Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-01-07; City Council; 11492; Aviara Planning Area 26(S)* , J CH”-. 3F CARLSBAD - AOiENDf -9ILL aB#a TITLE: APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP MTQ. l/7/97 FOR AVIARA PLANNING AREA 26(S) CT 90-36 DEPl.- DEPT. HD. RECOMMENDED ACTION: If Council concurs your action is adopt Resolution No. 984 approving the Negative Declaration and Tentative Map (CT 90-36). ITEM EXPLANATION The City Council at your meeting of December 17, 1991 directed our office to prepare documents approving the Negative Declaration and Tentative Subdivision Map CT 90-36. The resolution is attached. The Council should satisfy itself that the findings and conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission accurately reflect your intentions in the matter. EXHIBITS Resolution No. "7a-l V, ,?ITE IT - DON’T SAY . :! Date l-9 19 92 To File 0 Reply Wanted From lw ONo Reply Necessary Pam (Applicant - Aviara) picked up Resolution 92-l for applicant. No charge. AIGNER FORM NO. !55432 PRlNTED IN USA --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 RESOLUTION NO. 92-l A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (CT 90-36) FOR A 99 LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON 47 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF BATIQUITOS DRIVE AND KESTRAL DRIVE. APPLICANT: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 26(S) CASE NO: CT 90-36 WHEREAS, on October 16, 1991 the Carlsbad Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a proposed Negative Declaration and Tentative Subdivision Map CT 90- 36 for a 99 lot single family residential project and adopted Resolutions Nos. 3304 and 3305 respectively, recommending to the City Council that the Negative Declaration and Tentative Subdivision Map CT 90-36 be approved: and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on December 17, 1991 held a public hearing to consider the recommendations and heard all persons interested in or opposed to CT 90-36; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was issued on June 20, 1991 submitted to the State Clearinghouse for a 30 day review period. All comments received from that review period are fully incorporated into the condition s of approval for the tentative map and other project approvals. These conditions will be reviewed through a monitoring program set up for the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the negative declaration on the above referenced 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 project is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Resolution No. 3304 marked Exhibit A attached hereto are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 3. That the tentative subdivision map of this project (CT 90-36) is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Resolution No. 3305 marked Exhibit B and attached hereto are the findings and conditions of the City Council. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at 'a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 7th day of January 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Larson, Stanton and Nygaard NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: KAREN R. KUNDTZ, , City Clerk t City Clerk (SEAL) 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3309 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDlNG APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR PLANNING AREA 26(S) OF THE AVIARA MASTER PLAN. CASE NAME: AVIAR4 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. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The streets are adequate in size to handIe traffic generated by the proposed project. 3. 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 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2c 21 22 2: 24 2r5 26 27 2e 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: NOES: Vice-Chairman Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Savary, Noble & Hall. None. ABSENT: Chairman Holmes. ABSTAIN: None. -7m-= TOM ERWIN, Vice-Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOkMILtER PLANNING DIRECXOR PC RESO NO. 3304 -2- NBGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The ,458 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 questio Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4445. DATED: JUNE 20, 1991 CASE NO: CT 90-36 w - APPLICANT: AI&IRA PA 26(S) PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 20,199l 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Cartsbad, California 92009-4859 0, (819) 438-l j 61 7 , . ENVIRONMENTAL IMF’ACI’ ASSESSMENT FORM - PART U (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) b CASE NO. CT 90-36 BACKGROUND DATE: June 14. 1991 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CASE NAME: Aviara PA 26(S) APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnershin ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2011 Palomar Airnort Road, Suite 206 Carlsbad. CA 92009 (619) 931-1190 DATi EtA FORM PART I SUBMt’TTED: December 4.1990 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Subdivision Man and grading for eventual construction of 95 single family. detached residential units. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article S, 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 determihadon. l An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is sub&n&l evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a &nif?cant 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-s&” and “YES-in@’ respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUA’ITON. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 7 1 . . . PHYSICAL E%vlRor4lWWr WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. YES YES NO big) (insig) 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 amoFt! of fuel or energy? Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, stmcture or object? x X x x x x x X x x -2- . BIOLOGICAL inLL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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 1 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 baker 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? w - 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? JNVIRONMENT YES big) YES NO (ins@ x x jg YES (insis) x x x NO x -3- c c. I . HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 2s. 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 trafi?c? Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? w - Interfere with emeqency 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 (sigl (insig) : JL x x x x x x x x x x x x x MANDATORY. FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE hVILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECI’LY OR INDtRECI-LY: YES YES NO 33. 34. 35. 36. (sip) (insig) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantiaUy reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life species, ca,use a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia 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 hut&n beings, either directly or indirectly? x x x X -5 I l . XSCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Ihe proposed project involves the Ii&h grading (28,200 cubic yards) of a prevhdy 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 f&h 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 signifkant 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 significant impact as discussed in #9 al&e. 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 effon 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 #12 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 #12 above. Human Environment _ 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 setices 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- , - . )ISGUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont’d 9. ** Although this Tentative Map does not propose any actual residential development, my subsequent dwelling unit construction onsite shall not be permitted until the Batiqtitos Sew- bp Station is upgraded. 0. 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 smou&ing existing and future residential uses. No traffic noise impacts from surrounding streets are anticipated. .l. :2. 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. 13. 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. !4. !5. 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. !6. 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. ‘7. 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 signi&nt. 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 l&&aped 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. , y SIS OF LE : 4 b) d d) d fl 8) 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 enviionmentally 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- DiTERMINATION (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 DECLIUWTION will be prepared. - 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a signifkant 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. L I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date 6-,y-3/ Date cDc:rvo LIST MITIGATING MEASURES IIF APPLICABLE) - - . ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABW -lO- iIPPLKANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES 1 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WtTH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECI-. Date Signature -ll- : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ia 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION ~LUT’XON NO. 3305 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR AVLARA PLANNING AREA 26(S) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE BATIQUITOS DRlVE/KESTRAL DRIVE INTERSECTION. CASE NAME: AvlARA PLANNING AREA 26(S) CASE NO: CT 90-36 WHEREAS, a veriiied application for certain property to wit: Portion of Sections i7, 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: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- Findings: .- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ia 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. The project is consistent with the Ciry’s General Plan and MP-177 since the proposed density of 2.10 du’s/acre is within the density range of 0-4 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. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development permitted thmugh Master Plan 177. 3. The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project, ensured that the linal 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. 4. School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad School District. 5. 6. Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval. A.U necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. This project will not cause any signifxant 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 ia 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 faciliv 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 dismsed in the staff report, the gding for CI’ 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 alI requirements of Title 21, the sub&&ion Ordnance and the State Map Act. AS discussed in the staffreport, the design of CI’ 90-36 is consistent with the intent of Master Plan 177. The project CT 90-36, is in compliance with the underlying Mello I and East Batiquitos Lagoon bcal Coastal Programs. Conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 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. 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. 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. 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- .- .’ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ia 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. This project is aho 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 fulfill the subdivideis 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 &is project will be void. The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, pridr to the approval of the final map as required by Chapter 20.4 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code unless previously excluded by the Parks Agmement 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. All 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 apprcved 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 petmit issuance. The applicant shall annex the Aviara Phning Area 26(S) open space areas into the Aviara Master homeowner% association concux~~~ t with the recordation of the final PC RESO NO. 3305 -4. . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ia 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 f5.m. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. Existjng 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) shall 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 ia 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 (X 90-36, the project applicant or their successor in interest Shd enter i.ntO an agreement with the! City to provide the Avim Mast= Plan's propo~Od Share of the City% total obligation for very low, low and moderate income housing units. This project is approved subject to the condition that a Site Development plan mut be approved by the City, prior to the issuance of any residential building @ts, within this subdivision. The applicant shall establish a homeowner+ 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’s shall include provisions specifying Master homeown~ association or .PA 26(S) neighborhood homeowners association maintenance 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 DirectoJs 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 Erst final 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 airaaft operating Erom McCkllan-Palomar Airport in a manner meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney. The applicant shall post a&raft 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 gmding permit or the xvxordation of the final map, the project applicant shall receive a Coastal Development Permit that approves development that is in substantial confoxmancewith this City approval. The Coastal kmit ddl be required to be submitted to the City Planning Department for review prior to the issuance of a grading permit. prior to 6nal map approval or the issuance of a grading permit for (JT 90-36, the Aviara Phase II Tentative Map (CX 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 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 Lots 1-3, 2627,4345,4748,51, H-55,59-62,74-77,84-89, and 94-99 which are located withincoastalcommissi 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 mstricted area. Conditions: 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. This project is located within the Melio 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 setices 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 Cp 89-37. 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 En&eer. 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 maintaining the private stormdrain facilities within open space bt 49 and within the easement shown on tit 30. Adequate provision for such maintenance shall be included with the Cc&R’s subject to the approval of the City Engineer. PC PESO NO. 3305 -7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 44. 4s. 46. 47. 48. 49. - The applicant shall defend indemnify and hold haxmless the city and its am&, offices, and e~~~pl~yee~ ikom any claim, action or proceeding against the tit-y or ia agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or null an approval of the City, the Planning Commissi on or City E@neer which has been brought against the City within the tie 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 shall 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. 88-1 (Alga Road). Upon the subdivision of land within the district boundaries, the applicant =Y pass *ugh assessment to subsequent owners ox& if the applicant has executed special Assessment District Pass-through Author&&ion 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 a+ 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 awlicant Drier to any subdivision of the land. As required by state law, prior to the recordation of a final 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 asasment 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 grachg permit and complete the grading work in substantial conformance with the approved grading plans. PC PESO NO. 3305 -8. 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 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. - NO grading shah OCCLU 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 -ems l-nay be nqlired. 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 Enal 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 pexmit nqhments of the National Pollutant &charge JZlimhation System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pohtants to an acceptable level prior to dishrge to seasitive areas. Plans for such improvemen ts shall be approved by the City Engheer prior to approval of the hal map or issuance of grading permit, WhiChHZ occux!s Est. UI open space lots (hts 49, SO, and 102) shall be owned in fee and maintained by the Aviara hdaster Association. c0-t with final IMP re~ordation, a~ lots with sight distance codm shall record a “Notice of Restriction on Real propert)r for restricting height of landscaping and structures to 30” above the street. PC RESO NO. 3305 -9. 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 20 , 58. any encroachment through construction into deed restricted or undisturbed oven space for the purpose of grading will require an amendment to the tentative Asp and approval of the California Coastal Commissi OIL A note to this effect shall appear on the final grading plan. 59. Prior to the commencement of any grading activities, the developer shall fence off the deed restricted and undisturbed open space to the satisfaction of the city Engineer and the Planning Director. A note to this effect shall appear on the Enal ld-hz Pl-- 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 fie 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 traff?c 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 Carl&ad Municinal 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 lirst 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 perrn@. The Developer shall pay a San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge which will be collected at issuance of application or meter installation. This project is appnwed upon the express condition that building pennits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district sewing the development determines that adequate water and service is available at the time of application for water sexvice and will continue to be available until time of OCCUpanCy. PC EIESO NO. 3305 -ll- -- 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 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-Chaknan Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Savary, Noble and Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chaixmaq Holmes. ABSTAIN: None. TOM ERWIN, Vice-Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION Al-l-EST: I . . . MICHAEL J. HOtZMItiiR PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3305 -12- APPLJCwI-ION COMPLETE DATE: April 25. 1991 STIFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1991 & 0 2 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECrz CX 90-36 - AVL4R.A PLANNTN G 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. PROJECI’ DESCRlPTION 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 AWARA PLA, ..dING AREA 26 Om0~~~16,1991 PAGE2 This project proposes no encroachment into the previously Coastal Commission deed restricted open space lots approved through the Aviara Phase 11 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 AviaraGolf 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. Ill. ANALYSIS Planninn Issues 1. Does the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map satisfy all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and the State Map Act? 2. Is the design of the proposed subdivision consistent with the intent of Master Plan 177? 3. Does the proposed project grading substantially comply with the mass grading approved through the Aviara Phase II Master Tentative, Map (CT 89-37)? 4. Is the proposed project in compliance with the Mello I and East Batiquitos Lagoon Local Coastal Programs? 5. 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. Cl- 90-36 AVIARA PLPu..dtNG 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 comer 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 A’viara 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, ail 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 seme the project. The impact on public facilities created by the proposed project, and compliance with adopted performance standards are summarized below: FACILITY I IMPACT I CoMPLrANcEm~ANDARD Citv Administration 1 366.94 SF YES Library I 195.82 SF I YES Waste Water I 99 EDU I YES Parks Drainage Circulation Fire .733 Acres N/A 990 ADT Station #2 & #4 Schools -r N/A I YES Sewer Collection Svstem I 99 EDU I YES Water Distribution System 2178 GPD YES Own Space 1 N/A I YES CT 90-36 AVMRA PLAhrdNG AREA 26 OCTOBER 16, 1991 PAGE 4 Iv. ENvKRoNMFNTALREv[Ew 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 Form 6. Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form 7. Exhibits “A” - “I”, dated September 14, 1991. CDD:lh:vd:lh sepwmber 11,1991 - @lOTICE OF COUPLETION Rail to: State Clcaringkousc, 1400 Tmth eet, RR. 121, Sucrn*nto, CA 95814 - 916/Cs Al5 Projrt Title: Avirrr PA 26(S) j,f'"" Led Agwy: Citv of Carl&ad ccritut Person: Chris OeCerbo Street Address: 207s Las PaLmR OriVe Phone: (619) 438-1161. ext. ~6s City: Carlsbd Zip: 92009 Comty: -San Oieeo -.--..._.____---__-..-------.---------------.----------------------------...----------------.-----------------------------..--- PIQIECI LOCATIOII: coulty: San Oieao City/Nearest Cwity: Carlsbad Cross Streets: SatiGlitos Orivc/Kestral Drive Total Acres: 45-8 Assessor’s Parcel No. 214-170-51 ZlS-040-23 216-111-M Section: --- hp. --- Range: --- B8se: --- Uithin 2 Miles: State Wry #: 1-S Uaterwys: Datiaritos Lagoon Airports: Palamr Railways: --- Schools: Carl&d _._.__.__...--1----.-----.-------------.---------.----...---..---.-------.---------...-.---------.--------.-------.----.--------- -TYPE CEm: NW = Early Cons - Supphent/S~cquant MM: No1 - EIR (Prior SCH MO.) 1 EA OTIER: - Joint Oocunmt X Meg Dee - Other -final oocurmt - Draft EIS - Other - Draft EIR - COW . .._...__.__.-_._____-------I-------------..---.--------.--.-...----------------.----------.---------------.-.-.------------..----. LOEAL mxa fl# General Plm Update Specific~Plm General Plan Amarbent z Master Plan Rezone = Prezone - Amexation -Radevelopmt General Plan Element -Plamed unit Development Use Permit X Land Division (SuMivision, - Coastal Permit Canmmity Plan - Site Plan - Other Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) -.________.____-__._--------------.--.-.--.----..----.---.----------------.-----------.------...-----.--------.----.----...--.-- DEW%- TYPE X Residantial: Units 95 Acres 45.8 Uater Facilities: Type MGO - Office: Sqr Ft. Acres .- Enploy~s ,- E lransportaticm Type Cwrcial: Sq. Ft. Acres = Inbstrial: - EmpW-s - Wining: -- Power: Mineral Sq. Ft. Acres -. Elnplw-8 ,-, - Uaste Treatmt: Type Uatts - Ebcational Type - Recreational - Hazardous Uoste: = Other: Type L Aesthetic/Visual Flood Plain/Flooding Schools/Universities - Uater Ouelity Agricultural Land - Air Owlity - Forest Land/Fire Hazard X Geologic/Seismic 1 Septic System - Uater Sqaply/ 7 Archaeological/Historical Seuer Capacity Grand Uater Minerals x Coestrl zom X Noise x Soil Erosion/CanpKtion/Crading X UetlaMRiperian 7 Uildlife Orainage/Akorption z Econaic/Jab - Population/Homing Balance - Solid Uaste Toxic/RazarQu - Public Services/Facilities y Traffic/Circulation -Grwth Ir&cing = Recreation/Parks X Vcgetatim WLan&se - Fiscal -Crnulative Effect - Other ____._._.___-.__-_._.--..--.-..---.-----..-*------....---.---.--------..---------...-...-..-----.....-..--------------- ------mm- PfuabtLrd uwmnirm/-lPlm~ Vacant nd grad&P-C (Plamed Carrnity)/RLW-M ..___--__-.__.I-_.-----------..----.-----.-.---------.----------------..--.-------.---.--.--.--....-.------.-.--.-...--.----.--- Project Description : Tentative Tract Map to create 95 minim 7,500 rqrure foot singLe family residentirl lots md three aprn spare lots. lK3lE: Clearinghouse uiL1 assign identifiertim nukrs for all ncu projects. If a SCM nubr already exists for a project (e.g. frm a Notice of Preperation or previous drrft docucrt) please fill it in. Revised October 1989 COC:rvo .- . . 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 signifkant 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 questio Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4445. DATED: JUNE 20, 1991 CASE NO: Cl’ 90-36 APPLICANT: AVIARA PA 26(S) PUBLtSH DATE: JUNE 20,199l 2075 Las Palmas Drive l Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (819) 438-l 161 - .- . EbMRONMENTAL IMF'ACX' ASSE!SSME.NT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNtNG DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 90-36 DATE: June 14.1991 ACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Aviara PA 26(S) 2. APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnershin 3. 4. 5. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2011 Palomar Airnort Road. Suite 206 Carlsbad. CA 92009 (619) 931-l 190 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 4.1990 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Subdivision Man and grading for eventual construction of 95 single familv. detached residential units. NWRONMENTAL IMPACTS ,TATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an nvironmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. ‘he Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and rovides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental npact 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 signii?cant 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-s&” and “YES-insig” respectively. \ discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under XSCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing litigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. .- PHYSICAL ENvIRoNMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECXLY 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 p 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 big1 YES NO (inSi@ x x x x x x x x x x x -2- - . . BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT . . ‘ILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECI’LY: E; YES (i&g) > e. 3. +. 5. 5. 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 baker 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 ILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECX’LYz * . Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 3. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? YES (in.@ NO x x x x x NO x x -3- . . 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 (sia) (insig) x x x x x x x x x x x 4- .- , . . MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE VU-THE PROPOSAL DIRFXXLY OR INDIRECXLY: YES YES ;3. n4. 5. :6. 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 I 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 emironmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects ,on human beings, either directly or indirectly? NO x x x x -5- - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The-proposed project involves the finish grading (28,200 cubic yards) of a pr&oudy 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-W. 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- - HS~bSSION OF ENWRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont’d 7. 3. 9. 0. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. l -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 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 convenion 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 #12 above. iuman Environment 7. 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. 8. 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- ~CUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont’d 19. . Although this Tentative Map does not propose any actual residential &v&pm&, my subsequent dwelling unit construction onsite shall not be permitted until the Batiq&os Sewer Pump Station k 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 &sting 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 wilI not involve a signiticant 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 signi&ntly 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 11 mass grading (which includes this site) will be fully landscaped consistent with approved plans. Other-G&e, 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- \NA&IS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a> bl cl d) d f) 8) 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- . D~ETERMLNATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) s On the basis of this initial evaluation: *. x I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATm DECLARATION will be prepared. - 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have’s 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 “’ n I P. I i\ C 1 1 - ty--l1 Date 6-w?/ Date LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE’L 4TTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -lO- PPLIbWT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES ‘i-HIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECI’. Date Signature -ll- l . BACKGROUND DATA SHEET - em CASE NO.: CT 90-36 ** CASE NAME: AVLARA PA 26(S) APPLICANT: AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES REQUEST AND LOCATION: Tentative Tract Man to create 99 minimum 7500 SF Single Familv Residential Lots and 3 Onen Space 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 TOWTIS~~D 12 South, ‘Range 4 West San Bernardino Meridian. Citv of Carlsbad. Countv of San Dieno. APN: 214-170-51 / 215-040-23 / 216-111-08 (Assessor’s 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) Zoning Land USC Site PC VACANT/GRADED North PC VACANT/GRADED (PA-26N) south PC VACANT/GRADED (PA-27) 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 . - +c ’ , . - PA 26 South . . . DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPUCAurS STATEMEHT OF oIscLosuRE OF CEmAtN OWN-P IemRmm ON ML APPucAnoNs wncn WILL REOUIAE OlSCAEnONARY ACTION ON TH,E PlsRt OF Tl4E Crry COUNCIL OR ANY AWOWED BOARO. COMMISSION OR COMM~E (Please Print) The following information must be disclosed: 1. Amkant List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial intorest in the application, Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnershio 2011 Palomar Airport Rd., 1206 Carlsbad, CA 92009 2. Owner -- -. . _ List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. carnaratinn . 450 Newort CeOfer Drive, Su ite 304 Newport Beach. CA 92660 Suite 130 Anaheim, CA 92808 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) abovo b a corporation or putnenhip, list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the sharer 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 porson idoMed pursuant to (1) w(2) above b 8 non-proih orgmbtion of a trust, list tile names ant addrossrs of any person sating as ofkor or director of the nonprofft organization or as trustee or beneficiq of the trust. N/A Discloruro St8twnmt fOVW) Page 2 5. Have you had more than s2SCl worth of business transacted with CommissionsLCommitt@@s and Council within the past hvrh~ months? Yes - No X tf yes, pkuo indlcato parson(s) any mmber of City staff, 80~: Pwon io ddncd Y: ‘A- indiid. firm. cooutnofahim jMtvM. uwir*u 00kJ ahb. fmtund oq&aUoe. cofworw~on. aaatll0. m% rocow~. ynaic~:o, hir md y ottw coU*. srty uld C8Uy. Uy -tie ~ QI w ps(iaJ urwki#rc 01 any ofnar group or combindon ecwq u l w*’ additional pagas aa nm%safy.) Signature oM&&L ” 11’30’go ‘\‘go Aviara Land Associates Limited Aviara Land-Associates Limited . Partnership Partnership Print of rypa nun0 of ownu Pfilxorryponamoafapplii By:“’ -. D. L. Clemens - By:, -D. L. Clemens Vice President Vice President i . . . . . . - . . 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 = 233 Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A Identify Drainage Basin = N/A (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 990 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 2&4 Open Space: Acreage Provided - N/A Schools: 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 a.llowance. c CITYOPCARSBAJI .* GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM . . LOCAL FAQLITIFS IMpAcls ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTI-IY FILE NAME AND NO.: AVLARA PA 26(S) - CT 90-36 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 19 GENERAL PLAN: RLM 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 QUANTITV OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 47 AC/99 DU’S MINUTES October 16, 1991 PLANNING CCPS4ISSION Page 9 He ha8 concern8 with 80s~ condominium bocauao l otbuk8 and stroot sizoa arm le.8 than and curiod to adopt SDP 91-02, and CP 91-02 Cocmniaaionu Schlehuber returnad to the room. 2) CT 90-36 - AVIARY PLANING 26(Sl - Roquoat for a Tentative Tract Hap to include 99 8inglo fhmily rimidential lots (minimum 7500 8.f.) and thru open 8pacm lot8 on a 47 acrm 8ito locatmd at the northmamt cornor of the intmr8oction of Batiquito8 Drive and Kemtrml Drive, in Local F&cilitima naaagamant Zone 19. For the record, Vic.-Chairman Erwin 8tatad that he had recaived a letter from Paul J. Klukam, Aviua, dated October 10, 1991 which will be on file with the minutom in thm Planning Dopartmant. Chri8 DeCerbo, 'Senior Planner, reviewed tha background of the reguest and stated that the proposad project i8 l requut for a Tentative Map for Planning Arma 26 South, of the Aviua naster Plan. Planning Area 26 South ir located at the northeast corna of the intmrsmction of Batiquito8 Drive and Koatral Drive. Thm projact aitm is 8urrounded by future mingle family residential to the north, south, and weat, and the Avim Golf Course to the east. The Tentative Up include8 99 singlo family rmsidontial lots (7500 l .f.) and three own rpaco lots (21.82 8cres) over the 47 acre planning u8a. Thm opsn space lots are vogetatod with coastal sag0 8crub and arm under dmed re8triction to tha California Coartal Cownis8Lon. The projoct’m donmity f8 2.1 du/ac which i8 ~011 within the maximum pmrmittmd 8ito dmnaity of 2.35. The propoaod project grading in 600 cubic yard8 per acre to ba balancmd onmitm. Thi8 minor amount of grading is nu~88ary to create internal 8troatm and finirhad residential l&8. The grading mubstantially complio8 with the grading already &pproved through the Aviara Pha8o II blaster Tentative Map, of which thim 8ubdiviaion f8 a part. In that this project is not proposing any l tructures at this timm, a futuro sits dovolopmnt pl&n shall bm rmquirmd to k procmmamd by the Planning Comnioafon and City Council prior to any reaidonthl dovelopwnt. Staff analy8im of thm prajut focused oa tha project's compliance with all devalopnant l taaduda and rmquirmmmntm of,tho Aviara Uartu Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdfvf8fon Ordinance, and tha St&m Uap Act. Thm projmct im conmi8tmnt with the LRB Zone 19, the underlying Ho110 I, and the Past Batiquitoo Local Coa8tal Program. The projsct grading compliom with the grading approved through the Aviara Pharm If Master Tmtatfvm Map. Tharaform, rtaff recommnds approval. Ur. DoCorbo commnted on the letter dated October 10, 1991 from the Aviua Land Aaaociates. The lottor addrm88os Condition 132 of Resolution No. 3305. The condition :win [all Ioble iavary ichlehubar ichramm -_ - MINUTES . October 16, 1991 PLANNING COWUSSION Pa08 6 l pmcifiem that no retaining wallm greatmr than 2' within the fsont or l ido yard setback shall bm pormittod or approved on any mubmoquent mite davelopamt plan to be procammed on thia property. The applicant ham reqummtod that the condition br revimad to not allow any retaining walls unlmmm l pacifically approved by the Planning Conuaimmion during the mubmequant mite dmvmlopment raviaw. The 1ott.r im corrmct in that the prLnrry purpomm for placing this condition on the tantative map is to alert future merchant builders ofgthim property that tha umo of retaining walls for purpomem of incraaming the davalopablm arma of lot8 in the noighborhood im dimcouragod. Staff'm justification for this condition im that the majority of the lot8 have a minimum width of 60'. In order to provide viowm from theme lotm, thay have been l teppod 3-5' between adjacent lotm. An l lavation difference of 5’ batwnn lot8 would roduco the pad area by 10' if thorm is a 2:l 810~ betwnn lotm. In addition, a mtructurm dovoloped on a lot with thim l lopm would ba required to ba mot back 5' from the l lopo tom for drainago purpomom mm ~011 mm meat tha minimum 6' l ido yard metbackm on the other midm of the lot. This lomvmm only 39' of the lot left for the l tructure. By allowing a 2' retaining wall which could lm notched into the manufactured l lopo, it would l nablo a l tructurm of 42' wide. Tha typical Aviara homa is 40'. Tha benofitm of limiting retaining wall8 to 2' would be that the l troetmcapo would bo enhanced and the height of the wall would not ba 88 vimible. In addition, it could more l amily b landmcapod with ground covu. The comtm of deferring thim decfmion on retaining walls until a mite dovolopaent plan is procommad im that a future merchant buildar may purchamo the propmrty with unreamonablo l xpoctationm rmgarding the l izo of houra the lotm will accoaanodate. This would noc~mmitato l taff having to rmnogotiate the problra. Another alternative would br to rademignthe project and widen the lot8 beyond the 60' width. VLco-Chairman Lwin oponod the public tosthony and immuod thm invitation to l pmak. Larry Clanonm, Hillman Proportiom, 2011 Paloamr Airport Road, Carlabad, l ddrommod the Coumhmmfon and l tatod that ho im concerned about the ranoval of rataining wallm higher than 2 ft. from Planning Area 26(S). Ee feelm it will mat a prmcodent throughout the Aviara project. lie would like the option for the Planning Corsnimmion to approve a highor wall if a builder dmmiram it. Hillman Proputfn im not the builder. I%. fool. the haight of the wall l hould b. b&w-n the buildor and the Planning Comraimmion. He im mora concunod about the quality of thm ffnimhed product and doam not want to hinder thm architectural dosign by prohibiting & wall that is highor than 2'. Mr. Clamanm balimvem that the approval or dimapproval of a retaining or decoration wall mhould be donm in conjunction with tha product demign. HO roquomtad tha Cofmhmmion'm conmidaration. . Commimmionor Schlohubor inquirmd if Mr. Clmwnm found anything objectionable in Hr. DoCarbolm cowmntm. Ho replied that ona of the coammnta rafarrmd to putting the ramtrictfon on at thim point in order to protect the mtroot8cape. Since this im only thm engineering phame, there im no strwtmcap to protect. Mr. Clamen retard to Planning Ar8a 8 whore a 40' h- i8 located on a 6,000 l .f. lot. The homm ham been very ~011 racaivod and the l treetrcqm is very beautiful. The proportions in Planning Uaa 8 arm vary l imilar to Planning Area 26(S). Hi8 major -. MINUTES October 16, 1991 PLANNING COEQIISSION r Page 7 COMMISSIONERS concern im that l ometime8 thorn are l p8cial circummtancmm which may roquirm a higher wall. Hm fool8 that romtrictionm r8garding wall8 and mtreot8cap8 should k mado at thm tinn of the sit0 demign because then you have a visual product to work with. Conmim8ionor Schramm inquir8d if Mr. Clawnm would conmidmr dropping four units to allow lot footage. He roplfod that ho could not make that decision at thim point bocaumm the product ham not yet boon dmmignul. It l hould bm lmft up to the Planning Commimmion and the dovolopor. Conxnim8ionor Schrarma inquired if wm go with the condition a8 it im written, can the 2' wall b8 changed later when we l ao a product design. Ron Ball, Amrirtant City Attorney, roplied that if this condition bmcowr a not8 on the final map, it cannot be changed without an aamndamnt to the final map. Nonrially what ia dono is to record a notice of ismuanca of permit. The bufldor would bo taking it l ubjoct to all of tha condition8 that are l pprov8d tonight. Hr. Ball f8olm it im unurual and would bm difficult to bind future Planning Commi88ionm. The 2' wall can b8 approved tonight but him r8coammndation would bo to loavo the noto off thm final map. It would l fmply ba l mattor of roviming Condition 132 to dmlmto thm rmfarence to the note on the final map am wall a8 thm portion of the wntanco which states that no l ubm8quent mite devolopumnt plan procemmed on this proparty., Condition #32 would thmn raada "...Thim project im approved subject to the condition that no retaining wall8 greater than 2 fnt in height within the front or l idmyard metback area8 shall b8 pormittad." Vice-Chairman Brwfn inquired if Mr. Hillman i8 the only per8on who owns in l xceam of 10%. Mr. Clenm repli8d that was correct. Paul Rlukam, Plannor for Hill- Propertio8,.2011 Pal- Airport Road, Car18bad, addremmed the Couanimrion and at&tad that ho i8 very concerned about the procodont bainq rot. The Maotar Plan was planned as a Moditorrurom hilloLd coaxounity and thim l nvi8ionm retaining w&118. Ii0 im concarnad that the hou8e mire is nw bming dictated in Aviara and, to hi8 knowl8dge , thim ham novor kforo beon done in Carlabad. Aviara i8 not a PUDj it i8 a l tandard l ubdivi8ion, and it me&m all of thm r8quirapmtm. 80 i8 concornod that thio requirmnont i8 king dictated in the l nginurinq ph4ma. ?h fulm it i.8 backward8 planning. CauaimsLonu Schlmhuber inquirul if staff planm to put thi8 condition on all future plan8. Chri8 DoCorbo, Senior Planner, replied that Aviara has had the luxury of processing a mamtar grading plan and tmtativm amp which show8 the ma88 grading am ~011 a8 the finimh gradinq. Staff will not recoiva a picture of the final projmct until the vary and. 80 f8ol8 that the incr8mentAl approach which Aviara Lm umfng tend8 to l oda tha quality that wa8 originally l nvimionod. Thoraforo, staff would probably put thf8 condition on all proj8cts with l imilar lot conditionr. Gary Waynm, Aarimtant Planning Dir8ctor. c-ntmd th8t Area 26(S) may k m-hat unique but at&if ham al80 watchad thim happen gr8dually to the other hillride &ream in the city. It tmndm to era&to a problem on midm yard l atbackm and fence heights becaumo you end up with a 5' wall and a 6' fanco on top of it. Ho doo8 not fool this condition is a8 much a precedent am it im a notfco to the devolopar to carefully gage tha stopping down on fill l lopma. MINUTES r. .-- . October 16, 1991 PLANWING CDHMISSION Page a Cormnimsionor HA11 inquirmd whoto a 5' wall and a 6’ fenc8 ham been placed in Aviara. Hr. Wayno repli8d that this was donm in the Republic dovolopnent. Paul Klukam continued his cormnnts and l tatod that he would like to requemt a change to Condition #40 to add the words "Lot 5" on line 2 after CT 89-37 and baforo the word l hall. Ha beliovom that this h&S been approved by the City Engineer. As far as the Republic devmlopmnt goes, Mr. Klukas stated that Republic came in aftmr the PUD/SLte Development Plan process had been complot8d. 80 felt that was wrong. The Planning Co&imsion had already approved the project when Republic triad to make thmir Change8 bmcaumo thingm wouldn't fit. The change Mr. XlukA8 is recoiunending to Condition #32 of tonight'8 project should solve that problem becaume it would roquiro retaining walls to bo Shown on the Site Dovelopmnt Plan. There being no other pmrsonm demiring to address the Commim8fon on this topic, Vice-Chairman Bruin declared the public tomtimony closed and Opened the item for di8CU88fOn among the Commimsion momberm. Connnissioner Schlohuber requested staff to c-nt on Mr. KhkAS’ cowent8 regarding Republic. Robert Green, Principal Planner, replied that the Republic problem is what staff is attempting to avoid with tha wording in Condition (32. Anyone purchaming a site im fully awarm up front what they are faced with. Staff dOO#n’t want to be put in the position of having to renogotiato the matter with the builder. If Aviara doesn't plan to put up retaining walls higher than 2' there should be no problem with the wording of the condition. This particular subdivfmion is very tight and l t&ff is very concerned that there will be probl8ms in the future. Commissioner Schlehuber reiterated Mr. Klukas' recowended wording which states that "...no retaining wallm within the front or sideyard Setb&CkS Shall be permitted Unle88 specifically approved by the Planning Comnismion during the Site Developnent P18n review.w Mr. Grean replied th8t the connaent **unlearn sp8cifically approved by the Planning Comnim8ion1' opens up the option for a builder to propose a retaining wall. Co8uii88ionor Schlohuber feels that Mr. Klukam' ret-ndation is more strict beCaU80 it #t&t08 that "no retaining walls... shall be permitted...". ColmiSSiOner Hall UnderStAndS Staff'8 thinking abOUt putting futurm buildmrs on notice. However, he would prefer wording which would allow the Planning Commim8ion to approve a retaining wall at l later date. Ron Ball, Am818tant City Attorney, stated th8tr in his opinion, "no wells unlams l p#oved by tha Planninq Con88imsion" would be morm restrictive than allowing a 2' retaining wall. Vice-Cheinnan Brwin inquired if It- #19 on page 8 of the BIR 48808~nt should be Stated l 8 e condition. Chris DeCerbo, Senior Planner, replied that Condition #4 of Resolution No. 3305 says the same thing. The final map cannot be approved until thm City Council can find th8t adequate l ower SeNiCO i8 available. The applicant indicated that'he is aware of this condition regarding sewer l orvice. MINUTES October 16, 1991 PLANNING COMISSION Page 9 Vice-Chainaan Erwin inquired if adding Lot t5 to Condition #40 im acceptable to mtaff. Bob Wojcik, Principal tngineer, replied that it i8 acceptable to Engineering. Ron Ball, A@#i@t&nt City Attorney, replied that it is accept&ble to him. Vice-Chairman Erwin Asked staff to rempond to the dimcumm~On regarding the wording of Condition 132. Robert Green, Principal Planner, replied that staff would like the most restrictive wording pomsible. Ron Ball, A8mi8tAnt City 'Attorney, recomwnded that Condition #32 road am follwmr "This project currently mhOw8 no retaining w&118. The project is approved Subject to the condition that no retaining walls shall be permitted unless l pacifically approved by the Planning Commims~on as part of the Site Develo~nt Plan prOCe88~" Coarnimmioner Schl'ehuber vould prefer the original staff recommendation which read8 "...no ret4ining walls greater than 2' in height within the front or sideyard setback aream shall be permitted.*1 He would like a period &ftor the word "permitted" and the verbiage pamt th&t Stricken. Vice-Ch&irm&n Erwin would prefer the wording which #t&t88 that no ret&ining walls l hall be permitted without l pprov&l. He can also accept the change to Condition 140 as 8uggemted by Mr. Klukas. Comaim8ioner Schram inquired which version of Condition (32 would be the most flexible for staff. Hr. Green mtated th&t staff vould prefer to remtrict retaining walls completely, however they could accept either vsr#Lon. The intent im to regulate the rmt&ining walls. Carmi88ionor Noble can agree with both ugument8. He believo8 that no ret&ining wallm would probably be the best vermion bmc&ume the l pplic&nt is tram to requast wh&t he wAnta at & l&ter d&ta. Hr. 8&11 8Ugg88t8d that the CO8sni88ion might want to consider l epu&ting out Condition #32 &nd nuking two mot ions. Vice-Ch&irm&n trwin made & motion to &ccmpt Condition #32 a8 fOllOU8l nThi8 project currently 8hOWS n0 r8tAining Wa118. Tha project is Approved l ubject to the condition that no retaining v&l18 within the front or 8idey&rd setback areas #h&i1 be penaitted unlomm l pacifically approved by the Pl&nning CoQlPim8ion &a p&rt of the Site Developent Plan proc*** . ” The motion died for lack of & second. HOtiOn Y&S duly made, SeCOnded, and CUti8d to aCCOpt Condition #32 as follower **This project currently #how8 no ret&ining w&118. The project is approved subject to.the condition th&t no ret&ining walls gruter than 2' in height within the front or l idey&rd setb&ck urn88 l h&n be permitted." Uotion.was duly mado, mAonded, and curled to adopt Pl&nning ~iS#iOn Re*01ut10n No. 3304 approving the Negative Decl&r&tfon issued by the Planning Director and adopt Planning ConxnL88Lon Re8olution No. 3305 approving CT 90-36, based on the finding8 and subject to thm condition8 cont&ined therain, with the amendment to Condition t32 as previously approved and an amendment to add Lot 5 to the vording of Condition #40. Erwin H&l1 Noble savuy Schlehukr schrmim Erwin H&l1 Noble Savary Schlehuber Schrurm