replied that
ne 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.
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 Hall, Assistant City Attorney,
replied that if this condition becomes a note on the final
rap, it cannot be changed without an amendment to the final
nap. 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 132 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 #32 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 permitted."
Vice-Chairman Erwin inquired if Mr. Hillman is the only
person who owns in excess of 10%. Mr. Clemens replied that
waa correct.
Paul Klukas, Planner for Hillman Properties, 2011 Palomar
Airport Road, Carlsbad, addressed the Coanniseion and stated
that he is very concerned about the precedent being set.
The Mast8S Plan was planned as a Mediterranean hillside
community and this envisions retaining walle. He is
concernad that the hOUS six8 is now being dictated in
Aviara and, to his knowledge, this has never before b88n
done in Carlsbad. Aviara is not a PDD; it ir 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.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if staff plans to put this
condition on all future plans. Chris DeCerbo, Senior
Planner, replied that Aviara has had the luxury of
processing a master grading plan and tentative map which
ahows 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 eroda the quality that was
originally envisioned. TheSefOre, 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 Oth8S hillside areas in the
city. It tends to create a problem on aid8 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.
MINUTES
October 16, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 COMMISSIONERS ’
Commissionas 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 d8V8lOpm8nt.
Paul Xlukas continued his comm8nts and stated that h8 would
like to request a change to Condition #40 to add th8 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
Engin8er. As far as th8 Republic development goes, Mr.
Klukas stated that Republic cam8 in after the PUD/Site
DeV8lOpment Plan process had been completed. He 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 S8COmm8nding
to Condition W32 of tonight's project should solve that
problem because it would require retaining walls to be shown
on the Site D8V8lOpment 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 Wr.
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
X32. Anyone purchasing a sit8 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 t0 put up retaining Wall8
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 th8S8 will be probl8ms in
the future.
Commissioner Schlehuber reiterated Mr. Klukas' recommended
wording which states that " . ..no retaining walls within the
front or sideyard setbacks shall be permitted unless
specifically approved by the Planning Coruaission during the
Site D8V8lOpoet-k Plan review." Mr. Green replied that the
comment "unless specifically approved by the Planning
Commission'1 opens up the option for a builder to propose a
retaining wall.
Commissioner Schlehuber feels that Mr. Klukas'
recommendation is more strict because it states that "no
retaining walls... shall be permitted...".
Commissioner Hall understands staff's thinking about putting
future build8SS on notice. How8v8fr he would pS8f8S 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 approved 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 th8
EIR assessment should be stated as a condition. Chris
DeCerbo, Senior Planner, replied that Condition #4 of
Resolution No. 3305 says the same thing. The final map
Cannot be approved until the City Council can find that
adequate sew81 service is available.
Ttre applicant indicated that he is aware of this condition
regarding sewer service.
-
MINUTES
October 16, 1991 PLANNING COMUISSION Page 9
lice-chairman Erwin inquired if adding Lot XS to Condition
f40 is acceptable to staff. Bob Wojcik, Principal Engineer,
replied that it is acceptable to Engineering. Ron Ball, issistant City Attorney, replied that it is acceptable to
Tim.
lice-chairman Erwin asked staff to respond to the discussion
regarding the wording of Condition X32. Robert Green,
?rincipal Planner, replied that staff would like the most
restrictive wording possible.
ion Ball, Assistant City Attorney, recommended that
Condition #32 read as follows: "This project currently
ahows no retaining walls. The project is approved subject
:o the condition that no retaining walls shall be permitted
inless specifically approved by the Planning Commission as
?art of the Site Development Plan process."
Zommissioner Schlehuber would prefer the original staff
recommendation which reads "...no retaining walls greater
than 2' in height within the front or sideyard setback areas
shall be permitted." Be 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.
Be can also accept the change to Condition #40 as suggested
by Mr. Klukas.
Commissioner Schramm inquired which version of Condition X32
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 Commission might want to
consider separating out Condition #32 and making two
motions.
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 Development Plan
process." The motion died for lack of a second.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried 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 greater than 2' in height
within the front or sideyard setback areas shall be
permitted."
Motion warn duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt
Planning Ccanaission 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, with the amendment to
Condition 132 as previously approved and an amendment to add
Lot 5 to the wording of Condition #40.
Erwin
Hall
Noble
Savary
Schlehuber
Schramm
Erwin
Ball
Noble
Savary
Schlehuber
Schramm
Carlsbad Journal
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
W.C.C.N. Inc. P.O. Box 230878, Encinitas, CA 92023-0878 (619) 753-6543
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal, a newspaper of general circulation,
published weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper
is published for the dissemination of loca1 news and intelIigence of a genera1 character, and which
newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the
said City of Oceanside, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next
-*-
PUBLIC HEARING CT 00-36
ment Zone 19 and more particularly described as:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carls- bad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive (formerly Elm Avenue), Carlsbad, California, at 6:oO P.M., on Tuesday, December 17.1301, to consider an application fora tentative tract map to include 00 single family residential lots (minimum 7500 square foot) and 3 open space lots on a 47 acre site, on property generally located at the northeast corner of the intersee- tioo ofBatiquitos Drive and Kestral Drive, in Local Facilities Manage-
Portion of Sections 27,23, and 34 inTownship 12 south, Range4 west, in the City of Carlsbad. If you have any questions regard- ing this matter, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Depart- ment at 433-1161, ext. 4445. If you challenge the Tentative Map in court, YOU may be limited to raising only those is&es raised by You or someone else at the oublic hearing described in this no&e, or in written correspondence deli- vered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk’s Off& at or prior to the pub- lic hearing. Applicant: Aviara Land Associates CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
preceding the date of publication of the
notice hereinafter referred to; and that the
notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy, has been published in each regular
and entire issue of said newspaper and not
in any supplement thereof on the follow-
ing dates, to-wit:
-
AVIARA PLAFHmi AREA 26(S) I CT 9046
December 05 1991
19-
19-
19-
19-
I certify under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California on the 5th
December, 1991
U 6489: December 5,lOOl
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CT 90-36
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive (formerly Elm Avenue), Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, December 17, 1991, to consider an application for a tentative tract map to include 99 single family residential lots (minimum 7500 square foot) and 3 open space lots on a 47 acre site, on property generally located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Batiquitos Drive and Kestral Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 19 and more particularly described as:
Portion of Sections 27, 28, and 34 in Township 12 south, Range 4 west, in the City of Carlsbad.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Chris DeCerbo in the
Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4445.
If you challenge the Tentative Map in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in
this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at or prior to the public hearing.
APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates PUBLISH: December 5, 1991 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
AVlARApLAHJHa~26(s) I cl90-36
.
-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold
a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive (formerly Elm
Avenue), Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 16, 1991, to consider
approval of a request for a Tentative Tract Map to include 99 single family residential lots
(minimum 7500 square foot) and 3 open space lots on a 47 acre site on property generally
located at the northeast comer of the intersection of Batiquitos Drive and Kestral Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 19 and more particularly described as:
Portion of Sections 27, 28, and 34 in Township
12 south, Range 4 west, in the City of Carlsbad
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report wilI be available on and after October 9,199l. If you
have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department at 438-1161,
ext. 4445.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing,
CASE FILE: CT 90-36
APPLICANT: AVIARA PLANNING 26(S)
PUBLISH: OCTOBER 3, 1991
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
CT 90-36 - AVIARA PLANNING AREA 26(S)
for a public hearing before the City Council. I
Please notice the item for the council meeting of
.
Thank you.
MARTY ORENYAK 11/8/91
Assistant City Manager Date
Taylor F: % Virginia Clawson i/
1013 Iris c?t
Car 1 sbad CA ‘~2009
John R & Christina Faires J
1017 Iris Ct
Car 1 sbad CA 32003
,^ .- .‘-r: ::J
. ,,,- -;. :3;-l:s
Leroy Patterson
1015 Iris Ct
Carlsbad rh
.
. J Mario & Molly Drentea 1025 Iris Ct
Car 1 sbad CA ‘32009
Lenard S & Debora Elias J
7203 Daffodil Pl
Car 1 sbad CA ‘3200‘3
Susan Payne
1027 Iris Ct J
Car 1 sbad CA 92009
Edwin Cs Dusel
7211 Daffodil Pl Car 1 sbad CA ‘32009
Christopher J t Barbara RCGS
7215 Daffodil Pl
Car 1 sb ad CA 32009
Gerald C & Adelheid Williams
7217 Daffodil Pl
Car 1 sbad CA 32009
w
Don Brown
7219 Daffodil Pl
Car I rbad CA ‘32009
;I
.
I
Family Trust 01-03-91 Rrunner
7221 Daffodil Pl
Car 1 sbad CA 32QQ3
Jeffrey I? Wenrel
7222 Daffcldil Pl
Car 1 sbad 133
John C Sulton
7220 Daffodil Pl
I-sv l-hqd cfi 92009
.
A/ Al lan J ?Z Barbara Lahmann 7218 Daffodil Pl
Car 1 sbad CA ‘32QQ’~
J Bruce M & Carol Jiwdan
7216 Daffodil Pl
Car 1 sbad OA 32003
Frank & Hermine Carril%o
7214 Daffodil P1
Car 1 sbad CA 92009
Witt W TV Rc~semary Ruwlett
7206 Daf fcldil P1 J
Car 1 shad 1% *32(:,(:,‘3
H F Lavay
7208 Daffodil Pl
Car 1 sbad 124
J
'32009
Alan H & Jo Bursm
7210 Daffodil Pl
Car 1 sbad CA 92009
c
.
J
Larry W & Marta Jones
7212 Daffodil Pl
Car 1 shad 1% ,32(:)Q3
Master Association Aviara 201 1 Palclm J ar Car 1 sbad CA Airport Rd #206
32003
7222
Dallas S & Kathleen Smith 1011 Iris Ct p~,vl rC-4 F.7
.
,
I .
r
David W 84 Vet-lee Freeze J
1023 Iris C:t
Car 1 sbad CA 32003
__-. . ~~_ .__---- ____~_~ --
Robert C & Linda Allen J 3174 Seabury St
Car 1 sbad CA 32008
Robert & Deborah Bass
1019 Iris Ct
Carlsbad CA 92009