HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-07; City Council; 14371; Bella Lago Aviara PA 28 Appealn
9 0
!E
%
. .
p
2
Ei
5
8
AB# 14,331
MTG. 10/7/97
DEPT. PLN ti
P I
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENuA BILL
TITLE:
BELLA LAG0 - AVIARA PA 28 APPEAL
SDP 97-OWDP 97-14
CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That Council ADOPT Resolution No. 9 7-6 2 1 UPHOLDING the Planning Commission’s
decision to APPROVE the Site Development P&n and Coastal Development Permit for the
Bella Lago - Aviara Planning Area 28 residential development.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On August 6, 1997, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and approved
with a 7-O vote the Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit for the Bella
Lago development. The permits would allow the construction of 61 single family homes in
Aviara’s Planning Area 28. The property is located on the northern shore of Batiquitos
Lagoon, just west of the Aviara Golf Course and south of Batiquitos Drive and is currently
being graded in conformance with the approved final map.
Since Aviara Planning Area 28 is adjacent to the lagoon, public views of the project have
always been a concern. To make the development as visually subtle as possible, 25 of the
61 units were limited to a maximum building height of 22 feet (essentially one story), The
remainder of the lots could be 30 feet high. The maximum building height for each lot was
set though a view study and was clearly defined in the Aviara Master Plan through MP
177(J), approved by City Council on March 7, 1995.
The proposed single family homes for Bella Lago meet all applicable regulations, including
building height. In fact, the applicant is electing to provide more 22 foot high homes than
required and will be offering floor plan options for most homes, further enhancing the
architectural variety. Some homeowners in Aviara Planning Area 27 just north of Planning
Area 28 are appealing the project because they feel that two story homes along Batiquitos
Drive block their view of the lagoon and crowd the street scene.
Staff cannot support the reasons for appeal because public views of the project were taken
into account when the height limits were established for each lot and all homes must
maintain the typical 35 foot setback from Batiquitos Drive. There are no provisions that
mandate the protection of private views and the developer has provided a greater
proportion of low lying homes than required.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impacts to the City are negligible since all development fees have been collected
through the final map process, or will be collected through building permit processing. All
public facilities necessary to serve the development are in place.
, 3 PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 1 Y ! 3 7 1
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Earlier environmental analysis has been conducted on Aviara Planning Area 28 on several
occasions, including the EIR for the Aviara Master Plan and the Master EIR for the 1994
General Plan update. Without exception, the proposed action has no additional impacts not
previously analyzed in the earlier environmental review and no additional review or
mitigation measures are necessary.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 9 3 -bg/
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4146 and 4147
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 6, 1997
5. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated August 6, 1997
6. Appeal Form, dated August 14, 1997.
“
, 1
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 97-621-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPELLANT’S
APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN (SDP 97-01) AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
(CDP 97-14) TO CONSTRUCT 61 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
WITHIN AVIARA PLANNING AREA 28 ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
BATIQUITOS DRIVE AND MELODIA TERRACE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 19.
CASE NAME: BELLA LAG0 - AVIARA PA 28
CASE NO: SDP 97-Ol/CDP 97-14
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on August 6, 1997, hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said application for a Site Development
Plan and Coastal Development Permit; and
WHEREAS, on August 6, 1997, the Carlsbad Planning Commission did, after
hearing and considering all evidence and testimony of aI1 people desiring to be heard, adopt
Resolutions No. 4146 and 4147, approving a Site Development Plan (SDP 97-01) and Coastal
Development Permit (CDP 97-14) to construct 61 single family homes on existing lots; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of this approval was timely filed on August 15,1997; and
WHEREAS, on the 7th day of October , 1997, the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad, held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said appeal of the Planning Commission decision; and,
WHEREAS, upon considering the request, the City Council considered all factors
relating to the appeal; and
WHEREAS, upon considering all the evidence, testimony, and arguments of those
persons present and desiring to be heard, the City denies the appeal and upholds the Planning
Commission’s decision.
3
I 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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolution Nos. 4146 and 4147,
on file with the City Clerk, and incorporated herein by reference, constitute the findings of the
City Council in this matter.
3. That the Planning Commission’s approval of SDP 97-01 and CDP 97-14 is
hereby confirmed and the appeal of that decision is denied based upon the facts set out in the
Planning Department Staff Reports dated August 6, 1997, the evidence before the Planning
Commission, the evidence as set forth in City Council Agenda Bill No. 14,371 , and the testimony before the City Council, all of which are incorporated herein by reference.
4. That the appeal is denied without prejudice since no procedural error occurred
and the proposed project is consistent with all applicable codes, policies and regulations,
including, but not limited to the building height and building setbacks
5. This action is fmal the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The
provision 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
the Code of Civil Procedures, 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 no later than the
ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes fmal; however, if
within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the
proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in a amount sufficient to cover the
estimated cost of 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.”
. . .
. . .
-2- /j
1 .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I -
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad
City Council held on the 7th day Of October 1997, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Nygaard, Kulchin, and Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. , \ RAUTENKRAN Z, City Clerk/
(SEAU
-3-
ARPORT
~a~rrln~r~r~
: :
: .
: :
: : .
: I
: :
:
5 ~rrrm~rnmmm:
BELLA LAG0 - AVIARA P.A. 28
SDP 979Ol/CDP 97-14
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
EXHIBIT 3
~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4146
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION
OF 61 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON PREGRADED LOTS
WITHIN AVIARA PLANNING AREA 28 ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF BATIQUITOS DRIVE,
BETWEEN GOLDEN STAR LANE AND MELODIA
TERRACE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 19.
CASE NAME: BELLA LAG0 - AVIARA PA 28
CASE NO.: SDP 97-01
WHEREAS, Brookfield Carlsbad, Inc, “Developer”, has filed a verified : .
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Brookfield Carlsbad, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
All of Carlsbad Tract No. CT 90-31, Units 1 and 2, according
to Maps No. 13368 and 13369, filed in the Offrce of the County
Recorder on November 8, 1996, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California,
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Plan as shown on Exhibits .“A” - “0“ dated August 6,1997, on file in the Planning Department,
Site Development Plan SDP 97-01 as provided by Chapter 21.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 6th day of August 1997 , 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 Site Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the Citv of Carlsbad as follows:
I/
I 28 7
I 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
4
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission APPROVES Site Development Plan, SDP 97-01 based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental
settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will
not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which
the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or
traffic circulation, in that the project is at the appropriate density, will provide all
necessary facilities prior to occupancy, maintains the existing surrounding open
space areas and precludes the sedimentation and contamination of the Batiquitos
Lagoon.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the proposed single family homes can fit within the existing lot lines and graded
pads.
That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust
the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that the proposed development meets or exceeds the
development standards of the master plan, which were designed to increase
compatibility of the proposed single family homes with the adjacent open space and
development.
That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all trafIic
generated by the proposed use, in that the proposed homes will generate
approximately 488 average daily vehicle trips which can be accommodated on the
collector street of Batiquitos Drive.
The Planning Commission finds that the project is in conformance with the Elements of
the City’s General Plan, based on the following:
a. Land Use - a single family residential project at a density of 1.44 dwelling per
acre is consistent with the RLM designation;
b.
C.
Circulation - all necessary street improvements have been completed;
Housing -all affordable housing requirements for Planning Area 28 are
accommodated by the Villa Loma project;
d. Open Space and Conservation - project maintains amount of native habitat
and erosion control and NPDES requirements reduce lagoon sedimentation
and contamination;
PC RESO NO. 4146 -2- 8
1 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
6. 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 the 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.
C.
All necessary public improvements have been provided.
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.
7. 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.
8. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 19.
. 9. The Planning Commission finds that:
e. Public Safety - the proposed single family homes will be constructed in
accordance with the seismic design standards of the Uniform Building Code
and State building requirements and an emergency access route will be
maintained throughout construction;
a. the project is a type of project described in CEQA Guidelines - 15 168(c)(2) and
69;
b.
C.
the project is consistent with the General Plan and Site Development Plan;
there was an EIR certified and Mitigated Negative Declaration approved in
connection with the prior General Plan Update and Site Development Plan;
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as significant
in the prior EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration;
PC PESO NO. 4146 -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
e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or a Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15 163 exist;
10. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the MEXR and Mitigated Negative Declaration which are
appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent
Project.
II
Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby APPROVE the Site Development Plan for the
project entitled Bella Lago - Aviara PA 28 (Exhibits “A” - “O”, dated August 6, 1997
on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference, subject to the
conditions herein set forth with the exception of Lot 44 which is restricted to a
maximum building height of 22 feet.) Staff is authorized and directed to make, or
require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Site Development
Plan documents, as necessary, to make them internally consistent and in conformity with
final action on the project. Development shall oocur substantially as shown in the
approved Exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different from this approval,
shall require an amendment to this approval.
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. 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.
5. 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 February 5, 1997, 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. The Developer shall provide proof of payment of statutory school fees to mitigate
conditions of overcrowding as part of the building permit application. The amount of
these fees shall be determined by the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit
application. II PC RESO NO. 4146 -4- 16
I f
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
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
. . .
h
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.
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.
Approval of SDP 97-01 is granted subject to the approval of CDP 97-14. SDP 97-01 is
subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4147 for
CDP 97-14.
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. Said landscaping plans shall include specimen trees and shrubs incorporated
into the planting of the internal slopes and those slopes along the southern portion
of Planning Area 28 intended to screen and soften public views of the site, to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director.
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.
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.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall submit proof of
satisfaction of all special conditions from Coastal Development Permit 6-96-43 and
6-96-38 for Aviara Planning Area 28 including, but not limited to, public access
disclosure and improvements.
PC RESO NO. 4146 -5- /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
Engineering:
16. Lots 5,6,44, and 45 shall be designed to comply with driveway setback standards.
Fire DeDartment:
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Prior to 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.
The applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts
the 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.
The applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency routes, driveways and traffic
circulation for Fire Department approval.
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 shall be
equipped with a “Knox” key-operated emergency entry device. The 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 lanes in accordance with the
requirements of Section 17.04.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
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 clearly depict street centerlines, hydrant
locations and street names.
General:
24. 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 of 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 Site Development Plan.
PC RESO NO. 4146 -6- ta
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
-
Code Reminders:
1. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
2. 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
3. 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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
,
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of August 1997, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Heineman,
Monroy, Noble, Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMIrLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4146 -7- 13
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. 4147
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CDP 97-14 FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF 61 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON
PREGRADED LOTS WITHIN AVIARA PLANNING AREA 28
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH .OF
BATIQUITOS DRIVE, BETWEEN GOLDEN STAR LANE
AND MELODIA TERRACE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 19.
CASE NAME: BELLA LAG0 - AVIARA PA 28
CASE NO.: CDP 97-14
WHEREAS, Brookfield Carlsbad, Inc., “Developer”, has tiled a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Brookfield Carlsbad, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
All of Carlsbad Tract No. CT 90-31, Units 1 and 2, according
to Maps No. 13368 and 13369, fded in the Office of the County
Recorder on November 8, 1996, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California,
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “0“ dated August 6, 1997, on file in the
Planning Department, Coastal Developnient Permit CDP 97-14 as provided by Chapter
21.201.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 6th day of August, 1997, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
I 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 CDP 97-14.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: lit
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 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES Coastal Development Permit CDP 97-14, based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local .Coastal
Program and all applicable policies in that no agricultural lands exist on or near the
site; all surrounding environmentally sensitive habitats will remain in their
undisturbed state; shoreline access was accommodated through the provision of a
public parking lot and North Shore access trail; erosion will be controlled by
grading in conformance with City Standards and the adjacent desiltation basin; and
visual panoramas of the site have been preserved through the selective placement of
22 and 30 foot high homes, as required by the Local Coastal Program implementing
ordinances.
Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby APPROVE the Coastal Development Permit for
the project entitled Bella Lago - Aviara PA 28 (Exhibits “A” - “0“ dated August 6,
1997 on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference, subject to the
conditions herein set forth.) Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require
Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit
documents, as necessary, to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final
action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved
Exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different from this approval, shall
require an amendment to this approval.
2. Building permits shall be issued for this project within two (2) years of approval
or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per Section
21.201.210 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Approval of CDP 97-14 is granted subject to the approval of SDP 97-01. CDP 97-14 is
subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4146 for
SDP 97-01.
. . .
. . .
PC RESO NO. 4147 -2-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of August, 1997, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Heineman,
Monroy, Noble, Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None , . .
ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J: HMZMIEER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4147 -3-
- EXHIBIT 4 r ‘one City of CARLSBAD Planning Departmem
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 6 0
Application complete date: March 5, 1997
P.C. AGENDA OF: August 6, 1997 Project Planner: Michael Grim
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: SDP 97-Ol/CDP 97-14 - BELLA LAG0 - AVIARA PA 28 - Request for a Site
Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit for the construction of 61
single family homes on pregraded lots within Aviara Planning Area 28, located on
the south side of Batiquitos Drive, between Golden Star Lane and Melodia
Terrace in Local Facilities Management Zone 19.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4146 and 4147
APPROVING a Site Development Plan SDP 97-01 and Coastal Development Permit CDP 97-
14, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The proposal involves the construction of 61 single family homes on pregraded lots within
Aviara Planning Area 28. The Site Development Plan is required to review the building
architecture and plotting and a Coastal Development Permit is needed for development in the
Coastal Zone. The project conforms to all applicable regulations and staff has no issues with the
proposal.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Brookfield Carlsbad, Inc. is requesting approval of a Site Development Plan and Coastal
Development Permit to allow the construction of 61 single family homes on pregraded lots
within Aviara Planning Area 28. The site is a slightly undulating property located on a hill
overlooking and adjacent to the Batiquitos Lagoon and is currently being graded in accordance
with the approved grading plan for CT 90-31. To the north, across Batiquitos Drive, is Cantata,
another single development by Brookfield Carlsbad. East of Planning Area 28 are a trailhead
parking lot for the North Shore Trail and the first hole of the Aviara Golf Course, while west of
the site are natural open space and the Isla Mar single family subdivision (Planning Area 30). As
shown on Exhibits “B” - “D”, dated August 6, 1997, the site is accessed through two private
streets, Shorebird Lane and Pelican Street, and would include security gates with guardhouses.
The proposed homes tit within the lots created by existing tract map, with the exception of two
lot line adjustments currently in process with the Engineering Department (as detailed on
Exhibits “B” - “D”, dated August 6, 1997).
’ SDP 97-OlKDP 97-14 - BJxLA LAG0 - AVIARA PA 28
AUGUST 6,1997
PAGE 2
Aviara Planning Area 28 has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council on
several occasions. First was the original tentative map approval in September, 1992, which
created the existing lots and the private streets. Second was an amendment to the master plan
development standards, approved by the City Council on March 7, 1995. Previously restricted to
a maximum building height of 22 feet because of its proximity to the lagoon, this master plan
amendment allowed selective lots to contain homes up to 30 feet high. To offset the potential
visual impacts of 30 foot high homes, design criteria were included that reduced the bulk of the
two story homes.
The current proposal involves a mix of homes, ranging from 2,985 to 4,145 square feet in area
and measuring either 22 feet or 30 feet high. There would be two 22 foot high models and one
30 foot high model, each with optional add-ons. These add-ons include additional garages,
libraries or bedrooms and are shown in the architectural drawings. They are not available to
every lot because of setback issues therefore the developer has provided a table on Exhibit “A”,
dated August 6, 1997, that details which lot may include which option. The architectural style
would be a mix of Spanish Colonial and Mediterranean elements, as prescribed by the Aviara
Residential Design Guidelines. As detailed in section C below, the developer has gone beyond
the restrictions provided in the master plan for visual aesthetics and is proposing more 22 foot
high homes, larger setbacks and more building articulation than required.
The Bella Lago - Aviara PA 28 project is subject to the following regulations:
A. General Plan;
B. Local Coastal Program;
C. Aviara Master Plan;
D. Planned Community Zone Ordinance (Chapter 21.38 of the Zoning Ordinance);
E. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance);
F. Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and
tables.
-
SDP 97-Ol/CDP 97-14 - B&LA LAG0 - AVIARA PA 28
AUGUST 6,1997
A. General Plan
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT USE CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, PROPOSED USES AND
OEiJECTIVE OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS COMPLIANCE
Land Use Site is designated for Residential Single family homes at a Yes
Low Medium Density uses. density of 1.44 units per acre
is consistent.
Housing Ensure that all master planned and
specific planned communities and
all qualified subdivisions provide a
range of housing for all economic
income ranges.
Project provides market rate
units within Aviara while
the master plan developer
has constructed sufficient
units in the Villa Loma
development to cover PA
28’s affordable housing
requirement.
Yes
Public Safety Design all structures in accordance All buildings will meet UBC Yes
with the seismic design standards of and State seismic
the UE3C and State building requirements.
requirements.
Provision of emergency water
systems and all-weather access
All necessary water mains,
appurtenances must be
installed prior to occupancy
of any unit and all-weather
access roads will be
maintained throughout
control during grading
reduces sedimentation of
Project will comply with all
Require new development to
construct all roadways needed to
All street improvements
have been completed.
-
SDP 97-OKDP 97-14 - BbLLA LAG0 - AVIARA PA 28
AUGUST 6,1997
PAGE 4
B. Local Coastal Program
The Bella Lago - Aviara PA 28 site lies within the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties
segment of the City’s Coastal Zone and is subject to the corresponding land use policies and
implementing ordinances. The implementing ordinances for those portions of the East Batiquitos
Lagoon segment within Aviara is the Aviara Master Plan. This section addresses only
conformance with the Land Use Plan since implementing ordinance conformance is addressed in
section C below. The policies of the East Batiquitos Lagoon segment include topics such as
preservation of agriculture and scenic resources, protection of environmentally sensitive
resources, provision of shoreline access, and prevention of geologic instability and erosion.
The land uses allowed through the LCP segments are the same as those allowed by the Aviara
Master Plan, therefore the proposed single family residential uses are consistent with the LCP.
All steep slopes with native vegetation were preserved through the tentative tract map (CT 90-
31) and no encroachment is proposed with the residential construction. The current erosion
control standards of the Engineering Department will be maintained throughout the project site to
deter off-site erosion and potential lagoon sedimentation. No agricultural lands exist on the
graded site therefore no impacts to such will occur. Shoreline access issues have already been
resolved through the provision of a public parking lot and access trail to the North Shore Trail on
the southeast corner of Batiquitos Drive and Shorebird Lane, as shown on Exhibit “D”, dated
August 6, 1997. The visual resources of the site have been preserved through the selective
placement of 22 and 30 foot high homes, in conformance with the LCP implementing
ordinances. Given the above, the Bella Lago - Aviara PA 28 project is consistent with the Local
Coastal Program.
C. Aviara Master Plan
According to the Aviara Master Plan, all development within Aviara Planning Area 28 is to
follow the requirements of the R-l-l 0,000 zone, except as modified in the master plan. Since
Planning Area 28 is close to the lagoon, special development standards and design criteria have
been added to augment the R-l standards. Examples of these special standards are the
requirement for decreased building height, increased front and side yard setbacks, and varied roof
and building planes for two story homes. Table 2 below details the project’s conformance to the
master plan standards and criteria.
TABLE 2: AVIARA MASTER PLAN CONFORMANCE
II MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT
Building Height:
30 feet for a maximum of 36 units
22 feet for a minimum of 25 units
Front Yard Setback:
26 feet for a minimum of 37 units
20 feet for a maximum of 24 units
PROPOSED PLAN
25 units measure 30 feet in height
36 units measure 22 feet in height
38 units have minimum 26 foot yards
23 units have minimum 20 foot yards
CONFORMANCE
Yes
Yes
SDP 97-O l/GDP 97-14 - BELLA LAG0 - AVIARA PA 28
AUGUST 6,1997
TABLE 2: AVIARA MASTER PLAN CONFORMANCE
35 feet from right-of-way Drive R.O.W. The closest units is
As shown in Table 2 above, the developer has incorporated more restrictions in the development
than required by the master plan. While a minimum of 40 percent of the homes must measure a
maximum of 22 feet high, the developer is making 59 percent of the homes 22 feet in height. By
providing options for some units, the variety of architectural massing and articulation is
enhanced. All of these additional design elements serve to create a more aesthetic development
than envisioned by the master plan. Considering that the proposed units are generally lower and
more architecturally interesting than required by the master plan, and all minimum setbacks are
being met or exceeded, the Bella Lago - Aviara PA 28 proposal is consistent with the Aviara
Master Plan. Since the Aviara Master Plan serves as the implementing ordinance of the Local
Coastal Program, consistency with the master plan also represents consistency with the LCP
implementing ordinances.
D. P-C - Planned Community Zone
The underlying zoning of the proposed Bella Lago - Aviara PA 28 project is P-C, Planned
Community. In accordance with that designation, the Aviara Master Plan was created to
implement the zoning. No specific development standards or design criteria exist in the P-C
zone, however, and all applicable standards and criteria are contained within the master plan
documents. Therefore, conformance with the master plan requirements also indicates
conformance with the Planned Community Zone Ordinance.
E. Growth Management Ordinance
Since the Bella Lago project involves the placement of residential units on already subdivided
lots, the impacts on the facilities regulated by the Growth Management Ordinance have been
assessed with the approval of the tentative tract map for Planning Area 28 (CT 90-3 1). Table 3
below reiterates the project’s compliance with the applicable Growth Management facility
requirements.
-
SDP 97-01 /CDP 97-14 - B~:LLA LAG0 - AVIARA PA 28
AUGUST 6,1997
II TABLE 3 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE II
Standard
City Administration
Library
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water
Impacts/Standards
212.1 sq. ft.
Compliance
Yes
113.1 sq. ft.
61 EDU
Yes
Yes
0.42 acres
PLDA D
Yes
Yes
488 ADT
Fire Station No. 4
Yes
Yes
N/A Yes
CUSD
61 EDU
Yes
Yes
13,420 GPD Yes
F. Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan
Local Facilities Management Zone 19 covers the entire Aviara Master Plan area, including
Planning Area 28. No special development requirements exist in the zone plan. The plan does
require that all facilities needed to serve the development be in place concurrent with or prior to
need. The Bella Lago project, as conditioned, will be served with all utilities and improvements
prior to occupancy of any unit. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Zone 19 Local
Facilities Management Plan.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Earlier analysis has been conducted on Aviara Planning Area 28 on several occasions. One was
the Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort (EIR 83-02(A)
for CT 85-35NP 177), certified on December 8, 1987. This document analyzed all of the
potential impacts for the development and occupation of the over 2,000 unit residential master
plan (now known as Aviara) with its associated 18 hole golf course, 550 room hotel, sports club
and neighborhood commercial site, including development of Planning Area 28 with single
family homes. Another was the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan
Update (MEIR 93-Ol), which reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the City’s General
Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts. Without exception, the proposed action
has no additional impacts not previously analyzed in the earlier environmental review and no
additional review or mitigation measures are necessary.
-
SDP 97-Ol/CDP 97-14 - BwLA LAG0 - AVIARA PA 28
AUGUST 6,1997
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4146
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4147
Location Map
Disclosure Statement
Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance, dated June 5, 1997
Environmental Impact Assessment Form, dated May 29, 1997
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Background Data Sheet
Exhibits “A” - “O“, dated August 6,1997.
a3
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANT’SSTA~ME~OFDISCLOSU~ORCERT~NO~ERSHIPI~~~ON~LAPPLICATlONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR ANY
APPOINTED BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE
I (Please Ptint) I
,
The following information must be disclosed:
1. ADDkant List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application,
BROOKFIELD CARLSBAD INC.
12865 Pointe De1 Mar, Ste. 200
De1 Mar. CA 92014
2. Owner
List the names and addressees of aii person having any ownership interest in the property involved.
BROOKFIELD CARSLBAD INC. 12865 Pointe De1 Mar, Ste. 200
De1 Mar, CA 92014
3. if any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names
and addresses of all individtials owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning
any partnership interest in the partnership. ,
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a 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.
DISCLOSJRM 2l96 PAGElof2 al/
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-l 576 - (619) 438-l 161 @
-
.
Disclosure Statement Per) Page 2
5. Have you had more than $250.00 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff.
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months.?
Yes No 2 If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other
political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.” .
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
BROOKFIELD CARLSBAD INC.
f%QLQ
Signature of Ow& r/date .
BROOKFIELD CARLSBAD INC.
h wtd -
Signature of applicant/date
E. Dale Gleed - Vice President Elizabeth Zepeda - Secretary
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
DISCLOSJ’RM 2/96 PAGE 1 of2 a3i
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Please Take Notice:
The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the
project described below have already been considered in conjunction with
previously certified environmental documents and, therefore, no additional
environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed.
Project Title:
Project Location:
BELLA LAG0 - AVIARA PLANNING AREA 28
South of Batiquitos Drive, between Golden Star Lane and
Melodia Terrace, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
Project Description: Construction of 61 single family homes on pregraded lots within
Aviara Planning Area 28.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las
Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009.
Please submit comments in writing to the
date of publication.
Comments from the public are invited.
Planning Department within 20 days of
DATED: JUNE 5, 1997
CASE NO: SDP 97-Ol/CDP 97-14
CASE NAME: BELLA LAG0 - AVIARA
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 5, 1997
PLANNING AREA 28 /
MICHAW J. HOLZMLLER
V Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. l Cartsbad. CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-11610 FAX (619) 438-0894
-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 97-O 1 /CDP 97- 14
DATE: May 29. 1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Bella Lago - Aviara PlanninP Area 28
2. APPLICANT: Brookfield Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 12865 Pointe del Mar. Del Mar CA
92014 (760) 481-8500
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Februarv 5. 1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Site DeveloDment Plan and Coastal Development
Permit to allow construction of 61 single family homes on megraded lots in Aviara
Planning Area 28.
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.
q Land Use and Planning
0 Population and Housing
0 Transportation/Circulation
D Biological Resources
0 Public Services
0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
cl Water
0 Air Quality
cl Hazards cl Cultural Resources
cl Noise cl Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
’ DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
0
cl
0
i IXI
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 earlier EIRs and pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to those earlier EIRs
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Date
2
a8
Rev. 03f28l96
-
.
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.
l “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.
l Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but fi 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).
0 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.
l 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.
3 a9 Rev. 03/28/96
a 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.
l 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.
4 Rev. 03LW96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
b)
cl
4
4
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#I, pgs 4-l - 4-26; #2, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-
18) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #2, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Be indompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#I, pgs 4-l - 4-26; #2, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#I, pgs 4-l - 4-26; #2, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#I, pgs 4-l - 4-26; #2, pgs 5.6-
1 - 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
c)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#I, pgs 4-l - 4-26; #2, pgs
5.5-l - 5.5-6)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#I, pgs 4-1 - 4-
26; #2, pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#1, pgs 4-l - 4-26; #2, pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a)
b)
cl
d)
e)
fl
8)
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#I, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #2, pgs 5.1-I -
5.1-15)
Seismic ground shaking? (#I, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #2,
pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#I, pgs
4-150 - 4-156 ; #2, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#I, pgs 4-150 -
4-156; #2, pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #2,
pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (# 1, pgs 4-
150 - 4-156; #2, pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
Subsidence of the land? (#I, pgs 4-l 50 - 4-l 56; #2, pgs
5.1-I - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#I, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #2, pgs 5.1-l
- 5.1-15)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#I, pgs 4- 150 -
4-156; #2, pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cl
0
cl
cl
cl
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
‘0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(XI
Ix1
(x1
El
El
IXJ
lxl
El
IXI
lxl
Ix1
IXJ
lx
IXI
lxl
IXJ
El
.3 I+ 5 Rev. 03/28/96
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a>
b)
c>
4
e>
ia
h)
i)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#I, pgs 4-l IO - 4-
118; #2, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l I)
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#I, pgs 4-l IO - 4-l 18; #2, pgs 5.2-l
- 5.2-l 1)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#I, pgs 4- 110 - 4- 118; #2, pgs
5.2-l - 5.2-I I)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#I, pgs 4-I IO - 4-l 18; #2, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l I)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l, pgs 4-110 - 4-118; #2, pgs 5.2-l -
5.2-l 1)
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? (#I, pgs 4-l 10 - 4-l 18; #2, pgs 5.2-I - 5.2-
11) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#I,
pgs 4-l IO - 4-l 18; #2, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#I, pgs 4- 1 IO - 4-
118; #2, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-I I)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l, pgs
4-l IO - 4-l 18; #2, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-I 1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#I, pgs 4-
84 - 4-93; #2, pgs 5.3-I - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l, pgs 4-
1 IO - 4-l 18; #2, pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#I, pgs 4-l 10 - 4- 118; #2, pgs
5.3-l - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#I, pgs 4-l 10 - 4-l 18;
#2, pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
4
b)
cl
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#I, pgs
4-63 - 4-80; #2, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#I, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #2, pgs
5.7-l - 5.7-22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#I, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #2, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LessThan No
Signiftcan Impact
t Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
lxl
El
El
txl
El
IXI
0 lz
0 lxl
0 El
6 Rev. 03f28196
.I. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
e>
f,
g)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#I,
pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #2, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#I,
pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #2, pgs 5.7- 1 - 5.7-22 j
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l,
pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #2, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (# 1, pgs 4-63 -
4-80; #2, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a)
b)
cl
4
d
VIII.
4
b)
c)
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#I, pgs 4-l 19 - 4-149; #2, 5.4-l -
5.4-24)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#I,
pgs 4-l 19 - 4-149; #2,5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l, pgs 4-l 19 - 4- 149;
#2,5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l, pgs 4-I 19 - 4-149; #2,5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#I, pgs 4-
119 - 4-149; #2,5.4-l - 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l,
pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#I, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #2, pgs
5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5)
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? (#l, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #2,
pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
cl
4
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#I, pgs 4-94 - 4-l 09; #2, pgs
5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-3)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#I, pgs 4-94 - 4- 109;
#2, pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-3)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#I, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #2, pgs 5.10.1-I -
5.10.1-3)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#I, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #2, pgs 5.10.1-I
- 5.10.1-3)
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significan t Impact
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO
impact
El
lxl
IXI
lx
lxl
Ix1
lxl
Ix1
IXI
lzl
Ix1
IXI
lx
1x1
tx
El
7 Rev. 03l28196 33
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#I, pgs 4-94 - 4- 109; #2, pgs 5.10.1- 1 -
5.10.1-3)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#I, pgs 4-8 1 - 4-84;
#2, pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-15)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#I, pgs 4-
81 - 4-84; #2, pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
4
b)
cl
4
e)
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#I, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.5-I
- 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#I, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #2, pgs
5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6)
Schools? (#I, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.7-I -
5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#I,
pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.8-7)
Other governmental services? (#l, pgs 4-94 - 4- 109;
#2, pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.8-7)
XII.UTILITlES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
a)
b)
cl
4
e)
0
g)
XIII.
a)
b)
cl
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (# 1, pgs 4-94 - 4- 109; #2,5.12.1-
1 - 5.12.1-5)
Communications systems? (#I, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #2,
pgs 5.12.2-I - 5.12.8-7)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#I, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.2-I -
5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#I, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #2, pgs
5.12.2-I - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #2, pgs
5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7)
Solid waste disposal? (#I, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #2, pgs
5.12.4-I - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#I, pgs 4-94 - 4- 109;
#2, pgs 5.12.2-I - 5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l, pgs 4-
35 - 4-62; #2, pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5)
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#I, pgs
4-35 - 4-62; #2, pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5)
Create light or glare? (#I, pgs 4-35 - 4-62; #2, pgs
5.10.3-I - 5.10.3-2)
8
Potentially Significant
impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO
impact
El
[XI
El
Ix1
El
lxl
lxl
lx
IXI
lxl
IXI
IXI
Ix)
lx
(xi
El
Ix1
IXI
34 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIV.
a>
b)
cl
dj
ej
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#I, pgs 4-157 - 4-
167; #2, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#I, pgs 4-157 - 4-
167; #2, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Affect historical resources? (# 1, pgs 4- 157 - 4- 167; #2,
pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l, pgs 4-
157 - 4-167; #2, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#I, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #2, pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#I, pgs 4-157 -
4-167; #2, pgs 5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#I, pgs 4-
157 - 4-167; #2, pgs 5.12.8-I - 5.12.8-7)
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LessThan No
Significan Impact
t Impact
0 IXI
0 El
0 lx
0 lx .
0 IXI
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
9 Rev. 03128196
35’
. . - XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis has been conducted on two occasions. First was the Environmental Impact
Report for the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort (EIR 83-02(A) for CT 85-35/MP 177),
certified on December 8, 1987. This document analyzed all of the potential impacts for the
development and occupation of the over 2,000 unit residential master plan (now known as
Aviara) with its associated 18 hole golf course, 550 room hotel, sports club and neighborhood
commercial site, including development of Planning Area 28 with single family homes. Second
was the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-Ol ),
which reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the City’s General Plan, including
transportation and air quality impacts. Without exception, the proposed action has no additional
impacts not previously analyzed in the earlier environmental review and no additional review or
mitigation measures are necessary.
10 sl, Rev. 03128196
A
\. . DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposal involves the construction of 61 single family homes on pregraded lots within
Aviara Planning Area 28. The proposed homes meet all applicable standards and policies.
including setbacks, building height and architectural style and relief. No environmentally
sensitive resources exist on the previously graded site and no significant adverse impacts to the
environment are anticipated.
AIR OUALITY:
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 minim& 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
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.
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.
37 11 Rev. 03l28196
.-
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 1)
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 al1 subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
12 Rev. 03l28/96 38
A
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: Bella Lana - Aviara PA 28 - SDP 97-Ol/CDP 97-14
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 19 GENERAL PLAN: RLM
ZONING: P-C - Planned Communitv
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Brookfield Carlsbad, Inc.
ADDRESS: 12865 Pointe de1 Mar, De1 Mar CA 92014
PHONE NO.: 760-481-8500 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 215-644-04
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 61 units
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: October, 1997
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage =
Library: Demand in Square Footage =
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =
Open Space: Acreage Provided =
Schools:
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDUs
Water: Demand in GPD =
212.1
113.1
61 EDU
0.42
N/A
PLDA D
488 ADT
No. 4
N/A
CUSD
61 EDU
13,420 GPD
The project is five (5) units below the Growth Management Control Point.
. -
-
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: SDP 97-OlKDP 97-14
CASE NAME: Bella Lago - Aviara PA 28
APPLICANT: Brookfield Carlsbad. Inc.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Construction of 61 single family homes on prenraded lots
within Aviara Planning Area 28.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All of Carlsbad Tract No. CT 90-3 1. Units 1 and 2, according to
Mans No. 13368 and 13369. filed in the Office of the Countv Recorder on November 8. 1996, in
the Citv of Carlsbad, Countv of San Diego. State of California.
APN: 215-644-04 Acres: 44.09 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 61
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Residential Low Medium (RLM)
Density Allowed: 0.0 - 4.0 du/ac Density Proposed: 1.44 du/ac
Existing Zone: P-C Proposed Zone: P-C
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
Site
North
South
East
West
Zoning Land Use
P-C Vacant pads
P-C Single family homes
P-C Open Space
P-C Golf Course
P-C Single family homes
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 61 EDU
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: Februarv 5. 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
cl Negative Declaration, issued
cl Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
lxl Other, Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance, dated June 5, 1997
h
EXHIBIT 5
6. SDP 97-011CDP 97-14 - BELLA LAG0 - AVIARA PA 28, A request for a Site Development Plan
and Coastal Development Permit for the construction of 61 single-family homes on pregraded lots
within Aviara Planning Area 28, located on the south side of Batiquitos Drive, between Golden
Star Lane and Melodia Terrace in Local Facilities Management Zone 19.
Chairperson Nielsen announced that the Commission’s action on this item is final and it will not be
forwarded to the City Council unless it is appealed within ten (10) calendar days.
Project Planner Michael Grim presented the staff report and described the project as follows: This is a
request for a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit, by Brookfield, Carlsbad, a
developer within the Aviara Master Plan. The site of the proposal is located on the south side of Batiquitos
Drive, between Planning Area 30 on the west and the Aviara golf course on the east. The existing lots
and private streets were created in 1992 and in 1995 there was an amendment to the master plan
development standards to allow selective lots to contain homes up to 30 feet high where they had been
previously restricted to 22 feet high. To offset the potential visual impacts of 30 foot high homes, design
criteria were included that reduced the bulk of the two story homes, where needed. Brookfield, Carlsbad,
has gone beyond the restrictions provided in the master plan for visual aesthetics and is proposing more
22 foot high homes, larger setbacks, more building articulation than required, and there are two (2)
different single story models. In addition they are providing options (not available on all lots) that will result
in a good mix of styles and provide almost a custom look. The homes will range in size from
approximately 3,000 to 4,145 square feet and the architecture would be a mix of Spanish, Colonial and
Mediterranean elements, as required. Staff has reviewed the proposal and found it consistent with the
General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Aviara Master Plan, and all of the applicable ordinances and
policies and therefore is recommending approval of this project.
Commissioner Welshons referred to copies of letters that have been written to Brookfield Homes, and
asked Mr. Grim if he could comment on them
Mr. Grim stated that he has had several discussions with RaOme Mikuta, one of the correspondents,
regarding this issue. He pointed out that the highest part of the Bella Lago development is directly across
from Cantata where Ms. Mikuta’s home is located on Savannah Lane and that her concern is that her view
and the value of her property will be severely diminished with the erection of four (4) thirty (30) foot high
homes directly in front of her home. Mr. Grim also conveyed her concern that four (4) large homes, all in a
row, would not offer a very good street scene from Batiquitos Drive. He stated that he has gone over the
original approvals for allowing ,those homes and could not see where the City echoed her public view
concerns. He also stated that Ms. Mikuta appears to have an issue, regarding disclosure, with the
developer of these homes and has advised Ms. Mikuta that disclosure issues are not in the purview of the
Planning Commission or the City itself.
Commissioner Welshons asked how high the homes will be that back up on Batiquitos Drive.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION August 6, 1997 Page I6
Mr. Grim replied that there is a six (6) foot masonry wall along Batiquitos Drive and from that, going toward
the lagoon, the lots drop off from four (4) feet to much larger on the east and west ends. At the crown at
the middle of the development, there is about a 4.5’ drop and the home would end up being anywhere
from 20’ to 25.5’ from the crown of the street. He added that there is landscaping that has just been
planted and staff is expecting the landscaping on Batlquitos to mimic the landscaping along Aviara
Parkway.
Chairperson Nielsen opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak.
Dale Gleed, representing Brookfield Homes, I2865 Point Del Mar, Del Mar, stated that he and his staff
have worked very closely with the City staff in preparation of bringing this project to the Planning
Commission for approval and he is certain that they now have the best architectural fit and the best
plotting that is possible for this particular site. He asked the Commission to consider two factors when
making their decision; first, when they acquired the property last year, much of the criteria had already
been firmly established and the only remaining criteria was the architecture, and the individual plotting of
the houses. Even the plotting of the houses was already established, in that prior. decisions had been
made regarding which lots should have single story homes and which should have two story homes. Mr.
Gleed pointed out that they have complied with those decisions and, in fact, have plotted more single
stories than was required. To date, he continued, they have added nine (9) more single story homes in
the project than was initially required. The other factor is that they are asking for a change in the Master
Plan Guidelines as they relate to the architecture. Mr. Gleed indicated that the current Master Plan
Guidelines require that the rear of the two story plan have a single story element and they are asking that
this guideline be modified so that at the mid-point in the single story element, they can provide a break that
will allow them to set the wall back and give the living room the appearance of a having the height of a two
story but will remain a single story room. From the exterior, this treatment will provide relief along that
rear single story element. Mr. Gleed further stated that staff has agreed to this treatment and that is why
the Commission is being asked to modify the master plan criteria and asked for the Commission’s
approval of their application.
Commissioner Compas asked how many of the homes are likely to have two (2) 2car garages.
Mr. Gleed responded by stating that the two (2) 2-tar garages will only be on Plan 3 and it appears that
there will only be from ten (IO) to twelve (12) units configured that way.
John Grolick, 1327 Savannah Lane, Carlsbad, voiced his opposition to the plan, particularly on Lots 3, 44,
and 45, which will effectively eliminate all of the view that he paid a premium for when he bought his home
in 1995. At the time he bought his home, Mr. Grolick stated, he asked the sales representative what
would or could be developed on that particular piece of property and was told that there would be
approximately forty-five (45) to forty-eight (48) homes and all would be single story structures. He further
stated that he was aware that some of the view would be obstructed when those homes were built, but not
all of it. For the reasons given, Mr. Grolick requested that the plan, as proposed, be denied until some
resolution can be made for the residents of Savannah Lane.
Frank Lubich, 1323 Savannah Lane, Carlsbad, stated that he paid a $50,000 premium for his “view” lot
when he purchased his property in 1996 and is also concerned about the development of the adjacent
property. He further stated that his sales representative gave him the same information as was given to
Mr. Grolick, regarding the single story homes. Mr. Lubich stated that his view will also be effectively
eliminated with two story buildings on Lots 3, 44, and 45 and voiced his opposition to the approval of this
application.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Lubich if he has had any discussion with the developer, regarding this
development and Mr. Lubich replied that he and most of the residents of Savannah Lane had attended a
meeting, approximately four (4) months ago, and were told that someone from the Brookfield office would
get back to them. However, Mr. Lubich continued, to date no one from Brookfield has contacted any of
MINUTES $4
.-
iT . PLANNING COMMISSION August 6, 1997 Page 17
them.
Sandra Gilley, 1302 Savannah Lane, Carlsbad, stated that she was told that the undeveloped property,
below their property, would eventually be developed into no more than fifty (50) single story homes. She
further stated that they have a beautiful view from their home and would like to see it preserved. Ms.
Gilley also voiced her opposition to the project as it has been presented.
. RaOme Mikuta, requested and received permission to read a letter from Leonard and Laura Berg, 1335
Savannah Lane, Carlsbad, into the record.
RaOme Mikuta, 1319 Savannah Lane, Carlsbad, made reference to her previous correspondence
regarding Bella Lago and stated that she wished to bring new issues to the attention of the Commission in
order to stop the building of four (4) two story homes within five (5) lots backing up to Batiquitos Drive.
She further stated that those five (5) lots are on some of the highest lots in the development. She
referenced the revised plan for Bella Lago, received by the City on May 22, 1997, which shows a total of
twenty-four (24) two story homes. Ms. Mikuta then cited an additional revised plan,. received by the City
on July 3, 1997, now shows twenty-five (25) two story homes. She stated that with the addition of another
two story home (on Lot 44) there are now going to be four (4) thirty foot high homes, within five (5) lots,
backing up to Batiquitos Drive. She also cited the fact that those four (4) homes create almost a solid wall
of two story homes along Batiquitos Drive, starting at Golden Star Lane. Ms. Mikuta highlighted some
important issues, and her assessment of each, as follows: I) putting four (4) two story homes within five
(5) lots, along Batiquitos Drive, is not within the City’s General Plan and Aviara requirement of the Master
Plan making this “low lying neighborhood, visually subtle”; 2) according to the circulation element,
Batiquitos Drive is designated as a natural open space corridor and putting four (4) thirty foot high homes
within these five (5) lots is not visually subtle from Batiquitos Drive - it will be like driving through a tunnel;
3) Master Plan design criteria specify darker colors of homes are intended to reduce visibility of the
development from La Costa, l-5, and Batiquitos Drive and the four (4) thirty foot high homes will have a
significant visual impact from l-5 and also from La Costa. Ms. Mikuta quoted from a letter from Mr. Larry
Clemens to Planning Director Michael Holzmiller, dated October 21, 1994, “under Aviara’s proposal,
Planning Area 28 will continue to be the most restricted low lying neighborhood in Aviara.” Ms. Mikuta
concluded by requesting that the Commission allow only single story homes backing up to Batiquitos Drive
or, at the very least, changing Lot 44 back to a single story home as was submitted by the builder on his
plan of May 5, 1997.
Mr. Gleed, in response to the Public Testimony, stated that there is a disclosure in each of the sale
contracts that reads as follows: “No View Preservation. Seller shall not make any oral or written
statement representation or warranty that there is any view from any property or any existing view that will
not be obstructed in the future.” He explained that they include that disclosure to avoid conflicts. Mr.
Gleed continued, “Further, seller has not made any oral or written statement representation or warranty
as to the traffic conditions or any future use of or development of adjacent properties.” Having read those
passages, Mr. Gleed pointed out that each of the homeowners received that as part of their disclosures
and each one signed it when they purchased their homes. In addition, in March, 1995, the City Council
adopted a Resolution which designates which lots will be one story and which lots will be two story. Mr.
Gleed also pointed out that all of the lots being discussed, including the ones that they have planned for
single story units, were designated for two story plans. The difference between the first plan and the
second plan Is that there were only two (2) model types and now there has been an additional one story
plan added in order to achieve what they feel is a reasonable mix, given the restrictions of each of the lots.
Commissioner Welshons asked if Mr. Gleed would compromise on Lot. 44, and agree to restrict that lot to
a one story home.
Mr. Gleed replied that he would make that compromise on Lot 44, in the best interests of all concerned.
.I - PLANNING COMMISSION August 6, 1997 Page I8
Regarding an earlier statement by Mr. Gleed, about something that staff had agreed to for giving the one
story architectural feature on the back side, Commissioner Welshons asked if Mr. Grim could explain what
that agreement was about.
Mr. Grim gave the following explanation: when the original project was submitted, Mr. Case and his group
did an excellent job with the ins and outs of the architecture. At that time, staff was looking at the very
strictest interpretation of the design criteria which would have meant that every component of the wall
would have to have a second story element pulled back. After discussions of that design criteria with
internal staff and the Coastal Commission, it was determined that having a horseshoe courtyard area still
met the design criteria of the Master Plan and actually enhanced the building. In the middle period of that
time, Mr. Grim contacted Mr. Gleed and told him that he was potentially facing a Master Plan Amendment
and the City needs an application, and money, in order to process the amendment. Since then, it has
been determined that that is not necessary and Mr. Gleed is entitled to a refund.
Commissioner Welshons asked for clarification of the design of the two story home with a one story
element and Mr. Gleed, indicating the various parts of the plan on the wall exhibit, explained how that plan
would be accomplished.
Commissioner Compas, with regard to the visual impacts from Batiquitos Drive, asked if Mr. Grim agrees
with the assessment of those impact stated during Public Testimony.
Mr. Grim responded that he does not agree with those assessments and pointed out that based upon their
actions on the Master Plan and LCP, the previous Planning Commission of 1994, the City Council of 1995,
and the Coastal Commission of 1995 did not agree, as well.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Nielsen closed Public Testimony.
Mr. Grim stated that the staff report that Ms. Mikuta quoted from was staffs original proposal to deny the
thirty foot high homes allowance in Aviara and since staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and
Coastal Commission have, through the Public Hearing process, changed that recommendation. He stated
further that many of the comments in that report have turned around and they now believe that this
arrangement still keeps a low lying visually aesthetic community from l-5 and the open space corridor.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Grim if he agrees that the proposed arrangement of the houses will
destroy the views from the homes in Cantata.
Mr. Grim responded by saying that he has not been in any of their rear yards in order to make that
assessment but, as far as Batiquitos Drive is concerned, the height of the development would block
lagoon views regardless of whether the homes are 22 feet or 30 feet high.
Chairperson Nielsen asked for Mr. Grim’s response to a compromise on Lot 44 and Mr. Grim replied that
staff would give its overwhelming support to such an amendment.
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4146, and 4147 approving Site Development Plan
SDP 97-01 and Coastal Development Permit CDP 97-14, based upon the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with an amendment to
Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. 4146, stating that Lot #44 will be restricted to a
22 foot high home and that the Planning Director will work with the developer on
the placement of the model on the lot.
7-o
Nielsen, Noble, Heineman, Savary, Monroy, Welshons, and Compas
None
None
MINUTES 44
< b3 .
E E d
$
;: P
1
. - EXHIBIT 6
I (We) apdeal the decision of the &,eaha
to the Carlsbad City Council.
Date of Decision you are appealing: #lKfur 6 HP7 I
Subjec o &weal: BE Examples: if the action is a City Engineer’s Decision, please say so. If a project has
multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment. Negative Declaration. Specific Plan, etc.) please
list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action. please state that here.
&I? A@& fl++?~~L~‘dc. &J&d;,d& &/ll ,,,;$$iOd &crj;&/ f& sap 97-f7/ /c>p97 -/+f
&ELLA LA60 - A fliAea PA as. ~sp&&FiC~LL/; w’ C /)RE PCYYAL;~L b&!/‘S~‘0N
74 A PPRo/& d 3 ro~f~onf?s DA/ L-or /. /-ox? R&lb Aor YS/hLL OF tr+j,c~
BACK VVP rb 647iQl)iTOS ID<I’VE). NE &&& A
d E4USsnW~ T&AT J -
$E PLt4CGb D LOT 1. LOT L3 A8J.a LOT 50x 4B)r u4elE-s
Wr 46~ d&7- AeemL;& f?Uddf ‘d 6 &M M k/‘PrJ &T%w.%
DF euAdJ+c/‘d 6 /LOT YL/ teofi A a ==y ~0/)7~ 7-o 4
I J7DRY r/o/cr- L.
f2easofl[sl for &QSd : l Pkrso Not. l F8llure to sped@ 8 rouon m8y neult In don181 of
the l pposl, and you wfl ba limltod to the grounds st8tod harm whom prmontlng your 8~~081.
BE SPECIFIq How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with State Or local
laws, olans, or policy? /. &&did6. &fl/ti’r-s~jo& ain No7 fl C~~bdLEbG&’ OUR i&WfiT. i’T &i&&6
LOT 1, LO-r- 3 a&b LOT 45 FRom 4 d7ORf 7-* /s7-Qy l - _
3. 06jfl-E&f)T;bAi OF J/t?IJC rur*ly<-J~ &bzEA 077 - &GVE#v -;T//Or/bc/ CJf- LPGOdd fldb OC&fw~
k'
3. ~tSR~6,.%&3 f=@& &*fJS#b CD* S-?-A L Co/w/nis~iorJ d&b @i-w REQUf&ABuT~ 7MA’
.srN6 LE S76fi)/ Bd~)r/YL M?-/khfr Cod/Lb dNc/Lf Ag /dC&k/wGb To 13Ff. NldM
8.~K/sr~JL JOVdD STOby’ d;;*~+sEb 0-4 O/JL)/ Ls//d~fE sriky
f+ooms - N&r a JnRv 9). OLD r=lR NOT &b-Se- 03 asrir~y YOKES.
(?&a %m+S’sY PHONE NO.
v/OH/ E &55UCI@H /3L7 ~U~ou~~ L&f
NAME (please print) ADDRESS: Street Name 6 Number
T//Y/P7
DATE
@&9ucsawB - City. State,
7-i
Zip Code
1200 Car&bad Village Drive l Car&bad. California 92008-l 989
to * PR6J,'O J s srhff flEf%Crs A-C'.) rLfidNd’N6 Comfiiisir*
•B(~;~~;~4-2808
/I.
g eO/c;buLln’;yY
45 PA.&<,‘/ L- S.P~~CGJ 1 p/dLiC AcCE5S TO 7ii44iL FeOFz 6Area -~ .
October 16, 1997
Brookfield Carlsbad Inc.
12865 Pointe del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Re: AppeG- Bella Lago - Aviara Planning Area 28
The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of October 7, 1997, adopted Resolution No. 97-621,
denying the appeal of the Bella Lago - Aviara Planning Area 28.
As a courtesy, please find a copy of Resolution No. 97-621 for your files.
Assistant City Clerk
KRK:ijp
Enclosures
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 - (760) 434-2808 @
October 16, 1997
John F. Greulich
1327SavannahLane
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: Appeal of Betla Lago-Aviara PA 28, SDP 97-1KDP 97-14
The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of October 7, 1997, adopted Resolution No. 97-621,
denying the appeal relating to the Bella Lago-Aviara PA 28 residential development.
As a courtesy, please find a copy of Resolution No. 97-621 for your files.
Assistant City Cleric-/
KRK:ijp
Enclosure
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 (760) 434-2808 @
- -
October 7, 1997
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am not able to be here tonight due to a family medical emergency. I have asked my neighbor, John Greulich,
to read the speech I had planned to deliver.
My name is RaOme Mikuta, and I reside at 1319 Savannah Lane in Carlsbad. I would like to bring some issues
to your attention so you will NOT approve the proposed three - two story homes (WITHIN 5 LOTS) backing
up to Batiquitos Drive. These are some of the highest lots in the entire Bella Lago Development.
Particularly disturbing is the fact that Brookfield insists upon putting a 30 ft two story house on Lot 3. Lot 3
has an elevation of 67 feet - which is almost at street level. Most of the other lots are less than 60 feet.
Constructing a two story on this 67 foot high lot would actually make it look like a three story home. It will
soar 2 stories above every one story home in Bella Lago along Batiquitos Drive.
As you know, it took approximately 10 years for Planning Area 28 to get approved by the Coastal Commission.
This approval was based on the fact that the houses were to be restricted to 18 foot high one story custom
homes.
Because of the various so called “minor amendment changes” that have been requested by Mr. Lany
Clements and the developer over the past several years, Planning Area 28 has changed dramatically. First it was
changed from 18 foot high to 22 foot high homes. Then it was changed to have 24 ft high houses. Then it was
changed to be gated. Then it was changed to have a 6 foot wall erected along Batiquitos Drive. And, finally, it
was changed to have 2 story - 30 foot high homes. This is a dramatic change from the 18 foot high custom -
one story homes that had originally taken 10 years to get approved!
I have read through the volumes of correspondence on this project and I wish to highlight some of the important
issues I have come across.
In accordance with STAFF REPORT dated December 7, 1994 ......
Putting three - two story homes (within 5 lots) along Batiquitos Drive is not within the City’s GENERAL
PLAN and AVIARA REQUIREMENTS of MASTER PLAN requiring making this “LOW-LYING”
NEIGHBORHOOD VISUALLY SUBTLE.
According to the CIRCULATION ELEMENT, Batiquitos Drive is designated a NATURAL OPEN SPACE
CORRIDOR. Having 3 - 30 foot homes (with no green belt or open space) is not visually subtle as you are
driving along Batiquitos Drive. This would almost be like driving through a tunnel.
Also, MASTER PLAN DESIGN CRITERIA specify darker colors are intended to reduce visibility of the
development from LaCosta, 1-5 and Batiquitos Drive. I believe the 3 - 30 foot homes will have a significant
visual impact from 1-5 and also from La Costa. Right now when you look at this area there is a green belt
between Cantata Homes and Mar Fiore homes. With 30 foot high homes backing up to Batiquitos Drive -- it
will look like a solid wall of houses with no green space between Bella Lago and Cantata.
In addition to 1-5 and LaCosta, has everyone totally disregarded the visibility factor from Batiquitos Drive as
specified in Master Plan Design Criteria? Perhaps this has been overlooked because Batiquitos Drive has
only recently been extended behind Planning Area 28, and a visual picture was not available to the Mayor and
City Council Members before.
-
Page 2.
To quote Mr. Larry Clements letter of October 21, 1994 to Michael Holzmiller, he states, “UNDER
AVIARA’S PROPOSAL, Planning Area 28 WILL CONTINUE TO BE THE MOST RESTRICTED
LOW-LYING NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN AVIARA.
Another issue worth mentioning is the fact that when we purchased our homes, Batiquitos Drive had not been
extended behind our homes. While Brookfield did have their 2 story model backing up to Batiquitos, the back
doors were always bolted so potential buyers could not hear the sound of traffic along Batiquitos Drive. (They
also had all the windows closed and the surround sound continuously playing throughout every room of the
house.) If Brookfield places their 2 story model on Lot 3 which backs up to Batiquitos Drive, I believe they
should allow potential buyers to have access to the deck on the 2nd story. In this way buyers will be able to
hear first hand the sound of traffic from Batiquitos Drive from the second story. The other home builders in
Aviara allow this access.
It is my understanding that the coastal commission is requiring an additional new parking lot adjacent to Bella
Lago. Was enough space allocated for the required 25 parking spaces for the new public parking lot? Is
Brookfield going to disclose to potential buyers in their WHITE PAPERS that the entrance they use to get to
their gated community will also be used by the general public to park so that the public will have access to the
trails?
Have all the homeowners in Aviara been informed that they will be responsible for the cost of Maintenance and
Insurance and Liability for both this new parking lot for 25 vehicles - along with the additional new trails for
Planning Area 28?
The Carlsbad Residents of Aviara have numerous rules and regulations to live by to be considerate of our
neighbors. I think it is time that the builders and developers live by these same rules and regulations so that the
double standards that now exist can be eliminated!
Please remember that Lots 1 - 3 and 45 have no open space or green belt barrier between the actual houses and
Batiquitos Drive. They will be there - right next to the street!
In summary, I am requesting that you vote to have all one story homes backing up to Batiquitos Drive. That
means making Lots 1, 3 and 45 single story homes. By doing this Bella Lago will truly be the VISUALLY
MR. LARRY CLEMENTS OF HILLMAN PROPERTIES, THE DEVELOPER OF AVIARA.
SUBTLE - LOW-LYING NEIGHBORHOOD IT WAS ORIGINALLY PROMISED TO BE BY
Sincerely,
RAOME M. MIKUTA
1319 SAVANNAH LANE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
760-930-0880
code: city council
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE : PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materlals necessary for you to notlce
SDP 97-01/CDP 97-14 - APPEAL BELLA LAG0
for a publlc hearlng before the Clty Councll.
Please notlce the item for the councll neatlng of
&- Assistant Clty Man" *
Thank you.
SEPTEMBER 9, 1997
Date
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION 1'' AMOUNT
I I
RECEIPT NO. 42801 NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY TOTAL I !..I .;7 .) .i ""
@ Rmledonmyc1cd Mr. CASH REGISTER I, L
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 200
31 11 CAMINO DEL RIO NO
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-1725
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BRD
STE B
SANDAG
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 401 B ST
STE 800
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CA DEPT OF FISH & GAME
STE 50
330 GOLDENSHORE DR
LONG BEACH CA 90802
LAFCO
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
1600 PACIFIC HWY
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DlST
91 50 CHESAPEAKE DR CITY OF CARLSBAD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CARLSBAD CA 92008
WATER DISTRICT 801 PINE ST
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPT
. . ... . . i
.. ..
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
MIKE GRIM
RESORT ASSCS AVIARA
7 IO0 BLUE HERON PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4906
AVIARA MASTER ASSN
201 1 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD 206
CARLSBAD CA 92009-1432 CARLS A 92009-1432
THE RUND FAMILY .
1349 CORVIDAE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4850
JEFFRE & LAURA SEGALL
1353 CORVIDAE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4850
WILLIAM & DIANE BARDY
1357 CORVIDAE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4850
PAUL & PATRICIA NOVAK
1361 CORVIDAE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4850
JOHN & PATRICIA RADAK
1365 CORVIDAE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4850
STEVEN & LISA HERSHEY
1369 CORVIDAE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4850
THE SEGAL FAMILY
1373 CORVIDAE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4850
THE LONGFELLOW FAMILY
7236 CALIDRIS LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4800
JOYCE BITAR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4800
7232 CALlDRlS LN
ROBERT & SUSAN MURPHY
7228 CALlDRlS LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4800
LARRY & SHARON HEERS
7224 CALlDRlS LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4800
BARBARA SMITH
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4800
7220 CALlDRlS LN
ROBERT & MARY JORDAN
PO BOX 4536
CARLSBAD CA 92018-4536
JAMES & SUSANNE BRANNIGAN
7212 CALlDRlS LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4800
JOHN & SHERRY OBRIEN
721 I CALlDRlS LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4849
DIANA POHN
1372 CORVIDAE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-485 I
STACEY & EILEEN BLACK
1368 CORVIDAE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-485 I
THE RAFFESBERGER FAMILY
1364 CORVIDAE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-485 I
DAVID NASSIF
1360 CORVIDAE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4851
SAM & MARY CUCKOVICH
1356 CORVIDAE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-485 I
THE GILLEY FAMILY
1318 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
SIMON & DIANE FREEDMAN
1303 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
JONATHAN & DIANA VOORHEES
1307 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
MARK & SHARON STEELE
13 I I SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
RICHARD & HILLARY KlMES
I3 15 SAVANNAH LN
SAN DIEGO CA 92122
STANLEY & RAOME MIKUTA
1319 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
FRANK & PATRICIA LUBICH
I323 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
THE GREULICH FAMILY
1327 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
MICHAEL & JENNIFER STAHL
1339 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
ROGER NEUMAN
1351 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
MICHAEL & MARY YOUNG
1331 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
SUSAN MURPHY
1343 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
HELEN LAMPERT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4853
7342 GOLDEN STAR LN
ROBERT& MELANIE DEAN
12865 POINTE DEL MAR WAY 200
JON & ROBBIN GUY
7330 GOLDEN STAR LN
DEL MAR CA 92014-3859 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4852
CHRISTOPHER & PATRICIA DAHL
7322 GOLDEN STAR LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4852
VICTORIA PENLAND
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4854
7309 GOLDEN STAR LN
TIMOTHY & TERESA HOLVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4854
7321 GOLDEN STAR LN
.
RAYMOND & AUDRA WINFIELD
8936 CHERBOURG DR
ROCKVILLE MD 20854-3103
PAUL STEVENSON
1306 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
CHUL KO0 YOON
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4852
73 18 GOLDEN STAR LN
THOMAS GETTINGS
73 13 GOLDEN STAR LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4854
DAVIDSON COSCAN PART
12865 POINTE DEL MAR WAY 200
DEL MAR CA 92014-3859
MAGDI & STEPHANIE NAGGAR
1314 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
201 1 PAL0
LEONARD & LAURA BERG
1335 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
NEAL & PATRICIA CHU
1347 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
JOSEPH SHURANCE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4853
7338 GOLDEN STAR LN
ALTON & SANDY WHITE
7324 GOLDEN STAR LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4852
JOHN & SUSAN PANDIS
73 14 GOLDEN STAR LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4852
DAVID & KATHERINE TELFORD
73 17 GOLDEN STAR LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4854
L MATT & MICHELLE GlNN
1322 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
FRANK & PATRICIA CARAGLIO
1310 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
BROOKFIELD C
BROOKFIELD CA
CARLSBAD CA
/ BROOKFIELD CARLS
BROOKFIELD CARLSB / BROOKFIELD C
BROOKFIELD CAWS
BROOKFIELD C
DEL MA
BROOKFIELD CAR
BROOKFIELD CA
DEL MARC
NEWPORT B CA 92660
RICHMOND AME
CA 92660
R/ IRVINE CA 92
RICHMOND AME
RICHMOND AME
NEWPORT
IRVINE CA 9261
NEWPORT H CA 92660
J BROOKFIELD BROCCATO
DEL MAR CA 92014-3859
12865 POINTE DEL MAR WAY 200
12865 POINTED R WAY 200
BROOKFIELD BRO
MAR WAY 200
IRVINE CA 9
RICHMOND AME
00000
92014-3859
IRVINE CA
/ 00000
12865 POlN L MAR WAY 200
RESORT ASSCS AVIARA
7100 BLUE HERON PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4906
THE GILLEY FAMILY .
I3 I8 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009.4855
MARK & SHARON STEELE
I3 I I SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009.4855
FRANK & PATRICIA LUBICH
1323 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 921109-4855
LEONARD & LAURA BERG
1335 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 921109-4855
NEAL & PATRICIA CHU
1347 SAVANNAIH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
AVIARA MASTER ASSOCI
225 I SAN DIEGO AVE A250
SAN DIEGO CA 921 10-2926
SIMON & DIANE FREEDMAN
1303 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
RICHARD & HILLARY KIMES
1315 SAVANNAH LN
SAN DIEGO CA 92122
THE GREULICH FAMILY
1327 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 921100-4855
MICHAEL & JENNIFER STAHL
1339 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 9211119.4855
ROGER NEUMAN
1351 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009.4855
BROOKFIELD CA
BROOKFIELD CAR
AVIARA MASTER ASSN
2111 I PALOMAR AIRPORT RD 206
CARLSBAD CA 92009-1432
JONATHAN & DIANA VOORHEES
I307 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
STANLEY & RAOME MIKUTA
I3 I9 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 921109-4855
MICHAEL & MARY YOUNG
I33 I SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 921109-4855
SUSAN MURPHY
I343 SAVANNAH LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4855
HELEN LAMPERT
7342 GOLDEN STAR LN
CARLSBAD CA 921109-4853
BROOKFIELD C
BROOKFIELD CARLSB / / DEL MAR CA 9
/ BROOKFIELD CA
BROOKFIELD CARL
/
~
DEL MARC
STATE OF CALIFOR~
00000
DEL MAR CA 9
f BROOKFIELD C
/
BROOKFIELD CAR
BROOKFIELD CA
STATE OF CALIFOR
00000
BROOKFIELD BROCCATO
12865 POINTE DEL MAR WAY 20
DEL MAR CA 92014-3859
/ L .-
DEL MAR CA
BROOKFIELD CA
DEL MA 92014
DEL MARC
DEL MFO I4
DEL MARC
BROOKFIELD CARLS
/ /
DEL MARC
/
/ BROOKFIELD CA
DEL MAR
DEL MARC
BROOKFIELD
L
- .
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
(619) 434.2808 TELEPHONE
TO : Bobbie Hoder - Planning
FROM : Karen Kundtz - Clerk's Office
RE : SDP 97-01ICDP 97-14 - BELLA LAG0
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council
within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item
will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by
- all parties.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council
Meeting of
Signature Date
I (We) appeal the decision of the &?&-&a PMddl;l/cc &*m15.;0d
to the Carisbad City Council.
Peasods1 for 4przaa: 0 PIo=so Not. Faiturn to spoew 8 muon may ronult in do11181 of
tho DPW~I, and you will bo Ilmltod to tho mreundn ntmtod hwm whon prorontln~ your ~ppo8l.
laws, plans, or policy?
How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local
fm, 92s -7SSY
PHONE NO.
., L
.
TO: CITY OF CARLSBAD
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK,
WE ARE APPEALING PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FOR
APPEALING DECISION TO APPROVE 2 STORY HOMES ON LOT 1, LOT 3 AND
LOT 45 (ALL OF WHICH BACK W TO BATIQUITOS DRIVE. ) WE ARE
REQUESTING THAT 1 STORY HOMES BE PLACED ON LOT 1, LOT 3
AND LOT 45.
SDP 97-01/CDP97-14 BELLA LAG0 - AVIARA PA 28. SPECIFICALLY, WE ARE
WE ARE NOT APPEALING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF
CHANGING LOT 44 FROM A 2 STORY HOME TO A 1 STORY HOME.
DATE:
NAME: (PLEASE PRINT)
DATE:
NAME: (PLEASE PRINT)
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
I (We) appeal the decision of the &&50k3 h+,&?xd &/t/f43s’’
to the Carlsbad City Council.
Date of Decision you are appealing: 41/&ysr 4 If97
sws=umd: Examples: if the action is a Ci Engineer‘s Decision, please say so. If a project has
multiple elements. (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad. California 92008-1 989 - (6 19) 434-2608 @
PROOF OF PUBLIC .ON
-
(2010 8 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 171 349 (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:
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foreaoina is true and correct.
Signature .,
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
t
rhis space is :the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
.i
. . ,*
:1 ’:, . ,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL - BELLA LAG0 - AVIARA PLANNING AREA 28
SDP 97-01KDP 97-14MP 1770
COMPLETE DATE: March 5,1997
DESCRIPTION
To consider an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of a request for a Site Development Plan,
Coastal Development Permit and Minor Master Plan Amendment for the construction of 61 single family homes on pregraded lots within Aviara Planning Area 28.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad's Coastal Zone located on the south side of Batiquitos Drive,
between Golden Star Lane and Melodia Terrace in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 19.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All of Carlsbad Tract No. CT 90-31, Units 1 and 2, according to Map Nos. 13368 and 13369, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder on November 8,1996, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California.
APPLICANT: Brookfield Carlsbad Inc.; 12865 Pointe del Mar, Del Mar CA 92014
APPELLANT:
John F. Greulich, 1327 Savannah Lane, Carlsbad CA 92009
A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the City Council in the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on October 7, 1997, at 6:OO p.m.
Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be described and a staff recommendation given,
followed by public testimony, questions and a decision. Copies of the staff report will be available on or after
October 3, 1997.
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Mike Grim at the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:OO a.m. to 5:OO p.m. at
2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, (619) 438-1 161, extension 4499.
APPEALS
If you challenge the Site Development Plan andor Coastal Development Permit 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, City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
1. Auueals to the Citv Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council, appeals must be filed in writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by the Planning Commission.
2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project: 1 This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the Coastal Commission
within ten (10) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude.
The San Diego office of the Coastal Commission is located at 3 11 1 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92108-1725.
PUBLISH: SEPTEMBER 26,1997
BELLA LAG0 - AVlARA P.A. 28
SDP 97-01/CDP 97-14/MP 177(V)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMPLETE DATE: March 5.1997
DESCRIPTION:
Request for a Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit and Minor Master
Plan Amendment for the construction of 61 single family homes on pregraded lots within
Aviara Planning Area 28.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad's Coastal Zone located on the south side of
Batiquitos Drive, between Golden Star Lane and Melodia Terrace in Local Facilities
Management Zone 19.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
All of Carlsbad Tract No. CT 90-31, Units 1 and 2, according to Maps No. 13368 and
13369, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on November 8, 1996, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
APPLICANT:
Brookfield Carlsbad Inc.; 12865 Pointe del Mar, Del Mar CA 92014
A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Planning Commission in the
Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on August 6, 1997, at
6:OO p.m.
Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with
any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be described
and a staff recommendation given, followed by public testimony, questions and a decision.
Copies of the staff report will be available on or after July 30, 1997.
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Mike Grim
at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:OO p.m. at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, (760) 438-
1161, extension 4499.
...
...
..
...
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (Gl9) 438-0894
APPEALS
If you challenge the Site Development Plan and/or Coastal Development Permit 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 prior to
the public hearing.
1. Ameals to the Citv Council: Where the decision' is appealable to the City Council,
appeals must be filed in writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by the
Planning Commission.
2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project:
This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. 0 This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the
Coastal Commission within ten (1 0) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a
Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal
Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego office of the
Coastal Commission is located at 31 11 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, California
92108-1725.
CASE FILE: SDP 97-01/CDP 97-14MP 177(V)
CASE NAME: BELLA LAG0 - AVIARA PLANNING AREA 28
PUBLISH: JULY 24,1997