HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-06; City Council; 13761; Sea Country At Aviara,’
I
c-
B IL.l ‘a 6
B e
%
. .
p
Y
i
f
8
e -
CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL /
AB# ‘3; 315 / TITLE: DEPT. Hh.
MTG. 816196 SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA
~ DEPT.
PUD 94-02(A)
PLN
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That City Council APPROVE Council Resolution No. 96 -A?& , approving PUD
94-02(A).
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The applicant is proposing to amend an approved Planned Unit Development to
reduce the total number of units and to reorient a private driveway and some of the
units. The approved PUD is for a 54-unit townhouse-style multifamily development
with gate-guarded entry and recreation area. The proposed amendment would result
in the following changes:
a) Reduce the number of units from 54 to 51;
b) Reorient one private driveway;
c> Reorient some of the units (to allow more views);
d) Increase the total recreation area; and
e) Add some single-story units to the product mix.
As discussed in the Planning Commission staff report (attached), staff has reviewed
the proposed amendment and concluded that the amended project meets or exceeds
all applicable requirements.
This item was heard by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on July 3, 1996
and was unanimously recommended for approval.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All public facilities required to serve the proposed development will be constructed
prior to or concurrent with development as mandated by the Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 19. There would be no fiscal impact as a result of this
amendment.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 9b -A?k
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3950, dated July 3, 1996
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 3, 1996
5. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 3, 1996
P
a_- 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 9 6 - 2 7 2
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD 94-02) TO
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS, REORIENT UNITS, AND
INTRODUCE SINGLE-STORY UNITS.
CASE NAME: SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA
CASE NO.: PUD 94-02(A)
WHEREAS, on July 3, 1996, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for project
development on 23.3 acres of land and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 3950,
recommending to City Council that it be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 6th day of
August , 1996, held a public hearing to consider the recommendations and heard all
persons interested in, or opposed to, PUD 94-02(A).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment (PUD 94-02(A)) is approved
and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3950, on file with the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference, are the findings an conditions of the City
Council.
2. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits
for Judicial Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made
applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16.
Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the
appropriate court not later than the nineteenth day following the date on which
this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision >
becomes final a request for the record of the deposit in an amount sufficient to
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
cover the estimated cost or preparation of such record, the time within which such
petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day
following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to
the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the
preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk,
City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008.”
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 6th day of AUGUST , 1996, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Finnila
ABSTAIN: None
eZ#uDE A. LEWIS, Mayor’
ATTEST:
ktk tc b*,
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Cl&k
-2-
c-
AD
7
9 a : % rrrrrmrrrr: I l *
ALDEA II - AVIARA P.A. 15
PUD 94-02(A)
L-
EXHBIT 3
1
II
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3950
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
WITHIN THE AVIARA MASTER PLAN AT THE SOUTHERN
END OF BLACK RAIL COURT.
CASE NAME: SEA COUNTRY AT AVIAR4
CASE NO.: PUD 94-02(A)
WHEREAS, Sea Country Homes, Inc , applicant, has filed a verified application
8 for certain property to wit:
9
10
11
12
13
14
Parcel 6 of Parcel Map No. 16451, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County on April 15,1991, in the
City of Carlsbad, State of California
with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planned Unit
Development Amendment as shown on Exhibits “An - “Q” dated July 3,1996 on file in the
Planning Department (PUD 94-02(A)) as provided by Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
I
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of July, 1996, 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
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the PUD 94-02(A).
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 Planned Unit Development Amendment, PUD 94-
02(A), based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 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
FindinPs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Planning Director has found that, based on the EIA Part-II, this Subsequent Project
was described in the MEIR 93-01 and the Negative Declaration for CT 94-03/PUD 94-
02 as within its scope; AND there will be no additional significant effect, not analyzed
therein; AND that no new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required;
AND that therefore this subsequent Project is within the scope of the prior EIR; and not
new environmental document nor Public Resources Code 2 108 1 findings are required.
The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternative identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project
have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the following:
4 Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the
proposed density of 2.19 du/ac (51 units) is less than the density of 4-8 du/ac
(192) specified for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General
Plan for the RM Designation.
b) Circulation - The proposed street system is adequate to handle the project’s
pedestrian and vehicular traffic and accommodate emergency vehicles.
Cl Noise - The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport and has been conditioned to file a
Notice that the property is subject, sight, and sound of aircraft activities from
the Airport.
Housing - That the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General
Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the Developer has entered into
an Affordable Housing Agreement to provide and deed restrict 7.65 dwelling
units as affordable to lower-income households.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
Applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public Facility policies and
ordinances since:
a) The project has been conditioned to ensure that 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 District Engineer 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.
b) The Carlsbad School District has written a letter, dated August 14,1990, stating
that school facilities will be available to this project. (0
PC RESO NO. 3950 -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
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
C>
4
e)
-
The applicant has entered into an agreement to provide school facilities.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
The project has been conditioned 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 2 1.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 19.
The project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 90-384.
The proposed development as described by Master Plan MP 177(P) is consistent with the
provisions of General Plan and any applicable specific plans, in that proposed density is
consistent with the General Plan and all applicable requirements of the Master Plan
have been satisfied.
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.
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, in that the proposed amended project design and density are consistent with
all applicable regulations and are compatible with surrounding development, the
project is designed in a manner which is sensitive to its hillside location and the
surrounding open space areas, and no public facilities are required on the site.
The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry the anticipated
traffic thereon, in that the revised project circulation system streets are designed to
applicable City standards to provide adequate access to all units, provide adequate
room for vehicular movement, and provide parking throughout the project for
maximum convenience. 7
PC RESO NO. 3950 -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
12. The area surrounding the development is or can be planned and zoned in coordination and
substantial compatibility with the development, in that such planning has already
occurred as a part of the planning for the Aviara Master Plan (MP 177(P)).
13. The granting of this permit will not adversely affect, and will be consistent with Chapter
21.45 of the City code, the General Plan, applicable specific plans, master plans and all
adopted plans of the City and other governmental agencies, in that the proposed
amended project is a multifamily residential development as anticipated by the
General Plan designation of RM and the Aviara Master Plan and the proposed
density is consistent with the density allowed by the General Plan and the Aviara
Master Plan.
14. The proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood and
community, in that the proposed amended 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, and the proposed
multifamily development will benefit the community by contributing to the
provision of a range of housing types and price ranges.
15. The project 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, in that the proposed amended project 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).
16. 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 amended project meets all of the minimum development
standards set forth in Chapter 21.45090, 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, curvilinear street design, enriched paving at the
entry area, private and common recreation areas, varied building orientations and
architectural relief.
17. The proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural
topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on the
site, in that the revised project incorporates stepped building pads and a
combination of two-, three- and four-plex designs to avoid single large pads.
18. The proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site is
compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or
PC RESO NO. 3950
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
disruptive element to the neighborhood, in that the proposed amended project design
and density are still consistent with all applicable regulations and are compatible
with surrounding development, and the project will not create a disharmonious or
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.
19. The project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with the
project and does not dominate the project, in that the revised project circulation system
will provide adequate access to all units, adequate room for vehicular movement, 2-
car garages for each unit for resident parking, and more than adequate guest
parking in a manner which is dispersed throughout the project for maximum
convenience. The project utilizes curvilinear street design and short private drives
so that the street system does not dominate the project.
20. The Planning Commission has review each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
Planning:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the Planned
Unit development Amendment for the multifamily residential project entitled “Sea
Country At Aviara”, subject to the conditions herein set forth. Staff is authorized and
directed to make or require the Developer to make all corrections and modifications to the
PUD 94-02(A) documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and conform
to Planning Commission’s final action on the project. Development shall occur
substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development
substantially different from this approval shall require an amendment to this approval.
The conditions set forth in this resolution supercede all conditions set forth in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3736 (PUD 94-02)
2. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
3. The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36” mylar copy of the
Site Plan as approved by the final decision making body. The Site Plan shall reflect the
conditions of approval by the City. The Plan copy shall be submitted to the City
Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map or improvement plan
submittal, whichever occurs first.
4. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced, legible version of the approving resolution on a 24” x 36” blueline drawing.
PC RESO NO. 3950 -5-
L. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
-
Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal Development
Permit and signed approved site plan.
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
of such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy.
The Developer shall 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 or Facilities
and Improvement Plan and to fulfil1 the subdivider’s agreement to pay the public
facilities fee dated April 20, 1994, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is
incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid, this application will not be
consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. No special development
requirements apply.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this residential
housing project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in
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.
The Developer 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,
Prior to the issuance of the Building Permits, Developer shall submit to the City a
Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in
interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Planned Unit Development Permit
Amendment by Resolution No. 3950 on the real property owned by the developer. Said
Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing
complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or
restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director
has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or
terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the developer or successor in
interest.
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.
0
PC RESO NO. 3950 -6-
.* 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
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
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.
The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with
the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The plans
shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director prior to the
approval of the final map, grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. The
Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans and
maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash and
debris.
The first submittal of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement and grading plans.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all 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.
Prior to approval of the building permits, the Developer shall receive approval of a
Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission that
substantially conforms to this approval. A signed copy of the Coastal Development
Permit must be submitted to the Planning Director. If the approval is substantially
different, an amendment to PUD 94-02(A) shall be required.
Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar
Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney
(see Noise Form #2 on tile in the Planning Department).
The Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales and /or rental offices
associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be
approved by the Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the Planning
Department).
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the approved CT (CT 94-03), as contained in Planning Commission Resolution
No. 3736.
u
PC RESO NO. 3950 -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
-
22. Automatic garage door openers and roll-up type garage doors shall be required on
garages for Units l-10,29-35,39-44 and 48-51. Automatic door openers and roll-up
type garage doors may be installed on the other units at the developer’s discretion.
Entineering
23. All of the Engineering Conditions of Approval included in PUD 94-02, Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3736, are included herein by reference.
Water
24. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be
met.
25. 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.
26. Sequentially, the Developer’s Engineer shall do the following:
4 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.
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.
27. 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.
28. All private (onsite) irrigation for said project must be submitted to the City’s Landscape
Architect for processing.
. . .
. . .
PC RESO NO. 3950 -8-
r
*- 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
Fire
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
. . .
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall evaluate building
plans for conformance with applicable fire and life safety requirements of the state and
local Fire Codes.
Additional on-site public water mains and fire hydrants are required. Provide additional
public fire hydrants at intervals of 300 feet along public streets and private driveways.
Hydrants should be located at street intersections when possible, but should be positioned
no closer than 100 feet from terminus of a street or driveway.
Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts
location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydrants. The
plan should include off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways and
traffic circulation for Fire Department approval.
An all weather access road suitable for emergency service vehicles shall be provided and
maintained during construction. When, in the opinion of the Fire Chief, the access road
has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other reasons, he may, in the
interest of public safety, require that construction operations cease until the condition is
corrected.
All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational before
combustible building materials are located on the construction site.
Prior to final inspection, all security gate systems controlling vehicular access shah be
equipped with a “Knox”, key-operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall contact
the Fire Prevention Bureau for specifications and approvals prior to installation.
Prior to building occupancy, private roads and driveways which serve as required access
for emergency service vehicles shall be posted as fire lands in accordance with the
requirements of Section 17.04.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall obtain Fire ,Department
approval of a wildland fuel management plan. The plan shall clearly indicate methods
proposed to mitigate and manage fire risk associated with native vegetation growing
within 60 feet of structures. The plan shall reflect the standards presented in the fire
suppression element of the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual.
Prior to occupancy of buildings, all wildland fuel mitigation activities must be complete,
and the condition of all vegetation within 60 feet of structures found to be in conformance
with an approved wildland fuel management plan.
PC PESO NO. 3950 -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
39. The applicant shall provide a street map which conforms to the following requirements:
A 400 scale photo-reduction mylar, depicting proposed improvements and at least two
existing intersections or streets. The map shall also clearly depict street centerlines,
hydrant locations and street names.
40. A monument sign shall be installed at the entrance to the driveway or private street
indicating the addresses of the buildings on site.
General
41. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any such conditions fail to be so implemented
and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify
all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building
permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the
authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are
gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Resolution.
Standard Code Reminders:
This project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances including, but not limited
to, the following code requirements.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
. . .
The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final
map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08/050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 18 months from the date of project approval.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Planning and Building.
14
PC PESO NO. 3950 -lO-
L
_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
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
-
The Developer 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.
Compact parking spaces shall be located in large groups and in locations clearly marked
to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit, the Developer shall provide all required
passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and
recreational facilities.
All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape
Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning
Department.
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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 3rd day of July 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Compas, Commissioners Heineman, Monroy, Nielsen,
Noble, Savary and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, C
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3950 -ll-
- - EXHBIT 4
. de City of CARLSBAD Planning Detpartmeut A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 3 0
Application complete date: May 16, 1996
P.C. AGENDA OF: July 3,1996 Project Planner: Elaine Blackburn
Project Engineer: Ken Quon
SUBJECT: PUD 94-02(A) - SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA- Request for approval of an
amendment to an approved PUD (PUD 94-02) for a multifamily development. The
proposed amendment would reduce the total number of units from 54 to 51 and
would reorient some of the units and a private drive. The project site is located
within the Aviara Master Plan (Planning Area 15) at the southern end of Black Rail
Court in the PC Zone and within Local Facilities Management Zone 19.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3950
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of PUD 94-02(A), based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to a previously approved Planned Unit
Development (PUD 94-02). The original PUD (for a 54-unit townhouse style multifamily
development) was approved by City Council in February, 1995, along with a Tentative Tract Map
(CT 94-03). The proposed amendment involves a reduction in the number of units and the
reorientation of some units and a private drive. (A detailed discussion of the specific changes
proposed can be found in Section III “Project Description and Background” of this report.)
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project site is located at the southern end of Black Rail Court. It is a 23.3 acre site, of which
7.09 acres constitute the developable area. It is on a terrace with up-slopes to the east and down-
slopes to the west and south. The site is surrounded on the west, south, and east by the Aviara Golf
Course. Alga Road is just north of the site.
The original PUD for this project was approved by City Council in February, 1995, along with a
Tentative Tract Map (CT 94-03). That project was for 54 dwelling units. The applicant is now
requesting to amend PUD 94-02. The specific changes proposed are as follows:
1. The total number of units drops from 54 to 51. The deletion of three units was
necessary in order to achieve the reorientation of units desired.
2. Driveway “c”, and the adjacent units, are reoriented. Driveway “C” is being rotated to
the north. This allows the reorientation of the adjacent units to provide better views for
some of the units. w
PUD 94-02(A) - SEA CObdTRY AT AVIARA
JULY 3,1996
3. There is an increase in the total recreation area provided. The reduction in the number
of units and the reorientation allow an increase in the total open space provided in
private yards. The amount of common recreation area remains as originally approved.
4. The cluster mix changes slightly. The current plan includes 3 fourplexes and 13
triplexes. The previous design included six fourplexes, 8 triplexes, and 3 duplexes.
5. The new plan includes fewer retaining walls. The design changes eliminate the need
for some of the walls included in the previous plan.
6. The parking spaces for the recreation area have been relocated off the central street
(Street “A”) to a private drive. This change is beneficial from an engineering
standpoint.
7. The architectural elevations have been revised somewhat to include some single-story
elements. Staff also considers this a desirable change as it will provide greater
architectural variety.
This project is subject to the following regulations:
1. General Plan RM (Residential Medium Density) Designation);
2. Aviara Master Plan (MP 177(P)) and Planned Unit Development regulations
(Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
3. Inclusionary Housing requirements; and
4. Growth Management regulations (Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code).
IV. ANALYSIS
A. General Plan
The Aviara Master Plan allows a maximum of 192 multifamily dwelling units in Planning Area 15.
The currently approved Tentative Tract Map (CT 94-03) and Planned Unit Development Permit (CT
94-02) show provision of 54 townhouse style multifamily dwelling units. The General Plan
designation for the site is RM (Medium Density Residential). This designation is intended to be
developed with low density multifamily developments, including duplexes, triplexes, apartments,
and small-lot single family projects. The proposed amended project is consistent with the General
Plan and the Master Plan.
B. Master Plan MP 177(P) and (PUD) Planned Unit Development Regulations
The proposed amended project is consistent with the Aviara Master Plan and the City’s PUD
regulations (Chapter 2 1.45). The project meets or exceeds all of the applicable minimum standards
of the PUD regulations. The Development Standards Compliance Table, below, calls out the \I
applicable development standards from both the Aviara Master Plan and the PUD regulations, and
. PUD 94-02(A) - SEA c;r)clX-fRY AT AVIARA
JULY 3,1996
-1 PAGE 3
indicates how the design of the proposed project complies with the standards.
DE
STANDARD
Max. Density
Min. Lot Size
Max. Lot Coverage
Max. Building Height
Min. Front Yard
Setback
Min. Side Yard
Setback
Min. Rear Yard
Setback
Min. Slope Setback
(adj. To golf course)
Min. Dist. B/t
Structures
Resident Parking
Visitor Parking
Recreational Space
1. Private
2. Common
R.V. Storage
Storage Space
Street Widths Private
ELOPMENT STANDA
MASTER PLAN
REouIREMENTs
192 dus
n/a
n/a
30’
20’
n/a
n/a
20’
20’
per Code (Ch. 2 1.44)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
XDS COMPLIANCE TABLE
c
n/a I n/a
n/a 30’
20’ SF (may be varied Min. 20’ (St. A)
to 15’ ave. w/ 10’ min.) 1
5’ (pvt dwys)
n/a
Min. 6’ (pvt dwys)
1 O’(comer lots)
n/a (other lots)
2 full-size cov’d sps/du 2 full-size cov’d sps/du
10 sps on-street 29 sps on-street
10,200 sf total (in 45,550 sf Total
Private & Common) 1 Private: 41,400 sf
1020 sf (20 sf:du)
Common 4,150 sf
through Aviara MP
C. Inclusionary Housing Requirements
The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that 15% of the total number of proposed units
be made affordable to low income households. This project’s 15% inclusionary housing requirement
is 7.65 dwelling units. The developers of the Aviara Master Plan have already entered into an
Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide their share of required affordable units by
purchasing credits in the Villa Loma Housing Development.
D. Growth Management
This project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 19. There are no special
development requirements in the zone plan which apply to the proposed amended project. All 1%
necessary improvements will be provided prior to or concurrent with need. The impacts created by
, PUD 94-02(A) - SEA CWrJTRY AT AVIARA
JULY 3,1996
.- PAGE 4
this development on public facilities, and the project’s compliance with adopted performance
standards, are summarized in the Growth Management Compliance Table below.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
STANDARD
City Administration
Library
Waste Water Treatment
IMPACTS COMPLIANCE
177.31 sf Yes
94.57 sf Yes
.355 ac Yes
Parks
Drainage
.355 ac
n/a
Yes
Yes
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
408 ADT Yes
Stations 2 and 4 Yes
n/a Yes
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Carlsbad
51 EDU
Yes
Yes
1 Water 1 11,220 GPD 1 Yes
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project has been reviewed under CEQA , and has been determined to be a Subsequent
Project. The proposed project does not involve any environmental impacts which were not
considered in previous environmental reviews, including MEIR 93-01 (the Master EIR for the City’s
General Plan Update) and the Negative Declaration for CT 94-03/PUD 94-02 (the environmental
review conducted for the previously approved project design for this site). The original mitigation
measures required for the Aviara Master Plan included provisions for open space, noise, air quality,
and aesthetic and other impacts. These mitigation measures remain in place, and none of these
measures are affected by, or need be revised by, this proposed amendment. The Master EIR for the
City’s General Plan Update included a statement of Overriding Considerations for air quality and
circulation impacts. In addition, a new Environmental Impact Assessment Part II was completed for
the proposed amendment. This document resulted in no new or revised mitigation requirements.
Since all previous environmental review still applies to the proposed amended project and no new
circumstances have arisen which would require additional review or mitigation, the Planning
Director determined that the proposed PUD Amendment is in compliance with all previous
environmental documentation and is a Subsequent Project. All applicable mitigation measures for
air quality and circulation have been incorporated into the amended project.
SUMMARY
Staff has concluded that the proposed amended project satisfies all applicable requirements and
regulations. The conditions of approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3950
supersede previous conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3736 (PUD
94-02).
\4
. PUD 94-02(A) - SEA COLXI’RY AT AVIARA
JULY 3,1996
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3950
2. Location Map
3. Disclosure Statement
4. Background Data Sheet
5. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
6. EIA Part II
7. Reduced Site Plan
8. Exhibits “A” - “ Q”, dated July 3, 1996
Juns25.1996EB:kc
Gi&4 gfs ~~~LS~~~ : r;r F’ *.r”r**.Y’ls-- @.--* ‘L P DISCLOSL'RE STATEMENT J
AJXICAHTS STATEMENT OF OlSCtCSUFlt OF CERTAIN OWNEPWp f-Em ON *L+@pUc&nONS W.IICW WI& ;rECb;a~
2SCRmOWRY *CnON ON ty p*PT OF TkE CrrY COUNCL CA ANY APT ~ofio. ~~I~ICN CR C~MMITE.
J1ease J*w!
Tke !ollowmg information must be disctosed:
2.
3.
4.
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial Mere31 in the application.
SeaCountry Homes. Inc. 95 Argonaut. Suite 210 I
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Owner
List the names and addresses of aU persons having any ownership Wrest in the property lnvc}ved.
Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership
c/o Hillman Properties West, Inc. ~-- 2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206
Carlsbad, CA 92004.
If any person identified purswnt to (1) or (2) above is a corpWWn of partnership, list the names addresses of all individuaI8 owning more than 1096 of the shua in ttm corporation or owning any panner:
interest in the partnership.
Robert S. Bennett, President Alhrn M. Mnrenn Vire Prpcidont Qpprrrtians
SeaCountry Homes. Inc.
. . Bruce W. Cladi.sh.~= VT~P President
SeaCountry Homes, Inc. .
.
nanyp~id~pwrwntto(t)ot(~;rbow~rnorrpcallt~~a.tnut,lidthenames
addr~atury~srrvinOr,o~#~~af~~cdCniuttpnarostrwtHorbenefic
ofthotnrrt RECElVED Q J,
N/A <: -
APR 12 1956
c?$yy fJf%z ~Sc,gzf&&g&!=h
pT&u;r,*i~ ;,;wm zx
FRM13 4/9l Pagelof2 l
2075 Las P8lmu Orivo * Carhemu. CIlitornir 9-g l (619) 4q6-1161
. --
,
c Ofeq
Disclosure Statsment Page ,z-‘.
5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of Cky st#, 3oarcs
Commrssions, Committees and Councii within the past twelve months?
Yes - No 2 If yes, please indicate person(s)
! Perron IS adhod u: ‘*Y mmduJ. firm comrtnomio. ~omvonturo. auoc~m. SOW CIIJ~. WOWI ~rgmm~~n. COIIWW~~. ,,t,l,. trun.
‘OCINJr. SynalcJto. ma MO My omr wuy. cy Jnd wunfy. cy munlugucty. alalet or emu potlt&i 8UMlvlslo(\. or uy mu s,ouo 2) I
:ommnanon wtmg U J un*’ 1 I
(hlOr+. ARac?! 8aattK)rYU p8ga 88 n8cwwy ) _
“. Slgnmr ot ownuiaaw
Prm or lypo l-urn. d ownu
~-
on
. .
_-- .
FRM 13 4/91
2% Page2of2 a
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
ApOu~~s STAtEMEw of Ol%t.CSuAf of CEirtAlN OWNERSHIP ImpEm ON AU @OU~TlONS ‘W.llC~ wlu aEh,b;fiE
XcRf3DM~V ACTION ON *kt PAm Of mE Cl-R COUNCL OR ANY APPOI~ Boryy). COMMlsslCN OR C~MMI~E
The followmg information must be disclosed:
1 Amkant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
95 Argonaut, Ste. 210
Aliso Vie.io, CA 92656
2.
3.
4.
gwner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership inWeSt in the property involved.
Aviara Land Assoc. Limited Partnership
2011 Palomar Airport Road. Ste. 206
Carlsbad, CA 92009
If any person identillod puk8nt to (1) or (2) abova is a w or partnership, list the names
addresses of all individuAs owning more than 1096 of the shares in tfm corporation or owning any panner:
interest in the partnofship.
N/A
*
.
Hanyp~id~~O(l)or(2)rbowira~prolltagmiutlor,oratnrst,listthenames
addr~ofmy~srrvingr~or~~~ottnrnorrpradarbniutipcrorartrun~orbeneric
of me trusL ,
N/A a ‘2
FRIu13 4m Pagelof2 ’
2075 Lu Palmu Drive - Carlabad. California 92-m l (619) 43*t3-1161
. .
Disciosure Statement
,‘Cb er:
Pap2 2
5. fiave you had &ore than 9250 worth of Business transacTed with any member of City stati. 3:a:zs
Ccmm~ssions. Ccmmrttees and Council’within the past twelve months?
Yes - No - It yes, please indicate person(s)
r I Oafyen IA ddinod u: ‘Any mdividud. firm. II -aoutn*mklo. pm vanturr. uaoc18fsan, sac:J dub. fr8wn~I org~u~oon. carDor~tron. l sr~t~. :LS:.
Gf. syncitcala. mm ana my amef cauny. :y ma eauny. my munmpalfty, amnet of mu ~olrnc8i sachvrahon. or MY otnw p0~0 2r 1 *
c~mo~n~t~on l ctmg u A unn’ I I
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
Owner:
Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership
BY: -
Applicant:
Sea Country Homes, Inc.
By:
Date:
Date: APr; 1 10, fqqb
A
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: PUD 94-02(A) .
CASE NAME: Sea Countrv At Aviara
APPLICANT: Sea Countrv Homes (Al Moreno)
REQUEST AND LOCATION: An amendment to an apuroved 54-unit multifamily project with
gated entrv and recreation area. The amendment will reduce the number of units to 5 1 and reorient some
units and a private drive.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 6 of Parcel Mau No. 1645 1. filed in the Office of the Countv
Recorder of San Diego Countv on April 15, 1991, in the Citv of Carlsbad, State of California.
APN: 215-612-20 Acres: 23.3 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 9/5 1
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RM
Density Allowed: 8.2 du/ac (192 units) Density Proposed: 2.19 du/ac (5 1 units)
Existing Zone: PC Proposed Zone: PC
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements)
Site PC
North PC
South PC
East PC
PC PC
Zoning Land Use
Undeveloped
Alga Road
Golf Course
Golf Course
Golf Course
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 5 1
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: April 20. 1994
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
cl Negative Declaration, issued
cl Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
q Other, Subsequent Proiect
- -
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Sea Countrv At Aviara - PUD 94-02(A)
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 19 GENERAL PLAN: RM
ZONING: PC
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Sea Countrv Homes
ADDRESS: 95 Argonaut. Suite 210. Aliso Vieio. CA 92656
PHONE NO.: (714) 452-l 180 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 215-612-20
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 23.3 ac17.09 ac
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: N/A
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 177.3 1 sf
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 94.57 sf
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) .355 ac
Park: Demand in Acreage = N/A
Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A
Identify Drainage Basin = D
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4 & 2
Open Space: Acreage Provided = N/A
Schools: N/A
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDUs 51
Identify Sub Basin = N/A
(IdentifL trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD =
-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: PUD 94-02(A)
DATE: Mav 24.1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Sea Country At Aviara
2. APPLICANT: Sea Countrv Homes, Inc. (Al Moreno)
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 95 ArPonaut, Suite 210. Aliso Vieio,
CA 92656. (714) 452-l 180
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Anril 12.1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTON: An amendment to an anuroved PUD for 54 multifamily units with
gated entry and recreation area. The vrovosed amendment will reduce the number of units to 5 1
and will reorient some of the units.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning [XI Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems
0 Water
0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
Cl Hazards Cl Cultural Resources
(XI Air Quality cl Noise cl Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03128196
DETERMINATION.
c (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
[x1
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master
Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01) and Project Negative Declaration (CT 94-03)
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-Ol), including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior
Compliance has been prepared.
! j - .$L.
Date .
I . r\ ( r
2 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
l A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
l When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
a 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.
29
3 Rev. 03128196
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a)
b)
c>
d)
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#2:Pg 8 )
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#2:Pg 8 )
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#2:Pg 8 )
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#2:Pg 7 )
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
established community (including a low-income
minority community)? ( )
an
or
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#2:Pg 8 )
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#2:Pg 8 )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( )
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a)
b)
c)
4
e)
0
g)
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (# 1 :Pg 5.1-S; #2:Pgs 6-7)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pg 5.1-12; #2:Pgs 6-7)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (# 1 :Pg
5.1-12; #2:Pgs 6-7)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l :Pg 5.1-9)
Landslides or mudflows? (# 1 :Pg 5.1- 11; #2:Pgs 6-7)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( #2:Pgs 6-
7) Subsidence of the land? (#I :Pg 5.1- 11; #2:Pgs 6-7)
Expansive soils? ( #2:Pgs 6-7)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#2:Pgs 6-7 )
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? ( #2:Pg 6)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ( #2:Pg 6)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#2:Pg 6 )
Potentially Significant Impact
0
cl
Cl
0
Cl
0
cl
0
0
cl
cl
0
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
cl
cl
Cl
Cl
cl
0
Cl
0
0
cl
Cl
0
Cl
Cl
0
cl
Cl
0
0
Cl
Less Than Significan t Impact
cl
Cl
0
Cl
0
0
Cl
Cl
0
Cl
cl
0
Cl
0
Cl
Cl
0
Cl
Cl
cl
No
Impact
IXI
IXI
Ia
lxl
lx
IE3
Ix1
la
IXI
El
lxl
Ix]
Ix]
lzl
lxl
lxl
El
lxl
lxl
IXI
31
5 Rev. 03128196
-
. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
e>
f-l
is>
h)
0
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ( #2:Pg 6)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ( #2:Pg 6)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ( #2:Pg 6)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#2:Pg 6 )
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#2:Pg 6 )
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#2:Pg 6)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pg 5.3-
4) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (# 1 :Pg 5.3-4)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#2:Pg 6 )
d) Create objectionable odors? (#2:Pg 6 )
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a)
b)
c>
4
e)
f)
g)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#I :Pg
5.7-10)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#2:Pg 9 )
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
( #2:Pg 9)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#2:Pg
8) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#2:Pg
9) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#2:Pg
9) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#2:Pg 9 )
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
4
b)
c>
4
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#2:Pgs 7,s )
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#2:Pgs 7,s ) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#2:Pgs 7, 8 )
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
6
Potentially Significant
Impact
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
q
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
El
lxl
cl
cl
lxl
cl
cl
cl
El
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
q
cl
No
Impact
Ix1
lxl
IXJ
IXI
lz
El
cl
lx
lxl
Cl
ixJ
lxl
El
IXI
IXI
El
Ix)
(x1
Ix]
Rev. 03l28196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(#2: Pgs 7,s )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#2:Pg 7, 8 )
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pg 5.12.1 and 5.13.1)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pg 5.12.1-4)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#I:Pg 5.13-5)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
b)
cl
d)
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#2:Pg 8 )
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#2:Pg 9 )
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? ( #2:Pg 8)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#2:Pg 8 )
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#2:Pg 8 )
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#2:Pg 8 )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#2:Pg 8 )
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l :Pg 5.12.5-3)
b) Police protection? (#I :Pg 5.12.6-2)
c) Schools? (#l:Pg 5.12.7.4)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(#2:Pg 8 )
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg
5.12.4-l)
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg 5.12.4-I)
b) Communications systems? (#2:Pg 8 )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#I :Pg 5.12.2-5)
Potentially
Significant Impact
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
III
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
No
Impact
cl IXI cl lxl
cl lxl
cl ixl
El El
cl cl
cl
IXI Ix]
Ix] 39
7 Rev. 03/28/96
.
34
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
e)
f)
g>
XIII.
4
b)
c)
XIV.
a>
b)
c>
4
e)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-4)
Storm water drainage? (#I :Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pg 5.12.4-2)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pg 5.12.2-5)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#2:Pg 9 )
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#2:Pgs
679 1 Create light or glare? (#2:Pg 8 )
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#2:Pg 7 )
Disturb archaeological resources? ( #2:Pg 7)
Affect historical resources? (#2:Pg 7 )
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#2:Pg 7 )
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#2:Pg 7 )
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#I :Pg 5.13.8-5)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#2:Pg 9 )
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant
Impact
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
Cl
cl
cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
cl
cl
cl
El
cl
Cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
0
IXI
0
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
cl
0
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
No
Impact
El
[XI
[XI
lzl
(x1
lx
Ix1
IXI
IXI
lx
txl
IXI
Cl lx
cl IXI
cl lxl
cl 0
cl El
8
35
Rev. 03/28/96
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
4 Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
4 Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
4 Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03128196
-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project is an amendment to an approved PUD development for 54 multifamily
units with gated entry and recreation area. The amendment would reduce the number of units
from 54 to 5 1, and would reorient some of the units on the lots and one of the private drives.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
1. Land Use and Planning
The proposed amendment will not result in any conflict with the General Plan designation or
zoning or any environmental plans or policies. The project involves only site design changes.
The use will remain multifamily as originally approved. There will also be no incompatibility as
a result of the amendment. The site is not currently used for agricultural operations. There is no
existing established community.
2. Population and Housing
The proposed amendment will not result in unanticipated growth and will not displace existing
housing. The amendment will reduce the number of dwelling units by 3 from the previously
approved project.
3. Geologic Problems
The proposed amendment involves relatively minor changes to an approved site plan. There is
no significant change to the building pads. The mass grading for the site has been completed in
compliance with the previously approved Tentative Map. The finish grading will be required to
be substantially in conformance with the approved exhibits for the project.
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
5. Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
10 Rev. 03/28/96
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
6. Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
11 Rev. 03128196
III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(619) 438-1161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Imnact Renort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Environmental Imnact Assessment Part II (amended) for CT 94-03/PUD 94-02, dated
December 13,1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
12
9
Rev. 03128196
i. .-
3. PUD 94-02(A) - SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA - Request for approval of an amendment to an
approved PUD (PUD 94-02) for a multifamily development. The proposed amendment would reduce
the total number of units from 54 to 51 and would reorient some of the units and a private drive. The
project site is located within the Aviara Master Plan (Planning Area 15) at the southern end of Black
Rail Court in the PC Zone and within Local Facilities Management Zone 19.
Chairman Compas reminded the applicant, Commissioners, and public, if the Commission recommends
approval of this item it will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration.
Project Planner Elaine Blackburn explained that this item was a request for an amendment to an approved
Planned Unit Development (PUD) and that the City’s Municipal Code requires that any PUD amendment
involving a change in density be considered a major amendment and be taken back to the public hearing
process. Because of the reduction in units of this project, such amendment meets the criteria of being
considered “maj0r.l Ms. Blackburn identified where the project site was located on a map, which is at the
southern end of Black Rail Court, in Planning Area 15 of the Aviara Master Plan.
Ms. Blackburn explained that the original PUD for this project was approved by City Council in February
1995, along with a Tentative Tract Map (CT 94-03) and that the original project was for 54 two-story dwelling
units, but that the applicant wanted to amend PUD 94-02 with the following specific changes, including
reducing the number of dwelling units from 54 to 51, reorienting Driveway “c” to the north, which will provide
better views for some of the units, and introducing some single story units into the product mix. Staff has
reviewed the proposed amendment and concluded the project, as revised, still complies with, or exceeds, all
applicable requirements and regulations. Ms. Blackburn called the Commission’s attention to the revised
pages that were distributed with the memo dated July 3, 1996 which reflect corrections. In addition, Ms.
Blackburn noted that the Attorney’s Office requested three additional changes to Resolution No. 3950 which
are: (1) change to first page of the Resolution Line 7.5 which identifies the applicant as Sea Country Homes,
the word “IncorporatecP should be added; (2) on Line 22.5 of the same page, replace the words Planned
Unit Development with “PUD !&#-02(A)” reflecting the current project number; and (3) on page 5 of the
Resolution in Condition 1, the following sentence be added “The Conditions set forth in this Resolution
supersede all Conditions set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3736 (PUD 94-02).
Chairman Compas queried whether or not the applicant had agreed with the changes.
MINUTES UC\
- DRAFT -
PLANNING COMMISSION July 3, 1996 Page 7
Ms. Blackburn answered that the applicant was aware of the changes and had no problem, and added that
staff was recommending approval of the proposed amendment.
Chairman Compas asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Welshons requested clarification of whether or not a new Condition was being added to page
5 of the Resolution.
Ms. Blackburn clarified that the change was adding one sentence to the end of the existing Condition I, so
there was no need for renumbering.
Commissioner Savary asked for the number of single story dwelling units, and where they were located.
Ms. Blackburn said there would be a one-story unit in each of the clusters, which would be 13, and these
units are generally the end unit of the cluster.
Commissioner Noble referred to the fact that the Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD) stated that school
facilities be available for this project, and that the applicant had agreed to provide school facilities.
Commissioner Noble was concerned that this may leave the project wide open to overcrowding of CUSD
when students should be going to another district at buildout.
Ms. Blackburn answered that Aviara Master Plan agreements between the School District and the developer
had been reached. Additionally, should any changes be proposed by the School District that the developer
would voice its opinion about the changes.
Chairman Compas asked the applicant to come forward.
Applicant Buck Bennett of 17760 Via de Fortuna of Ranch0 Santa Fe, stated that Al Moreno was his partner
in the project and that they both supported staffs recommendations for approval of the project and believed
that the one-story units appeal to the target market at which they are aiming.
Chairman Compas asked the applicant if this was a change from previous thinking in terms of one-story units.
Mr. Bennett answered yes, that is correct, due to the large demand for one-story units.
Commissioner Heineman asked applicant to identify the one-story units on the map, which Mr. Bennett did,
noting they were end units.
Commissioner Welshons asked to confirm for the record that the applicant had seen the errata sheet that
staff had prepared, had been made aware of the Condition that was read, and is in agreement.
Mr. Bennett said he was aware and was in agreement.
Chairman Compas opened the item up for public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Jeff Lundstrom of 5965 Pacific Center Blvd., #703, San Diego, CA 92020, came forward and said he really
had no comments but was there to answer any questions the Commission may have.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak during the public testimony, Chairman closed the public testimony and
opened Commission discussion.
Commissioner Noble said he felt it was a good project and he was happy to support a project that moved
away from two-story dwellings that are not as accessible to the handicapped and disabled as the one-story
P
MINUTES
DRAFT -
PLANNING COMMISSION July 3, 1996 Page 8
dwelling units. He added that he also liked the architectural aspect of the project because it is a departure
from the look of tract homes.
Commissioner Monroy said he would support the project, although reluctantly, because of his concern over
the lack of sidewalks on either side of the street.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Nielsen, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3950 recommending approval of PUD 94-02(A), based on the findings
and subject to the conditions contained therein, including the July 3, 1996 revision, as
well as the three changes per the Attorney’s Office.
VOTE: 7-o
AYES: Compaq Heineman, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
August 7, 1996
Sea Country Homes
95 Argonaut, Suite 210
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Re: Sea Country at Aviara
The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of August 6, 1996, adopted Resolution No.
96-272, approving PUD 94-02(A).
Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 96-272 for your files.
kssistant City CleX
KRK:ijp
Enclosure
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-I 989 - (619) 434-2808
PROOF OF P”Ei,ATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
- STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
July 27, 1996
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at California, this
of July, 1996
29th day
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space-3 for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
I
Proof of Publication of
Public Hearing ,--,----i-v- _-__----------
4he1 -Jlle I
$P
:2 .‘I.
~iiiiat~ WUI t-&d a publk hearing t the-City Co&t/ Cha t;o
NcmcEISH~YGlrEN~tthiC14rCoundloftho!Qtyo ~~~wiPhdd*~khsclrlnpattheCilyCwncllCha be ,.‘1200 cucbad Wage Drtw, Carl&ad, Catifomta ht 660 P.M., on T~eday A$ ,.‘f2m CIdcttd V@W [Mvr, Chrlabad~ Cahfomta. hta6&0 P.M., on TL~~N. 22 .6 19%. b aw.lder an q+ation for an am&t to a prevlourly a&oc*rtl -~~~~: ,F. Y?sillor an Y!!?k! PkMed Unit lhelopmont (PUD 94-Z) for a mubf&ffy dewlopment to: 1) red- 4he number of units from 54 to 51; 2Jxiork41t OM pli\Rbe d-q and ‘- ol
:J$e mh 3.) tnwaae the total recreatfoYi ‘area; and -Mltc, on. Pmpsrtv generally located wlthh the A-
:Banagement Zone 19. and more partk&~ly dwbd a~ .‘I.
” f’mal6 of Wrce~ Map fix 16451; fifed I,-, the Of& of ti c&,1, 1; llecder of San Diego County, on Aprtl 15, 1-l.. c,. , 2 you hwa any westIon
:’ I 4
~~~~,~ *, ’ I 3. ‘.,_ j _ \i~,‘
(i
,’ . . L I
. , j -_ ,. I
,_, _ .a,-. . . .
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ETJD 94-2 (A) - SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA
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, August 6, 1996, to consider an application for an amendment to a previously approved Planned Unit Development (PUD 94-2) for a multi-family development to: 1.) reduce the number of units from 54 to 51; 2.) reorient one private driveway and some of the units; 3.) increase the total recreation area; and 4.) add thirteen single story units, on property generally located within the Aviara Master Plan (Planning Area 15), at the southern end of Black Rail Court, in the PC Zone, within 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 contact Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161 extension 4471.
If you challenge the amendment to the 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: Sea Country Homes, Inc. PUBLISH: July 27, 1996
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
*A’” I,,,,,,,,, I”“G 1
:
-7 i
llW#W#: 3.
I : I : f :
i
: : iA
: 4 ,a I-
i : E \
j,
SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA
PUD 94=02(A)
‘AKJRA & TOSHIKO MUROYA
PO BOX 9000-25 1
-CARLSBAD CA 92008
AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES LIMITED KENNETH & MARIE BERTOSSI
450 NEWPORT CENTER DR 304 1235 COUNTRYWOOD LN
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 VISTA CA 92083
THE CHOW FAMILY
PO BOX 9286
RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92067
DAVID J & KATHLEEN RYAN
5701 LUNADA LN
LONG BEACH CA 908 14
GLENN & SHlRLEE MARSHALL
7227 SPOONBILL LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LINDA T PHAM
6545 PASEO FRONTERA B
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES K & KATHLEEN LIPPITT
4863 DRAKEWOOD TER
SAN DIEGO CA 92130
SCOTT & ELEANOR GUENDERT
PO BOX 986
VISTA CA 92085
MICHAEL & NEILLA ROBBINS
60 ALAMEDA PADRE SERRA
SANTA BARBARA CA 93 103
THE DUNCAN FAMILY
7101 AVIARA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ERIC P GRASSHOFF
13081 CANDELA PL
SAN DIEGO CA 92130
AVIARA MASTER ASSOCIATION
20 11 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD 206
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WERNER F & IVY ASTL
6892 PEACH TREE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AVIARA POINT ASSN
225 I SAN DIEGO AVE A250
SAN DIEGO CA 92 I 10
AVIARA MASTER ASSOCIATION
201 I PALOMAR AIRPORT RD 206
CARLSBAD CA 92009
: AVIARA RESORTS ASSOCIATES LP I/ ’ I
1 501 W BROADWAY 1900
SAN DIEGO CA 92101 I
GREYSTONE HOMES INC
495 E RINCON ST 115
CORONA CA 91719
\
MICHAEL & RHO’NDA MAHON
6646 TOWHEE LN
’ CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARTY M & ELIZABETH MARION ROBERT KIRK
6639 TOWHEE LN 6641 REMSEN CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
SCOTT M & SHERRY MILLER
6633 REMSEN CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WARMINGTON AVIARA ASSOCIATES
3090 PULLMAN ST A
COSTA MESA CA 92626
MILDRED C DEHETRE
703 I ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES M & ELIZABETH CONSOLE
7035 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AVIARA MASTER ASSOCIATION
225 1 SAN DIEGO AVE A250
SAN DIEGO CA 92 110
KEVIN W & KAREN BARNHART
6637 REMSEN CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES F & DENISE QUIGLEY
7074 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THE WOLFE FAMILY
7027 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEPHEN J & NATASHA BROPIHY
7039 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
-TERENCE L & KATHLEEN MUELLER ALAN H CROLL DARYL K & MARVEL GEST -7043 ROCKROSE TER 5030 CHAMPION BLVD 705 1 ROCKROSE TER
“CARLSBAD CA 92009 BOCA RATON FL 33496 CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM R & SHAWNA LUCK RANDY J & BARBARA BECK
7055 ROCKROSE TER 7059 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GUY S MOORE JR GEORGE BOLTON
6503 EL CAMINO REAL 6519 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ELklNE BLACKBURN
PLANNING
GEORGE W MANNON SUPT CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST 801 PINE AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
"SEA COUNTRY HOMES INC 95 ARGONAUT SUITE 210 ALISO VIEJO CA 92656
FLEN YAMAMOTO
1202 VIA LA JOLLA
SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672
(For.n A)
TO:
FROM;
RE:
C1T.Y CLERK’S OFFICE
PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached arc the naterfals necessary for you to notice
PUD g&-02(A) - SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of
Thank you.
Assistant City Man-- .
-7 --I(0 -410
Oate
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 600 p.m. on Wednesday, July 3, 1996, to
consider a request for approval of an amendment to an approved PUD (PUD 94-02) for a
multifamily development on property generally located within the Aviara Master Plan (Planning
Area 15) at the southern end of Black Rail Court in the PC Zone and within Local Facilities
Management Zone 19, and more particularly described as:
Parcel 6 of Parcel Map No. 1645 1, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County on April 15, 199 1, 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 June 26, 1996. If you have any
questions, please call Elaine Blackbum in the Planning Department at (6 19) 438-l 16 1, extension
4471.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Planned Unit Development
Amendment, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If
you challenge the Planned Unit Development Amendment 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: PUD 94-02(A)
CASE NAME: SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA
PUBLISH: JUNE 21,1996
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
EB,bk
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (619) 438-11610 FAX (619) 438-0894 a3