HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-02-07; City Council; 13014; Aldea IICIT- OF CARLSBAD - If3 AGEN-3 BILL +f
ALDEA II - MP 177(M)/CT 94-03/PUD 94-02
I RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT City Council Resolution No. 9 ? - 3 / APPROVING the
Negative Declaration, MP 177(M), CT 94-03, and PUD 94-02.
ITEM EXPLANATION
The proposed project is a nine-lot, fifty-four unit residential townhome development in Planning
Area 15 of the Aviara Master Plan. Planning Area 15 is located on the South side of Alga Road
and is adjacent to the golf course along a large portion of its perimeter. The proposed project
design meets or exceeds all requirements of the city’s Planned Unit Development ordinance.
The project includes both common (swimming pool) and private (yards) recreation areas. In
addition, the design includes twice the required guest parking spaces.
The Minor Master Plan Amendment is required in order to adjust for an unintended reduction
in the maximum allowed building height for the planning area. The reduction occurred as a
result of a change in the way the City measures building height. Despite this reduction, all of
the proposed structures are well within the maximum height allowed by the Master Plan.
The project was heard by the Planning Commission on December 21, 1994. The Planning
Commission suggested a change to Planning Condition No. 16 of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3735 to require roll-up type automatic garage door openers on all units and
added Planning Condition No. 29 to require that the developer evaluate the possibility of
expanding the size of the swimming pool to 75 feet along one edge. With these two changes,
the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. The two changes have been
incorporated into the attached Planning Commission Resolutions.
I ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration for the proposed project on October 1,
1994. The environmental review included analysis of a proposed trade-off of open space areas
which is incorporated in the project. The proposed open space area (0.16 acre) is
approximately twice the size of the current open space area (0.07 acre), and is also of equal or
better quality than the current area.
I
FISCAL IMPACT
All public facilities required to serve the additional dwelling units, church/day care uses and the
community park will be constructed prior to or concurrent with development as mandated by
the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 19. Since these improvements will be
constructed by the developer, no negative fiscal impact will be incurred by the City.
Development of the area will increase land values thus creating a positive fiscal impact in the
form of increased property tax revenues.
I WHIBITS
1. City Council Resolution No. 9 s-3/
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolution No’s. 3734, 3735 and 3736
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 21, 1994
5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 21, 1994.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
~ RESOLUTION NO. 95-31
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, MINOR MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT,
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR A NINE-LOT, FIFTY-FOUR UNIT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE AVIARA MASTER
PLAN.
CASE NAME: ALDEA II
CASE NO: MP-177(M)/CT 94-03/PUD 94-02
I WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on December 21, 1994, hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider a Negative Declaration, Minor
mendment to the Aviara Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map, and Planned Unit Development;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the ’ 7th day of
IL3 1995, held a duly advertised public hearing to consider said Negative Declaration,
14 ‘
inor Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and Planned Unit Development and at
at time received the recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all persons interested
16
17 or opposed to MP-177(M)/CI’ 94-03/PUD 94-02; and
18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the
19 City of Carlsbad as follows:
20 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council APPROVES City Council Resolution No. 95-3 1 ,
d that the fmdings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning
23
24 mmission Resolution Nos. 3734, 3735, and 3736 on file in the Planning Department and
25 La de a part hereof by reference are the findings and conditions of the City Council except as
26 edified below.
27 ondition:
L
28 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3735, Condition No. 16 shall be modified to read:
“Automatic garage door openers and roll-up type garage doors shall be required on
h
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
garages for Units 1-12, 30-37, and 41-54. Automatic door openers and roll-up type
garage doors may be installed on the other units at the developers discretion.”
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
until of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the
7th day of FEBRUARY , 1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
:
T-TEST:
erk
[SEAL)
-2-
ARPORT
I.... I . . . . r
\
\
City of lhkbd
ALDEA II - AVIARA P.A. 15 I MP 177(M)/CT 94-03/ PUD 94-02 4 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
EXk6lT3 ’
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3734 /
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE I
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING ~
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A NINE I /
LOT/FIFTY-FOUR UNIT MINOR MASTER PLAN I
AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED
UNlT DEVELOPMENT.
CASE NAME: ALDEA II
CASE NO: MP 1771MKT 94-03/PUD 94-02
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of December, 1994,
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, ex amining 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.
W 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 October 1,1994, and “PIT’, dated December 13,
1994, revised, 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. I
2. Based on the information contained in the initial study, it has been determined that this :
is a subsequent project within the scope of the project covered by MEIR 93-01, and that ’
the subsequent project will have no additional significant effect on the environment which
was not identified already in the MEIR, and that no new or additional mitigation measures
or alternatives are required. All feasible mitigation measures required by MEIR 93-01
have been incorporated into or imposed by conditions on this project.
3. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis.
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4.
5.
The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the propos+ project.
There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly
impacted by this project.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of &l&ad, California, held on the 21st day of December, 1994, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Savary; Commissioners Welshons, Noble, Erwin,
Compas, Nielsen, and Monroy.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
I
I
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION I
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 3734 -2-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Within the Aviara Master Plan Area at the southern
end of Black Rail Court in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 54-unit townhome Planned Unit Development with
guard-gated entry and recreation area.
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, 2035 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public
are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of
date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning
Department at (619) 438-l 161, extension 4471.
DATED: OCTOBER 1, 1994
CASE NO: CT 94-03/PUD 94-02
MICHAEL JXOLZMLLER
Planning Director
CASE NAME: ALDEA II
PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1994
EB:vd
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 - (619) 436-l 161 ta
ONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 94-03/PUD 94-02
DATE:
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Aldea II - .~~ 94-03/PUD 94-02 . . . . . .
2. APPLICANT: D. R. Horton, Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 10179 Huennekens St. Suite 110
San Diego. CA 92121 (6191452-3700
4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 20.1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 54unit townhome Planned Unit Develonment with guard-nated entrv
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and. provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of
its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, “NO” will be checked to indicate
this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project
may cause a sianificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however,
if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insignificant. These findings are
shown in the checklist under the headings “YES-sig” and “YESinsig” respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the .end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
-
. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
W hi&
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
2. Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
6. Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
7. Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontologkal or historical site,
structure or object?
x -
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
-2-
.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
.
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Erect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
YES YES
b$ (illSi&
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services?
NO
x
x
X
x
x
NO
x
x
-3-
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES
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 tragic?
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 . NO
W&l
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
L
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES
W
33. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory.
34. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
35. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively con-
siderable” means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
NO
x
x
x
x
-5-
_-
.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
hoiect Description:
The proposed project is a 54unit townhome Planned Unit Development with guard-gated entry and recreation area.
The total planning area (Planning Area 15) is a 23.3-acre site. The developed area will be approximately 7.09 acres.
The project involves finish grading only. (The area was mass graded previously in accordance with the approved
Aviara Master Plan.) The project area is a prominent site which slopes generally downward from the northeast area
to the southwest. The site is surrounded by the Aviara Golf Course on the west, east and south, and by Alga Road
(a major arterial roadway) on the north. The proposed residential product will consist of attached single-family units
(2 to 4 units per cluster).
Phvsical Environment:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The proposed project will not result in unstable earth conditions or exposure to geologic hazards. The mass
grading for the site was done in compliance with the approved Tentative Map for the Master Plan area.
Finish grading proposed is also consistent with the approved Master Plan map.
There will be no appreciable change in topography as a result of the proposed development. The finish
grading associated with the project will be balanced on the site (23,460 cy of cut and 23,400 cy of fill). The
site was previously mass graded in compliance with the approved Master Plan. The proposed finish grading
is also consistent with the approved Master Plan. The site does not contain any unique physical features.
The proposed project will not result in or be affected by erosion of soils on or off the site. The developer will
be required to implement erosion control methods as required by the City Engineering Department.
No changes to beach sands or other water bodies will result. There are no water bodies on or closely adjacent
to the site.
Dust from finish grading activities will be of a short-term nature and will be controlled by watering. The
development of residential units on the site will contribute incrementally to an increase in local and regional
air pollution. However, this increase was anticipated in the City’s General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and the
related General Plan Master EIR (EIR 93-01). The MEIR concluded that development of the City consistent with the Generai plan would result in u nave idable significant impacts to air quality, and a ~ ~~~ .;:,:“:.~.:.~.~.:.~‘.‘:.:,!,:.:.~. of overriding considerations was adopted.
The project will not result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature. The
proposed project will provide adequate distances between structures to allow for air circulation and sunlight.
There are no water bodies which flow over or near the site, and the project is required to provide
infrastructure to accommodate all anticipated stormwater runoff. Therefore, there will be no potentially
significant impacts.
The project will not adversely affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water, or public water
supply. The project will provide adequate facilities to handle any increased runoff resulting from development
of the site.
-6-
9. The subject site contains no natural resources.
io. The project will not require substantial amounts of fuel or energy. Energy needed for construction will be a
short-term need. The need for energy for the resulting residential units will be incremental and has been
anticipated by the City’s General Plan (GPA 9401) and the related General Plan Master EIR (EIR 93-01).
11. All mitigation for archaeological, paleontological, and historic sites required by the Master Plan EIR has been
done. This planning area contained no identified sites.
Bioloaical Environment:
12. The subject site is a previously graded pad on a terrace. There are up-slopes to the east and down-slopes to
the north and west of the site. These slopes contain native and non-native vegetation. Portions of these areas
were identified as Coastal Resource area in the original EIR (EIR 83-2) prepared for the Master Plan. This
resource area is, in turn, surrounded by a golf course. Development of the proposed units may result in some
required thinning of portions of this resource area for purposes of creating an adequate fire suppression zone.
This encroachment would affect approximately 2.5 acres of native vegetation. However, additional biological
analyses conducted in August, 1994, state that “... there is little to no chance that any state or federally listed
rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal utilizes the site in a viable manner (i.e., to reproduce or
establish a territory.” The analysis concludes that, “It is possible that the fuel management zone would not
result in a h of coastal sage scrub, but the quality of the coastal sage scrub in these zones would be
diminished”. Although the necessary fire suppression requirements may result in encroachment into habitat
area, such encroachment is consistent with fire suppression plans recently approved for Aviara Phase III by
the Coastal Commission and Fish & Game Department. Therefore, there will be no potentially significant
impacts resulting from this possible encroachment.
The applicant is proposing to trade a 0.07 acre portion of current open space (on the northeastern portion of
the site) for a 0.16 acre portion (not currently open space) on the northwestern edge of the site. The
additional biological analyses conducted in August, 1994, resulted in the following conclusions:
” 1) Both sites have equivalent habitat values (equal quality), that is, both areas encompass non-native, low
quality habitat types.
2) The proposed open space area is adjacent to good habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub and chaparral),
while the current open space area is adjacent to disturbed areas.
3) The proposed open space area (0.16) is roughly twice as large as the current open space area (0.07).”
Because the proposed open space trade will result in habitat of greater or equal quality and quantity and
habitat located contiguous to better quality habitat, the proposed trade will not result in potentially significant
impacts.
13. See Item 12 above. The subject site is a previously graded pad surrounded by a mixture of native and non-
native vegetation. Ornamental planting is present along the southwestern edge of the site. The site is in an
urbanized area. Therefore, the development of the residential units will not result in potentially sign&ant
impacts from the introduction of new species of animals or interference with animal migration or movement.
14. The site is a pregraded site planned for residential development. It is not used for agricultural purposes and
contains no farmland of state or local importance.
-
GETERMNATION (I’o Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
m Ifindtheproposedproject COULDNOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with previously
certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, a Notice
of Determination has been prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed.
- I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that, although the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, this project is X
a subsequent project whose impacts were analyzed under a Master EIR for which a statement of Overriding
Considerations was made.
/a-/3-YY
Date
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (-IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLQ
-1 l-
-
.
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH M -Mm
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
-12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3735
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIN G COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR MASTER
PLANAMENDMENTANDAg-LOT/54-UNITTENTATIVE
TRACT MAP ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
WITHIN THE AVIARA MASTER PLAN AT THE SOUTHERN END OF BLACK RAIL COURT.
CASE NAME: ALDEA II
CASE NO: MP 177(M’)/CT 94-03
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
Parcel 6 of Parcel Map No. 16451, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County on April lS,l991, in the
City of Carlsbad, State of California
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for approval of a
Minor Master Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 21.38.120 and a Tentative Subdivision
Map pursuant to Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 21st day of December,
1994, 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 Minor Master Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the above recitations are true and correct.
B)
. . . .
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of Minor Master Plan Amendment MP 177(M), and
Tentative Tract Map, CT 93-04, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
. . . . 9-O
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
-
FIndinns:
1. This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative
Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on October 1, 1994, and
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL by the Planning Commission on December 21,
1994. 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.
2. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since the
Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project,
ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the District
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.
3. The Carlsbad Unified School District has written a letter, dated August 14,1990,
stating that school facilities will be available to this project.
4. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as
conditions of approval.
5. The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or
new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant
to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued
availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the
project.
6. 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.
7. The project is consistent with the City’s landscape policies as it has been conditioned
to comply with the requirements of the Landscape Manual.
The proposed Master Plan Amendment has been found to be minor in nature
because it will not change the densities or boundaries of the subject property or
involve a new use or group of uses not shown on the original Master Plan or
rearrange uses within the Master Plan.
9. That the proposed development, including the proposed building height, as described
by Master Plan 177 is consistent with the provisions of the general plan and any
applicable specific plans.
PC RESO NO. 3735 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
That all necessary public facilities can be provided concurrent with need and
adequate provisions have been provided to implement those portions of the capital
improvement program applicable to the subject property.
That the residential and open space portions of the community will constitute an
environment of sustained desirability and stability, and that it will be in harmony with
or provide compatible variety to the character of the surrounding area, and that the
sites proposed for public facilities, such as schools, playgrounds and parks, are
adequate to serve the anticipated population and appear acceptable to the public
authorities having jurisdiction thereof.
That the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry the
anticipated traffic thereon.
That the area surrounding the development is or can be planned and zoned in
coordination and substantial compatibility with the development.
That the proposed open space area is equal to or greater than the area depicted on
the Ofnciai Open Space and Conservation Map.
That the proposed open space area is of environmental quality equal to or greater
than that depicted on the Omciai Open Space and Conservation Map.
That the proposed open space, as depicted on the Off’kiai Open Space and Conservation Map, is contiguous or within close proximity to open space as shown
on the Of’ficiai Open Space Map.
The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed 54 units is
less than the allowed 192 units specified for the site by the Aviara Master Plan.
The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for residential and golf course development
on the General Plan.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the
density proposed.
That the design and improvement of the tentative map as conditioned, satisfies all
requirements of any applicable specific plans, Title 20, and Title 21 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious
public health problems.
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgement, acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
PC RESO NO. 3735 -3-
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
22. That subject to the exceptions contained in Section 66474.4 of the State Government
Code, the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) and the parcels resulting from the
subdivision would be too small to sustain agricultural use according to the provisions
of Section 66474.4 of the State Government Code.
23. That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive
or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.
Conditions:
Manning Conditions:
1. Approval is granted for CT 94-03, as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “J”, dated December
21, 1994, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department.
Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these
conditions, and approved by the Planning Director or City Engineer.
2. The developer shall provide the City with reproducible 24” x 36” mylar copies of the
Tentative Map and Site Plan as approved by the Planning Commission: The
Tentative Map and Site Plan shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The
Map and Plan copies shall be submitted to the City Engineer and approved prior to
building, grading, final map, or improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
3. A 500’ scale mylar of the subdivision shall be submitted to the Planning Director
prior to the recordation of the final map. Said map shall show all lots and streets
within and adjacent to the project.
4. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be
issued for development of the subject property unless the District Engineer
determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer
permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be
placed on the final map.
5. This project is also approved under the express condition that the applicant pay the
public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 (amended July 2,
1991) 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 of facilities and
improvement plan and to f&ill the subdivider’s agreement to pay the public facilities
fee dated April 20, 1994, a copy of which is on tile with the City Clerk and is
incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid this application will not be
consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
6. Water shall be provided by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
PCRESON0.3735 4-
-
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
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation required by the Zone 19
Local Facilities Management Plan approved by the City Council on December 22,
!
/
1987, incorporated herein and on fiIe in the Planning Department and any future j
amendments to the Plan made prior to the issuance of building permits. I
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 1
this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in I
Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid
this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project
without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance.
Approval of CT 94-03 is granted subject to the approval of PUD 94-02.
The applicant shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to final map approval.
All visitor parking spaces shall be striped a different color than the assigned resident
parking spaces and shall be clearly marked as may be approved by the Planning
Director.
The applicant shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name
policy subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval.
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning
Director approval. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any
impacts on adjacent homes or property.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
In such instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and
the Planning Director.
Automatic garage door openers and roil-up type garage doors shall be required on
garages for ail units.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the approval of grading
or building plans, whichever occurs first.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free
from weeds, trash, and debris.
PC RESO NO.3735 -s-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
. . . .
All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape i
Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the 1
Planning Department.
The applicant shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by 1
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The first set of landscape and irrigation plans submitted shall include building plans,
improvement plans and grading plans.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in
conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval
of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on alI new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of
identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color.
The developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales office
at all times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but
not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks, and streets.
As part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, the applicant shall include
a reduced, legible 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.
Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall receive approval of a Coastal
Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission that substantially
conforms to this approval. If the approval is substantially different, an amendment
to CT 94-03/PUD 94-02 shall be required.
Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building
permits, whichever occurs first, 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 aircraft operating from Palomar
Airport in a manner meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City
Attorney.
The applicant shall evaluate the possibiiity of expanding the proposed swimming
pool size to 75 feet (along one edge) and shall expand the pool accordingly if he (the
applicant) determines such expansion is feasible.
PC RESO NO. 3735 4%
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
Eruzlneerine Conditions:
30. This project is located within the Aviara Master Plan, Carisbad Tract 8535, and
Zone 19 Locai Faciiities Management Plan. All development design shall comply
with the requirements and conditions of these documents, and any amendments
thereto.
31. This project is located within the Meiio I Locai Cktai Plan. Ail development
design shall comply with the erosion control, grading, and drainage requirements of
that plan.
32. Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is
authorized by virtue of approval of this tentative map.
33. The applicant shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of
the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project.
34. The applicant shall be responsible for coordination with SDG&E, Pacific Bell
Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
35. If the applicant chooses to construct out of phase, the new phasing must be reviewed
and approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director, and ail improvements
required by previous contiguous phases shall be constructed.
36. The applicant shall provide an acceptable means for maintaining the private
easements within the subdivision and all the private: streets, sidewalks, street lights,
storm drain facilities and sewer facilities located therein and to distribute the costs
of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties I
within the subdivision. Adequate provision for such maintenance shall be included
with the CC&Rs subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to approval of the
final map.
37. All concrete terrace drains shah be maintained by the homeowner’s association (if /
on commonly owned property) or the individual property owner (if on an individually /
owned lot). An appropriately worded statement clearly identifying the responsibility i
shall be placed in the CCXRs.
38. The following statements shall be included in the CC&Rx
m No structure, fence, wail, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches ;
above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area
identified as a sight distance corridor on the flnai map. The underlying
property owner shall maintain this condition.
e An ongoing program to remove dirt, litter, and other debris from the surface
of private streets and common recreational areas by means of street sweeping and other means shall be established and enforced.
9 PC RFSO NO. 3735 -7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
I The homeowner’s association shall coordinate the use of the City’s established ’
program to assist residents with the removal and proper disposal of toxic and 1
hazardous waste products.
I Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shaii not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm
drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use an disposal of pesticides,
fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertiiizers, and other such chemicai
treatments shall meet federal, state+ county, and city requirements as
prescribed in their respective containers.
m Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface
pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface
improvements.
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.
The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents,
officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its
agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the
City, the Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the
City within the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map
Act.
Prior to issuance of a building permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the
property owner shall pay a one-time special development tax in accordance with City
Council Resolution No. 91-39.
Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall pay the current local drainage
area fee or shall construct drainage systems in conformance with Master Drainage
Plan and City of Carlsbad Standards as required by the City Engineer.
Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall pay all current fees and
deposits required.
Prior to approval of the final map, the Owner of the subject property shall execute
an agreement holding the City harmless regarding drainage across the adjacent
Property.
The subject property is within the boundaries of Assessment District No. 88-l (Alga
Road). Upon the subdivision of land within the district boundaries, the owner may
2J PC RESO NO. 3735 -8-
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
46. As required by state law, prior to the recordation of a final map over any of the /
subject property, the subdivider shall submit to the City an application for ’
segregation of assessments along with the appropriate fee. A segregation is not
required if the applicant pays off the assessment on the subject property prior to the
recordation of the final map. In the event a segregation of assessments is not
recorded and property is subdivided, the full amount of assessment will appear on
the tax bills of & new lot.
47. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
the developer shall submit proof that a Notice of Intention has been submitted to the
State Water Resources Control Board.
48. 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 approval
of the Final Map, the applicant must submit and receive approval for grading plans
in accordance with City Codes and Standards.
49. No grading shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision unless a grading or slope easement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties. If the applicant is
unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, no grading permit will be issued.
In that case the applicant must either amend the Ttitative Map or modify the plans
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.
50. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction
site within this project, the applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the
City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The applicant shall comply with all
conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the
hauling operation.
51. The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project
to prevent ofkite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in
accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer. Reference i
Chapter 11.06. - -
52. Rain gutters must be provided to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage
course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
pass through assessments to subsequent owners & if the owner has executed a
Special Assessment District Pass-through Authorization Agreement. Said Agreement
contains provision regarding notice to potential buyers of the amount of the
assessment and other provisions and requires the owner to have each buyer receive
and execute a Notice of Assessment and an Option Agreement. In the event that the
,
i
owner does not execute the Authorization Agreement, the assessment on the subject
property must be paid off in full bv the owner nrior to final mar, annroval. ! I
PC RBSO NO. 3735 -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
28
53.
55.
56.
57.
Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be
provided or installed prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit as
may be required by the City Engineer. I
I
The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and !
easements required by these conditions or shown on the Tentative Map. The offer
shall be made by a certificate on the F’inai Map for this project. All land so offered
shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without
cost to the City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to approval of the Final Map
in accordance with City Standards, the applicant 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. Alga Road, between Mimosa Street and El Camino Real, to maor arterial
standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This obligation may
be shared with other projects having a similar condition and to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
A note to this effect shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final map per
the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed
above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured improvement
agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
Prior to approval of the Rnai Map for this project, the design of all private streets
and drainage systems shall be approved by the City Engineer. The structural section
of all private streets shall conform to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value
tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the City, and the
standard improvement plan check and inspection fees shall be paid prior to approval
of the Final Map for this project.
The private sidewalk shall be kept clear of all obstructions including, but not limited
to, fire hydrants, mail boxes, and street lights.
Water Conditions:
58. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can ~
be met.
59. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San
Diego County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of
application for meter installation.
PC RESO NO. 3735
2-q
-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
60. Sequentially, the Developer’s Engineer shall do the following:
A. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection
requirements. Also obtain G.P.M. demand for domestic and irrigational ,
needs from appropriate parties. I
B. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning
Department for processing and approval.
C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement
plans, a meeting must be scheduled with the district Engineer for review,
comment and approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (i.e.,
GPM - EDU).
61. This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the
development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available
at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits and will continue
to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map.
I
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of December, I
1994, by the following vote, to wit: !
AYES: Chairperson Savary; Commissioners Welshons, Noble, Erwin, :
Compas, Nielsen, and Monroy.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CARLSBAD P LANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RBSO NO. 3735
3O -ll-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3736
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A 9-LOT/54-UNIT PLANNED UNIT’
DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
WITHIN THE AVIARA MASTER PLAN AT THE SOUTHERN END OF BLACK RAIL COURT.
CASE NAME: ALDEA II
CASE NO: PUD 94-02
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
Parcel 6 of Parcel Map No. 16451, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County on April 15, 1991, in the
City of Carl&ad, State of California
has been filed with the City of Carl&ad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verifkd application constitutes a request for a Planned Unit
Development pursuant to Chapter 21.45 of the Carl&ad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 21st day of December, 1994,
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 Planned Unit Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT 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 PUD 94-02, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
FilldineS:
1. The granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with Chapter
2 1.45 of Title 21, the general plan, applicable specific plans, master plans, and all adopted
plans of the City and other governmental agencies. The proposed development is a
multifamily residential development as anticipated by the General Plan designation
.
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
-
of RM and the Aviara Master Plan. The proposed density is consistent with the
density allowed by the General Plan and the Aviara Master Plan.
2. The proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the neighborhood
and the community. The proposed project is necessary and desirable at the proposed
location to implement the General Plan and the approved Master Plan which
designate this site for multifamily residential development. The proposed multifamily development will benefit the community by contributing to the provision
of a range of housing types and price ranges.
3. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in
the vicinity. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of persons in the vicinity, nor injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity. The proposed Tentative Tract Map meets all required City standards
and complies with all applicable regulations. All required public facilities and
services will be provided, and the project has been designed to provide adequate
setbacks from the neighboring uses (golf course).
4. The proposed planned development meets all of the minimum development standards set
forth in Chapter 21.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.080, and has been
designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design Guidelines Manual.
The proposed project meets all of the minimum development standards set forth in
Chapter 21.45.090, including building height restrictions, setback requirements,
minimum distance between structures, parking requirements, recreation area
requirements, and street design requirements. The proposed project also has been
designed in accordance with the Design Guidelines Manual to include stepped pads, . . cumbuear street design, enriched paving at the entry area, private and common
recreation areas, varied building orientations, and architectural relief.
5. The proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural
topography of the site, and enhances significant natural resources on the site. The
proposed project incorporates stepped building pads and a combination of two,
three, and four-plex designs to avoid single large pads. The proposed project will
enhancetheuaturai resources on the site by trading a small open space resource
area for a huger area of equal or better quality which is also contiguous to other
open space resource area.
6. The project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with the
project and does not dominate the project. The circulation system will provide
adequate access to all units, adequate room for vehicular movement, Scar garages
for each unit for resident parking, and more than adequate guest parking iu a
manner which is dispersed throughout the project for maximum convenience. The
project utilixes curvilinear street design and short private driveways so that the
street system does not dominate the project.
PC RESO NO. 3736 -2- P
.
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
A
7. The proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site is j
compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or 1
disruptive element to the neighborhood. The proposed project’s design and density are 1
consistent with all applicable regulations and are compatible with surrounding j
development (golf course). The project will not create a disharmonious disruptive
element to the area because the project is designed in a manner which is sensitive
to its hillside location and is bounded by open space areas on the three sides adjacent
to the golf course.
Conditions:
1. PUD 94-02 is approved subject to the approval of CT 94-03.
2. AU of the conditions contained in CT 94-03, Planning Commission Resolution No.
3735, are included herein by reference.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carl&ad, California, held on the 21st day of December 1994, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Savary; Commissioners Welshons, Noble, Erwin,
Compaq Nielsen, and Monroy.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECK)R
PC RESO NO. 3736 -3-
- EXHBIT 4
APPLICATION COLrLETE DATE:
AUGUST 1. 1994
STAFF PLANNER: ELAINE BLACKBURN
STAFF REPORT 0 2
DATE: DECEMBER 21, 1994
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: MP 177 &lKI’ 94=03/PUD 94-02 - ALDEA II - Request for approval of a
Minor Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit
Development to allow construction of a 9-lot/S4-unit residential townhome
project within the Aviara Master Plan (Planning Area 15) at the southern end
of Black Rail Court in the PC Zone and within Local Facilities Management
Plan Zone 19.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3734,
recommending approval of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and
ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3735 and 3736, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of MP 177 (M), m 94-03 and PUD 94-02, based on the findings and subject
to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting approval of a Minor Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract
Map and Planned Unit Development for 54 townhome residential units on 9 lots. The
project will have a gated entry area and a common recreation facility (swimming pool). The
site of the proposed development is a pregraded pad located at the southern end of the
proposed Black Rail Court in the Aviara Master Plan area. The planning area is a 23.3 acre
site of which 7.09 acres constitute the developable area. It is on a terrace with up-slopes
to the east and down-slopes to the west and south. The site is surrounded on the west,
south, and east by the Aviara Golf Course. Alga Road is just north of the site.
The proposed residential units are two story single-family attached units of three types and
sizes: Plan 1 (1663 square feet, 2-bedroom&bath), Plan 2 (1925 square feet, 3-bedroom/3-
bath), and Plan 3 (2197 square feet, 3-bedroom/3-bath). The units will be designed in two,
three, and four-plex structures. Building facades will be of stucco, and roofs will be of
concrete tiles.
The applicant is proposing to trade an existing open space area for another area on a
different part of the site in order to facilitate access to the site. The proposed open space
area is larger and of better quality than the currently designated area. (See Section 1II.F.
MP 177(M)/~94-03/P~L)94-02-ALDEAn DECEMBER 21,1994 PAGE 2
“Environmental Review” for discussion.)
The proposed Master Plan Amendment relates to the way in which building height is
measured. This is discussed in detail in Section 1I.D. of this staff report.
III. ANALYSIS
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, standards, regulations, and
ordinances:
A. RM General Plan Land Use Designation;
B. Subdivision Regulations (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) and the
California Subdivision Map Act;
C. Planned Unit Development Regulations (Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code);
D. Aviara Master Plan (MP 177);
E. Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Zone 19); and
F. Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
k GENERAL PLAN
This portion of the Aviara Master Plan (Planning Area 15) is allowed 192 multi-family units
by the Aviara Master Plan. The project is proposed with 54 units (7.62 du/ac), based on the
net developable portion of the site. The proposed project is consistent with the
development allowed by the Master Plan.
The project is consistent with the goal of the Residential land use designation of the
General Plan of providing for a variety of housing types and density ranges. The project is
also consistent with the Residential land use objective of locating multi-family uses near
major transportation corridors (Objective C.5). Alga Road is a major arterial.
B. SUBDMSION REGULATIONS AND CALIFORNIA MAP ACT
The subject site is a previously graded pad which was rough graded according to CT 85-35.
Finish grading will consist of 23,400 cubic yards of cut and fill. No soil import or export will
be required. The proposed finished elevations are consistent with the approved Aviara
Master Plan Tentative Map.
The State Subdivision Map Act requires that the project comply with numerous
requirements as discussed below:
s4
MP 177(M)/cr94-03/Pbr)94-02-ALDEA11 DECEMBER 21,1994 PAGE 3
Projects must be consistent with all applicable general plans, Title 21, and applicable specific
plans. The proposed map and project design are consistent with the City’s General Plan,
the City’s Zoning regulations, and Master Plan 177. Compliance with each of these
requirements is discussed in Sections III.A., III.C., and III.D., of this staff report,
respectively.
The proposed project must be physically suitable for the type and density of development
proposed. The project also complies with these requirements. The site is a pregraded pad
created for the anticipated residential uses, and the number of units proposed (54) is fewer
than the maximum number allowed (192). The proposed project density (7.62 du/ac) and
the product type (single-family attached units) are suitable for the subject site because they
allow the use of smaller pad areas and the stepping of the units consistent with the slope
of the site., The use of smaller pad areas and stepping of units are also consistent with the
City’s Hillside Design Regulations.
The subdivision design and improvements will not cause serious public health problems.
The project has been designed to be consistent with all applicable City standards and has
been conditioned to provide all necessary public facilities through the Zone 19 Local
Facilities Management Zone Plan.
The proposed subdivision design will not conflict with any easements on the property and
is not subject to a contract entered into under the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (the
Williamson Act).
The Map Act requires that local agencies consider the effect of proposed subdivision
approvals on the housing needs of the region in which the local jurisdiction is located. Housing needs must be balanced against the public service needs of residents and available
fiscal and environmental resources. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s
Housing Element and is, therefore, consistent with the Map Act in this regard.
The Map Act also requires that subdivisions be designed, to the extent feasible, to provide
for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. The proposed lot sizes and
configurations, and the number of units per structure will permit the structures to take
advantage of prevailing breezes to provide natural cooling.
Finally, all of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been met. (See Section 1II.F. of this report for discussion.)
C. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
The proposed project is consistent with the City’s PIED regulations (Chapter 21.45). The
project meets or exceeds all of the applicable minimum standards of the PUD regulations.
A summary of the applicable standards and the design of the proposed project are included
in the table below (‘Development Standards Compliance Table”). This table demonstrates
that the project complies with building height restrictions, setback requirements, minimum
distance between structures, parking requirements, recreation area requirements, and street
design requirements as identified in Chapter 21.45.090.
MP 177(M)/CI’ 94-03/PUD 94-02 - ALJXA II
DECEMBER 21,19!94
PAGE 4
The project satisfies the design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.080 and is designed in
accordance with the concepts contained in the Design Guidelines Manual. The project
includes stepped pads, curvilinear street design, enriched paving at the entry area, private
and common recreation areas, varied building orientations, and architectural relief.
The project design is also sensitive to the natural topography of the site and enhances the
natural resources on the site. By using a mixture of two, three, and four-plex buildings, the
proposed structures can be built on smaller pads and can be stepped into the hillside
topography.
Finally, the project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with
the project and does not dominate the project. The proposed subdivision will take access
off of Black Rail Court. This street will be a 36-foot wide private street with parallel
parking allowed on both sides for guest parking. Driveways B, C, and F will each be 30-feet
wide. No on-street parking will be allowed on these driveways. Driveways D and E will be
32-feet wide and will provide on-street parking on one side. Each of these street widths and
parking arrangements is consistent with the requirements of the PUD regulations. Guest
parking is dispersed throughout the project, both on-street and in bays for maximum
convenience.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPLIANCE TABLE
Max # dus
Min Lot Size
Max bldg ht
Setbacks: Front
Side
Rear
Setback from top of
slope adj. to golf
course
Min dist b/t structures
Res pkg required
Guest pkg required
Compact guest pkg
3573 stories
20
n/a
3072 stories;
2075 (street/dwy)
29’872 stories
2075 (street/dwy)
n/a
20 n/a 20
20 20’ (2~story structures) 21’-62
per Ch. 21.44 108 covered spaces; 108 garage spaces;
ww ww
per Ch. 21.44 16 sp’s (5 for 1st 10 32 sp’s
dus & l/4 dus above
10)
8 sp’s (45% of total) 0 (all std size)
MP 177(M)/~9~03~~i)94-02-ALDEAII DECEMBER 21,1994
PAGE 5
Ret area private ret area
required
10,800 sf total; (200
sf/du); both common
& private required;
balcony or patio
required for MF
proj’s;
39,600 sf total
common: 4,250 sf
pnrt: 35,350 sf
balconies: 4,750 sf
pvtyds: 30,600 sf
Min pvt st. width 30’ (w/no parking) 30'~Dwys B,C,F
32'-Dwys D,E
D. AVIARA MASTRR PLAN (MP 177(GQ
The proposed project is consistent with the intent and requirements of the Aviara Master
Plan for Planning Area 15, as demonstrated in the “Development Standards Compliance
Table” above. The project includes fewer dwelling units than the maximum allowed by the
Master Plan. The project also satisfies the parking and setback requirements of the Master
Plan, including the required setback from the top of slopes adjacent to the golf course and
is within the 35’ maximum height allowed by the Master Plan.
With respect to building height, the Master Plan allows a maximum height of 35 feet/3
stories. The 35 feet figure was based on building height being measured to the mid-point
of the roof. Since the time this Master Plan was approved, the City has changed the way
building height is measured. It is now measured to the roof peak. (This change can result
in a difference of 3 to 6 feet depending upon the roof pitch and building size used.)
Therefore, the City’s change in definition resulted in a reduction in allowed building heights
within the Aviara Master Plan area. This situation was corrected for two of the Planning
Areas (13 and 23) by an amendment approved in 1992. It was expected that similar
corrections would be proposed as needed when the various planning area development
applications were submitted. Therefore, this project includes a proposed Minor Master Plan
Amendment (MP 177(M)) for this planning area.
Based upon the number of units allowed in this planning area (192), it was anticipated that
the product type used would consist of large pads containing stacked flat units. It was also
expected (and allowed) that the majority of the structures would be 3-story units and would be up to 35 feet in height (measured at the midpoint of the roof). This type of development
would have been necessary in order to yield the 192 units allowed. In an effort to balance
the expected 3-story structures, the Master Plan also called for a minimum of 30% of all
structures to be no more than 24 feet in height (again presumably measured at the midpoint
of the roof).
The development proposed involves a somewhat different product type which is still
considered a multi-family development but which yields fewer units (54) and allows the use
of smaller pads and structures. The proposed development includes no 3-story structures
and no 35’ structures. The maximum building height proposed for all structures is 29’8”
MP 177(M)/~94-03~~L)94-02-ALDEA II
DECEMBER 21,19!34
PAGE 6
(measured to the roof peak) (24’ at the midpoint of the roof). In addition, the structures
will be set back from the top of the slope along the perimeter of the project. Staff believes
that the proposed project design meets the intent of the Master Plan as designed, and is
therefore proposing that a Minor Master Plan Amendment be approved to allow the
maximum building height for the project to be 30’ measured at the peak of the roof.
E. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 19. The
project is conditioned to comply with all requirements of the adopted zone plan. The impacts created by this development on public facilities and compliance with the adopted
performance standards are summarized as follows:
~.:““““““““““‘“‘“““:~‘.~.‘; n.,..........,..., ~~~~~~~~~~
:. .‘. ..C.,.,.,.,..v,. pm%...+ .,.....,.... ,:~~:.:.:.:.:~::::~:::~~~ i _,..~,..,.... >.>< _,,,, ~.
::\.xr . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..i............. L .,.A.,.. ,.. _, :. L :.>:. :.II: .:::: .,,,., :’ : : : : _: I. :.<A ..,.>.,$ :,:, 5: ,..:.. , . . . . . .
City Administration
Library
Waste Water Treatment N/A
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection Systems
Water
100 sq. ft. I Yes
I Yes
.38 acre I Yes
N/A I Yes
432 ADT I Yes
STA #‘s 4 & 2 I Yes
N/A I Yes
Carlsbad I Yes
54 EDUS I Yes
11,880 GPD I Yes
The Zone 19 LFMP projected 192 units for this planning area. Therefore, development of
54 units would place 138 units into the excess dwelling unit bank for the southwest quadrant
of the City.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL
The applicant is proposing to trade an existing open space area for a larger area on another
portion of the site in order to facilitate access to the site. The current open space area is
located on the eastern portion of the site at the end of Black Rail Court. The applicant is
proposing to utilize this area for access to the project site. The larger trade area proposed
for open space is located along the northwestern edge of the site. The proposed area is of
equal or better value as habitat than the current open space area and is larger (0.16 acre
versus 0.07 acre). In addition, the proposed area is in a better location to provide a more
contiguous, useable open space area.
MP 177(M)/CT94-03lI'bL)94-02-ALDEA II
DECEMBER 21,1994
PAGE 7
The Planning Director has determined that the proposed project will not have a potentially
significant impact on the environment and has, therefore, issued a Negative Declaration on
October 1, 1994.
N. SUMMARY
The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Subdivision Regulations
and with the California Map Act. The project meets or exceeds the minimum standards of
the City’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations, and is also consistent with the
Aviara Master Plan. Finally, the project has been reviewed under CEQA and found not to
have a potentially significant effect on the environment. Consequently, staff is
recommending that the proposed Master Plan Amendment is minor in nature and approval
of the proposed project.
ATI’ACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3734
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3735
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3736
Location Map
Disclosure Statement
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Reduced Site Plan
Exhibits “A” - “J”, dated December 21, 1994.
.
DISCLOSCRE STATEMENT
L\?P~J~M’S STATEMEhT CF SISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPUCATIONS WHICH vvl~~ REOU;RE
ZiSCAETIONA’RY ACTION ON THE PART OFTHE CITY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED 80AAD. COMMISSION OR CCMMtlTEE.
;Please Print)
The followlng information must be disclosed:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Applicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
D.R. Horton
10179 Huennekens. Stp. lfifl
San Dieso, CA 92121
.
Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Aviara Land Associates Limited Parbership
2011 Palomar Air-Dot-t Rd.
Suite 206
Carlsbad, CA 97009
,
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnershIp
interest in the partnership. N/A
If any person identified .pursuant to (1) or (2) above is d non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary
of the trust. N/A
20.75 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 0 (619) 438-l 161
.
-
:Over)
X~dosure Statement Page2
5. Have you had more than S250 worth of business transacted with tiny member of City.staff. Boarzs
Commissions, Committees andCouncilwi!hin the past twelve months? .
Yes - No' - If yes, please indicate person(s)
\
1 oarwn IS defined U: ‘Any rc~v~dual. lirm. copanner~hlp. 1clr.t venture. usociation. social club. fratrrnrl orgamzatron. cofporrl~on. rr:a:r U*,SL
, fecewlr. syndicatr, fhlr rna any Other county, cq and counry. crty munlclpal~. dirtrtct or ofhw pornicrl subdiv~rton. or any 01lwt ;ro~o CI
combmaflon l ctmg as a unk’ .
WOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
Owner:
Aviar'a Land Associates Limited
Partnership, a Delaware limited
partnership
Applicant: D.R.
BY:
BY: Aviara Land Company, a Delaware
corporation, General Partner
BY:
D.L. Cleme?s/Vice President
BY:
DATE: L/-/3- 3L/
BY: ' Republic Development Co., a
California corporation,
General Partner
.
BY:.
D.L. Clemens/Vice President, .
_' BY:
DATE: ‘(‘13 - 7v
rC.
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: MP 177(M)/CT 94-03/PUD 9442
CASE NAME: Aldea II
APPLICANT: D.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Within Aviara Master Plan area at the southern end of Black
Rail Court in the Citv of Carl&ad. Countv of San Dieeo
LEGAL DESCRIFl’ION: Parcel 6 of Parcel Mao No. 16451. filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Dieno Countv on Anril 15. 199 1. in the Citv of Carl&ad. State of California.
APN: 215-612-20 Acres 23.3 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 9/54
(Assessor’s Parcel Number) GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RM/RLM/OS/RC/N
Density Allowed 8.2 du/ac Density Proposed 7.62 du/ac
Existing Zone PC Proposed Zone PC
Surrounding zoning and Land Use: (Se-e attached for information on Carl&ad’s Zoning
Requirements)
zoning Land
Site PC Undeveloped
North PC Alga Road
south PC Golf Course
East PC Golf Course
West PC Golf Course
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carl&ad Unified Water District Carl&ad Sewer District Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 54
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Apil20. 1994
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACI’ ASSESSMENT
x Negative Declaration, issued October 1.1994
- Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other,
EB:vd
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Aldea II - MP 177MVCT 94-03/PUD 94-02
LOCAL FACILlTY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 19 GENERAL, PLAN: RM/RLM/OS/RC/N
ZONING: F’C
DEVELOPER’S NAME: D. R Horton. Inc.
ADDRESS: 10179 Huennekens St.. Ste 110. San Dieeo. CA 92121
PHONE NO: [619,452-3700 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO: 2 15-612-20
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPh,iENT (AC., SQ FT., DU): 23.3 ac17.09 ac
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 187.74
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J*
K.
Library: Demand in Square Footage =
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Demand in Acreage =
Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
Park:
Drainage:
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation:
(ldentifjr Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire:
Open Space:
schools:
(Demands to be determined by stafl-)
Sewer:
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water:
oo.,l3 1
0.38
n/a
D
Demand in ADTs = 432
Served by Fire Station No. =
Acreage Provided -
4&2
n/a
n/a
Demand in EDUs -
IdentifL Sub Basin -
54
n/a
Demand in GPD - 11.880
PLANNING COMMISSION December 21,1994 PAGE 2
TINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
.
lanner, stated that he had made a complete staff presen 1994. For review he gave a brief slide presentation and stated that LC previously approv City’s Local Coastal approved by the Car 93-05 amended density p s for Senior Citizen Housin rm to State Density Bonus Law and established locati dards which responds to senior citizen needs. ZCA development standards for second dwelling units for purpos uraging and enablin elopment of second dwelling units in the residential zones of the City.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the City’s Zoning 0 Coastal Program (LCP) and must be approv LCPA 94-02 is a follow up legislative action Ordinance will be consistent with each other appropriate noticing in two local n list maintained by the City. No co
lementing ordinance for the City’s Local oastal Commission. Consequently, oved ZCAs so that the LCP and Zoning
c comment period has been provided, with
tice was also mailed to an interested parties
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the consistent with the it will have no impact on
environmental resources. S
Chairman Savary open ublic testimony and issued the invitation
to address the Commission on this topic, and opened the item for discussion among the
ACTI .
7
Motion was made by Commissioner Noble, and duly seconded, to Commission Resolution No. 3724, recommending approval of the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 7-o Chairman Savary, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, Monroy,
Welshons None None
2. MP 177(M)/CT 94-03/PUD 94-02 - ALDEA II - Request for approval of a Negative Declaration,
Minor Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development to allow construction of a 9-let/54-unit residential townhome project within the Aviara Master Plan (Planning
Area 15) at the southern end of Black Rail Court in the PC Zone and within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 19.
MlNUTEg
-
PLANNING COMMISSION December 21,1994 PAGE 3
Elaine Blackburn, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant
is requesting approval of a Minor Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and Planned Unit
Development for a g-lot, 54-unit residential townhome development in Aviara.Planning Area 15. She
showed slides of the proposed project site and stated that it is surrounded on the west, south, and east by
the Aviara Golf Course. Alga Road is just north of the site. The project consists of attached single-family
units in multi-unit structures. The units range in size from 1,663 s.f. to 2,197 s-f. The proposal includes
both private and common recreation areas. The same project design has already been approved in
Planning Area 16, where it is currently under construction. She showed slides of Aldea I, the project under
construction.
Ms. Blackburn stated that the applicant is proposing to trade an existing open space area of 0.07 acres for
a larger open space area of 0.16 acres. The proposed open space is larger and of better quality than the
currently designated area. The Minor Master Plan Amendment (MPA) included in this request is due to the
City’s change in the way building height is measured since this master plan was approved. At the time of
the master plan approval, building height in the City was measured to the midpoint of the roof. Building
height is now measured to the peak of the roof and this has resulted in a reduction in the allowable
building height within the Aviara Master Plan area. The Minor MPA would address this change. However,
it should be noted that the proposed structures are all well within the maximum allowed structure height for
the planning area.
Ms. Blackburn stated that Planning Area 15 allows a maximum of 192 multi-family units while the project
is 54 units. The maximum building height for this planning area is 35 ft. and three stories; however, 30%
of the units must be no more than 24 ft. high. This was done with the intent of balancing out the large
number of three-story units which were expected to be built on the site. As proposed, there are no units in
this project higher than 29’8” and two stories. The project complies with all required setbacks and
distances between structures. All units have double garages, as required. Guest parking is being provided
in excess of the minimum requirements and is disbursed throughout the project. All guest parking spaces
are standard size. There is a total of 39,600 s.f. in recreation area. Common recreation area consists of
4,250 s.f. (swimming pool). There is a total of 35,000+ s.f. in private recreation, including 4,750 s.f. of
b&o&e, with the rest being private yards. The PUD requires a minimum street width d 30 ft., with no
pating. There are a variety d street widths provided in the M, including 30,32, and 36 ft.,
depending on whothor or not on-street parking is allowerzf.
Ms. Blackburn stated that staff has reviewed the project for compliance with all applicable regulations and
standards and we believe it complies with the standards and the intent of the master plan. Staff
recommends approval.
She noted one change in Resolution No. 3734, line 19, which should be corrected to read: “...and PII
Revised, dated December 13, 1994, attached hereto...“.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, noted another change to this resolution. In Finding ##2, line 26, the
following sentence should be added: “All feasible mitigation measures required by MEIR 93-01 have been
incorporated into or imposed by condition on the project.”
Commissioner Erwin inquired if this project is within the three mile radius of the airport; he did not see a
condition regarding airport impacts. Ms. Blackburn stated that it should be there, and pointed out the condition.
Commissioner Welshons quoted $2145.090 of the code which states that “All multi-family units fronting
on a public or private street shall maintain a minimum 20 ft. front yard setback. Garages that face onto a
private driveway serving an attached multi-family project may have a 5 ft. setback, provided that guest
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION December 21,1994 PAGE 4
parking is disbursed along the entire driveway or that the width of the driveway is adequate to
accommodate parking on one side.” She asked staff to address the driveway requirement. Bob Wojcik,
Principal Civil Engineer, replied that when this part of the code was written, there was a definition of
driveways. Since then, however, an amendment was passed by the Planning Commission which removed
the definition of driveway. Because driveway is still referenced in the code, staff follows a policy which
defines a driveway. The driveways in this project are actually streets because they are 30 ft. wide; they
are allowed to have 5 ft. setbacks. There is no regulation as to how close the guest parking spaces must
be. It simply states that guest parking must be disbursed. Staff follows a policy that guest parking spaces
should be within 150 ft. of residences.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if this explanation means that staff does not follow the code section
which she quoted. Mr. Wojcik replied that they follow it but there is some history missing which makes it
difficult for someone just picking it up to understand why there appears to be a conflict.
Commissioner Welshons stated that she interprets the code to mean that there must be guest parking
along the entire length of the driveway or adequate to accommodate parking on one side. Since the term
“driveway,” is used, there is no parking on the opposite side, nor is it disbursed along all of the streets. Mr.
Wojcik replied that this would also be in conflict with the PUD ordinance which allows 30 ft. streets, with no
parking. This confusion is caused because the driveway definition was taken out of the code.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about the reference to an internal administrative policy in making sure
that there is guest parking at least within 150 ft. of a residential unit. How do Commissioners read between
the lines to know this policy, if it is not available in print. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied
that the policy is in writing and was provided to Commissioners at the last workshop.
Commissioner Welshons noted that the applicant has not signed the assessment form on the Revised
Negative Declaration. Ms. Blackburn replied that the applicant’s signature is only needed when mitigation
is placed on the project. In that event, the applicant signs the form stating that they agree and will comply
with the mitigation.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about the pool dimensions. Mr. Wojcik replied that landscape plan
shows the pool length to be about 72 ft.
Commissioner Welshons is concerned about the large disparity in the number of units being built (54) and
the number of units allowed (192) in Planning Area 15. She believes it is inconceivable that 192 units
would fit on a 7.09 acre site, yet this large reduction in density makes the developer look really good. She
would like to know if this reduction has any impact on public facilities. Ms. Blackburn realizes that this
seems confusing. In actuality, there is a total of 23.3 acres in Planning Area 15. The number of units
allowed in this Master Plan was a negotiated number. Through negotiation, the developer actually
provided three times the amount of open space he would have had to provide had he gone with a strict
calculation of net developable area, so the number of allowed units looks high in some areas. However,
there may be some areas within this planning area which meet the definition of developable but, because
of negotiation, we are not allowing those areas to be built on.
Mr. Wojcik stated that the reduced density will result in an improvement to public facilities because there
are less people driving on the streets and using sawer, water, fire facilities. Residential units do not pay for
100% of the services that they receive from the City. The balance is taken from the commercial-industrial
developments. Consequently, less units would result in an improvement.
Chairman Savary invited the applicant to speak.
MINUTES
PLANNING CGMMISSfGN December 21,1994 PAGE 5
Jeff Lundstrom, Lundstrom & Associates, 5965 Pacific Center, Suite 703, San Diego, civil engineering
consultant for the applicant, D. R. Horton, addressed the Commission and stated that he is proud of the
Aldea II project, which is a continuation of Aldea I. He requested the Commission’s approval and stated
that he would be happy to answer questions.
Commissioner Monroy inquired about Condition #16 which requires roll-up garage doors and automatic
garage door openers only on certain units. Due to the lack of sidewalks on both sides of the street, and for
safety purposes, he would like to see the roll-up doors on all units because it would allow people to drive
the cars all the way up to the door. Mr. Lundstrom replied that staff developed the condition and indicated.
minimum areas for roll-up doors. He understands that all units in Aldea I will have roll-up doors and he
believes they will likely do the same in Aldea II.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if he could accept a condition for automatic garage door openers and roll-up
doors on all units. Mr. Lundstrom replied Yes.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if the applicant voluntarily reduced the number of units from 192 to 54. Mr.
Lundstrom replied Yes. However, he noted that 192 homes would have required a different product type.
It was really a business decision because Aldea I was so widely accepted by the public.
Commissioner Welshons stated that she would like the pool to be extended from 72 ft. to 75 ft. in length.
Mr. Lundstrom replied that he doesn’t see how 3 ft. could make much of a difference. He would have to
confer with his client.
Chairman Savary opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Savary declared
the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
Commissioner Noble stated that there are currently six sites under construction in Aviara. Although all
traffic signals have been paid for, they are not being installed at this time. He would like to see a condition
requiring installation of the signals. Mr. Wojcik replied that the staff procedure for traffic signals is to
monitor the intersections and install the signals when they are warranted. If signals are put in too early,
they usually cause accidents.
Commissioner Noble stated that while it is true that early installation of traffic signals sometimes cause
accidents, the accidents are usually far less serious.
Commissioner Erwin just doesn’t see how we could have squeezed more units in this area. He thinks we
need to look at the driveway situation. He will. support the project but he really doesn’t like to see units right
up on the street the way these are.
Commissioner Compas likes Aldea I so he is sure he will like Aldea II. He will support the project.
Commissioner Nielsen would like staff to answer Commissioner Noble’s comment regarding traffic signals.
Mr. Wojcik replied that he doesn’t think a condition for traffic signals should be added to this project.
Commissioner Erwin stated that this may not be the right time to add a condition for traffic signals.
Nevertheless, he would like the subject brought back as a discussion item in the very near future.
Commissioner Noble stated that he likes the project. He could support the pool extension if the condition is
worded in such a way that it will be extended if it is feasible.
MINUTE@
PLANNING COMMISSION December 21,1994 PAGE 6
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Compas, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3734, recommending approval of the Negative Declaration
issued by the Planning Director, and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.s 3736
and 3736, recommending approval of MP 177(M), CT 94-03 and PUD 9442, based on
the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with the following changes:
(1) modify Condition #16 requiring roll-up doors and automatic garage door openers on
all units; (2) increase the length of the swimming pool to 75 ft. if feasible; and (3)
incorporate two changes to Resolution No. 3734 as read into the record.
VOTE: 7-O
AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble, and
Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Welshons stated that she is concerned about parking. She thinks we need to look at the
standards and possibly coordinate the number of parking spaces to the number of bedrooms, rather than
the number of units. When there are three bedrooms, there is normally a third vehicle. If the driveway is
reduced in depth, the third vehicle would have to park on the street which impacts guest parking.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that administrative policy referred to earlier only deals
with the definition of a driveway in the code. The PUD standard has nothing whatsoever to do with parking
based on the number of bedrooms. Parking requirements throughout the City are based on units and the
maximum number of parking spaces per unit is two, even if a home or apartment has 10 bedrooms.
Commissioner Welshons questions whether this parking requirement fits reality. She feels the driveway
issue and the parking issue are inter-related.
ACTION: A Minute Motion was made by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to bring
back a discussion item on driveways and parking at a future meeting.
VOTE: 7-O
AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble, and
Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Elaine Blackburn, Associate Planner,
the Planning Corn
17.2 acres owned b
Real approximately
e request and stated that the California
IC purposes require a determination by
uisition is to stabilize
m. The existin
- -
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
MP-177(M)/CT 9403/PUD 94-2 - ALDEA II
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, February 7, 1995, to consider a request for approval of a Negative Declaration, Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development to allow construction of a 9-let/54-unit residential townhome project within the Aviara Master Plan (Planning Area 15), at the southern end of Black Rail Court, in the PC Zone, in Local Facilities Management Zone 19, and more particularly described as:
Parcel 6 of Parcel Map No. 16451, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, on April 15, 1991.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4471.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map and/or Planned Unit Development in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: D.R. Horton, Inc. PUBLISH: January 28, 1995
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
h -
AKIRA & TOSHIKO MUROYA PO BOX 9000-251 CkRLSBAD CA 92008
AVIARA MASTER ASSOCIATI 2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD 1 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CA 92009
*** 12 Printed ***
AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES 450 NEWPORT CENTER DR 3 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 .
AVIARA LAND AS 4
LUNDSTROM & ASSOCIATES 5965 PACIFIC CENTER BLVD 8703
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
AVIARA MASTER ASSOCIATI 2251 SAN DIEGO AVE A250 SAN DIEGO CA 92110
'WARMINGTON AVIAF2A ASSOC 3090 PULLMAN ST A COSTA MESA CA 92626
! D R HORTON 10179 HUENNEKENS SUITE 100 SAN DIEGO CA 92121
C
FACILITIES FOR CITY CLERK
MP‘ 177(M)/CT 94-03/PUD 94-02
m ALDEA II
/ .
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST : SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLANNING
801 PINE AVENUE 5201 RUFFIN RD STE “B”
CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN DIEGO CA 92 123
CITy OF &+RLSB/ ’ ‘iiii%:~PAL WATER
COMMU/dhVKES DISTRICT
I ‘CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
) 330 GOLDENSHORE #50
1 LONG BEACH CA 90802
I :
. .
(/’ ! I’
i ; I
; *
.
1” ..,
; ‘.
I, .’
. .
. ’ J’ .,
:.: ; :
.,; .*_
!
. .
.’
.’ *
.
I ,
I’ I,
I .’
I
; . ._
. ‘. I,
. , ‘,.
9
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notide
MP 177(M)/CT 94-03/PUD 94-02 - ALDEA II
for a public hearing before the City Council,
Please notice the item for the council meetlng of
.
Thank you.
Assistant City Man-
Public Notice
January 18, 1995
Date
l
- *,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
A
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village D&e, Carlsbad, California, at 6:06 p.m. on
Wednesday, December 2 1, 1994, to consider a request for approval of a Negative Declaration, Master
Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development to allow construction of a 9-
lot/%-unit residential townhome project within the Aviara Master Plan (Planning Area 15) at the
southern end of Black Rail Court in the PC Zone and within Iocal Facilities Management Plan Zone 19
and mom particulariy described as:
Parcel 6 of Parcel Map No. 1645 1, filed in the OfIke of the County Recorder of San
Diego County on April 15, 1991, in the City of Carlsbad, State of California
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies
of the staff report will be available on and after December 15, 1994. If you have any questions, please
call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (619) 438-l 161, ext. 447 1.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Master plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map and/or
Planned Unit Development in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: MP 177(M)/cT 94-03/PUD 94-02
CASE NAME: ALDEAII
PUBLISH: DECEMBER 9,1994
CITY OF CARISBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
C
AKIRA & TOSHIKO MUROYA AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES -PO BOX 9000-251 450 NEWPORT CENTER DR 3 CARLSBAD CA 92008 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
-
AVIARA MASTER ASSOCIATI 2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD CARLSBAD CA 92009
*** 12 Printed ***
AVIARA MASTER ASSN 2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD CARLSBAD CA 92009
LUNDSTROM & ASSOCIATES 5965 PACIFIC CENTER BLVD f/703
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
AVIARA MASTER ASSOCIATI 2251 SAN DIEGO AVE A250 SAN DIEGO CA 92110
WARMINGTON AVIARA ASSOC 3090 PULLMAN ST A COSTA MESA CA 92626
A rotice ~.ZS b.~?n ynai!sd to aId prooeey ~w~9rs~ccc~pants