The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995-10-04; Planning Commission; ; SDP 95-03 - SANDPIPER - AVIARA PLANNING AREA 29• De Oty of Carlsbad Plaui.g Depamut • A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ~5tJJ P.C. AGENDA OF: October 4, 1995 Item No.@ Application complete date: July 11, 1995 Project Planner: Michael Grim Project Engineer: Jim Davis SUBJECT: SOP 95-03 -SANDPIPER -AVIARA PLANNING AREA 29 -Request for a Major Site Development Plan to allow the construction of 32 single family homes on previously subdivided and graded lots within Planning Area 29 of Aviara Master Plan, located north of Batiquitos Drive between Anatra Court and Kestral Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 19. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3817 APPROVING SDP 95-03 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The project involves the placement of 32 single family homes on previously subdivided and graded lots within Aviara Planning Area 29. No expansion of the site will occur and all development conforms to the applicable requirements of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the Aviara Master Plan. All project issues have been resolved through site design and conditions of approval. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Warmington Homes is requesting approval of a Major Site Development Plan to allow the construction of 32 single family homes within Aviara Planning Area 29. The site is located in Phase II of the Aviara Master Plan, northwest of the corner of Batiquitos Drive and Kestral Drive. The site is designated Residential Low Medium Density (RLM) in the City's General Plan and is zoned Planned Community (P-C). Planning Area 29 lies in the western corner of Phase II and is bounded by the existing Spinnaker Hill neighborhood to the north, the future Brocatto development to the west, Batiquitos Drive, Planning Area 30 to the south and Kestral Drive and Planning Area 26 South to the east. The 16.54 acre site was originally created by the Phase II Master Tentative Tract Map (CT 89-37) and subsequently subdivided into 32 single family lots and two open space lots by the Planning Area 29 Tentative Tract Map (CT 90-35). All single family lots measure over the minimum of 7,500 square SDP 95-03 -SANDPIP. A VIARA PLANNING AREA 2. OCTOBER 4, 1995 PAGE2 feet with the smallest pad area being 7,210 square feet. As discussed in the Analysis section below, no adjustments to the lot lines, grading or improvements approved through CT 90-35 were necessary to accommodate the proposed homes. The project site is currently vacant and graded in accordance with the Master Tentative Tract Map Phase II pad elevations shown on CT 89-39. The Planning Area Tentative Tract Map (CT 90-35) is undergoing final map and grading permit plancheck. Once the final map is recorded, the individual pads can be graded and the street improvements installed. Condition number 22 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3817, dated October 4, 1995, requires all map recordation and grading certifications prior to issuance of a building permit. The Aviara Master Plan requires that, prior to building permit issuance, a site development plan or planned unit development permit be approved for all planning areas. Therefore, approval of SDP 95-03 would allow building permits to be issued once the final mapping and grading is completed. The proposed units range from 2,320 square feet to 2,888 square feet and follow the same architectural design currently under construction in Planning Areas 25 and 26 North (see Exhibits "H"-"W", dated October 4, 1995). Each model would have three elevation alternatives and some include optional features such as upper viewing areas with french doors. All architectural plans have been reviewed and approved by the Aviara Master Homeowner's Association The Sandpiper -Aviara Planning Area 29 project is subject to the following land use plans, policies, programs and zoning regulations: A. General Plan B. East Batiquitos Lagoon segment of the Local Coastal Program C. Aviara Master Plan (MP 177 and its amendments) D. Planning Area 29 Tentative Tract Map (CT 90-35) E. Planned Community Zone Ordinance (Chapter 21.38 of the Zoning Ordinance) F. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance) G. Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan IV. ANALYSIS The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The SDP 95-03 -SAND PIP•-A VIARA PLANNING AREA 2. OCTOBER 4, 1995 PAGE3 ELEMENT Land Use Circulation Open Space and Conser- vation Noise following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables. A. General Plan The proposed Sandpiper -Aviara Planning Area 29 project is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the single family residential proposal are the Land Use, Circulation, Noise, Housing, Open Space and Conservation and Public Safety Elements. Table 1 below indicates how the project complies with these particular elements of the General Plan. TABLE 1 -GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE USE CLASSIFICATION/GOAL, PROPOSED USES AND COMPLIANCE OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS Site is designated for residential Project is single family development at a density of 0.0 to 4.0 development at a density of 1.9 Yes dwelling units per acre. dwelling units per acre. Require new residential development to Streets within development provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages, contain sidewalks which link up where feasible, which connect with with the Aviara sidewalk and nearby community centers, parks, trail system, linking the Yes schools, points of interest, major community site, Zone 19 park, transportation corridors and the Aviara Oaks school, and the proposed Carlsbad Trail System. Four Seasons Aviara Resort. Require new development to construct Project is conditioned to all roadways needed to serve the complete all street Yes proposed development prior to or improvements prior to concurrent with needs. occupancy of any unit. Minimize environmental impacts to Project maintains amount of sensitive resources in the City. native habitat, and erosion Yes control during remedial grading reduces sedimentation of lagoon. Yes Utilize Best Management Practices for Project will comply with all the control of storm water pollutants. NPDES requirements. 65 dBA CNEL is the maximum noise Project is conditioned to post level to which residential units subject to aircraft noise notification signs noise from McClellan-Palomar Airport in all sales offices associated Yes should be permitted. Additional with the new development. disclosure actions may be required of sellers of noise impacted units. SDP 95-03 -SAND PIP•-A VIARA PLANNING AREA 2. OCTOBER 4, 1995 PAGE4 ELEMENT Housing Public Safety TABLE 1 -GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE USE CLASSIFICATION/GOAL, PROPOSED USES AND COMPLIANCE OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS Ensure that all master planned and Project provides market rate specific planned communities and all units within Aviara while the qualified subdivisions provide a range of master plan developer has housing for all economic income ranges. constructed sufficient low Yes income units in the La Terraza development to cover Planning Area 29's affordable housing requirement. Design all structures to seismic design All buildings will meet UBC standards of the UBC and State building and State seismic requirements. Yes requirements. Provision of emergency water systems All necessary water mains, fire and all-weather access roads. hydrants and appurtenances must be installed prior to occupancy of any unit and all-Yes weather access roads will be maintained throughout construction. B. East Batiquitos Lagoon segment of the Local Coastal Program The Sandpiper site is located within the East Batiquitos Lagoon segment of the LCP, therefore the project is subject to the Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinance for the East Batiquitos Lagoon segment. The implementing ordinance 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 Land Use Plan that apply to the proposed project are land use, environmentally sensitive habitat preservation, and grading and erosion control. 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 90-35) 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. Considering the above, the proposed single family residential SDP 95-03 -SANDPIP•-A VIARA PIANNING AREA 2. OCTOBER 4, 1995 PAGES project conforms with the applicable policies of the East Batiquitos Lagoon Local Coastal Program segment. C. Aviara Master Plan (MP 177 and its amendments) The Aviara Master Plan, originally adopted as the Pacific Rim Country Oub and Resort Master Plan in December 1987, also seives as the implementing ordinance for the three Local Coastal Program segments that envelope Aviara (Mello I, Mello II, and East Batiquitos Lagoon). The following discussion therefore addresses both conformance with the master plan and the LCP implementing ordinance. The approved tentative tract map for Planning Area 29 (CT 90-35) reaffirmed the single family residential use, established the number, size and elevation of buildable lots and open space areas, and evaluated traffic circulation. Therefore the remaining portions of the Aviara Master Plan that apply to the Sandpiper project are building height, setbacks, parking, design, fencing, landscaping and street trees. Table 2 below summarizes the project's conformance with the applicable portions of the Aviara Master Plan. TABLE 2 -AVIARA MASTER PLAN CONFORMANCE MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT PROPOSED PLAN CONFORMANCE Building height: 30 feet for a maximum of 27 units 24 units measure 27.5 feet maximum. Yes 22 feet for a minimum of 5 units 8 units measure 22 feet maximum. Front yard setback: 20 feet All units have a front yard of at least 20 feet. 13 units exceed 20 feet with Yes the maximum being over 45 feet. Side yard setback: 10% of lot width All units have side yards equalling 10% of the lot width or more. 16 units Yes have both side yards exceeding 10 feet. Rear yard setback: 20% of lot width All units have rear yards equalling 20% of the lot width or more. The Yes smallest rear yard is 31 feet. Batiquitos Drive setback: 35 feet from R.O.W. All units are over 35 feet from the Batiquitos Drive right-of-way. The Yes closest unit is 39 feet away and most units are over 40 feet away. Spinnaker Hills setback: 80 feet from P.L. All units are at least 80 feet from the Spinnaker Hills property line. The Yes closest units average over 96 feet from the common property line. SDP 95-03 -SANDPIP. A VIARA PLANNING AREA 21' OCTOBER 4, 1995 PAGE6 MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT PROPOSED PLAN CONFORMANCE West planning area line: 50 feet from P.L All units are over 50 feet from the westerly property line of Planning Yes Area 29. The closest is 56 feet away. Private yard open space: 15% of lot area All units have 15% of lot area or Yes more as usable rear yard. Parking: Two car garage, 20 feet by 20 feet 8 units have two-car garages, 20 feet by 20 feet clear dimensions. 24 units Yes have three-car garages. Design: Spinnaker Hills views Lot 9 has restricted height, lots 9 & 10 Yes have restricted building envelopes. Architectural relief for visible units All sides of buildings, including roofs, have multiple planes and/or features. Yes Each unit has three elevation options. Fencing: Batiquitos Drive lots -solid wall Lots 1 through 8 have solid walls. Yes Spinnaker Hills lots -solid wall Lots 9 through 23 have open fencing Yes at the bottom of slope. Open space lots -open fence Lots 9 through 32 have open fencing. Yes Noise walls as needed Lots 6 through 9 have solid walls. Yes Landscaping: Buffer along northern slope Open space easement and landscaping Yes on northern slope adjacent to Spinnaker Hills. Fire suppression zones Yes All fire suppression zones provided conform to guidelines. HOA maintained slopes Slopes along Batiquitos Drive in open Yes space easement and maintained by Master Homeowner's Association. D. Planning Area 29 Tentative Tract Map (CT 90-35) The Tentative Tract Map for Planning Area 29 (CT 90-35) was approved on December 4, 1991. The tentative map created 32 single family residential lots, ranging from 9,120 to 36,830 square feet in area, and two open space lots, totalling 4.96 acres. All open space areas have been annexed into the Master Homeowner's Association maintenance program and all coastal resource areas were clearly delineated and fenced prior to Phase II grading operations. The Aviara Master Plan lists as one of the special design criteria for Planning Area 29 the preservation of view from Spinnaker Hills to the lagoon. In SDP 95-03 -SANDPIP .. A VIARA PLANNING AREA 29. OCTOBER 4, 1995 PAGE? accordance with this guideline, the Planning Area 29 site was lowered through the Phase II rough grading. The Planning Area 29 Tentative Tract Map created pad elevations in accordance with the rough grade elevations for all lots except for one. Lot 9 lies on the westernmost portion of the developed area, adjacent to a natural canyon. To mimic the pre-existing view corridor through the canyon, the pad elevation, maximum building height, and maximum building envelope were established through the tentative map. As shown on Exhibits "B" and "J", dated October 4, 1995, the proposed single family home on lot 9 meets all of the additional restrictions imposed by CT 90-35. As previously mentioned, and demonstrated on Exhibits "B"-"C", dated October 4, 1995, no adjustments to the lot lines, pad elevations, street and utility improvements approved through the planning area tentative map are proposed. Given this lack of adjustments and the special design for the unit on lot 9, the proposed Sandpiper project is consistent with the Planning Area 29 Tentative Tract Map. E. Planned Community Zone Ordinance (Chapter 21.38 of the Zoning Ordinance) The underlying zoning of the proposed Four Seasons Aviara Resort 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. F. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance) The Sandpiper single family residential proposal involves the placement of 32 homes on previously subdivided and graded lots. The units were actually created through the Planning Area 29 Tentative Tract Map (CT 90-35) and the Growth Management analysis was conducted at that time. To reiterate the analysis, Table 4 below details the project's compliance with the standards of the Growth Management Ordinance. TABLE 4 -GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE STANDARD IMPACTS COMPLIANCE City Administration 111.3 square feet Yes Library 59.3 square feet Yes Waste Water Treatment 32EDU Yes SDP 95-03 -SANDPIP•-A VIARA PLANNING AREA 2. OCTOBER 4, 1995 PAGES TABLE 4 -GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE STANDARD IMPACTS COMPLIANCE Parks 0.22 acre Yes Drainage PLDAD Yes Circulation 320ADT Yes Fire Fire Stations #2 and #4 Yes Open Space 4.96 acres Yes Schools Aviara Mello Roos Yes Water 7.040 GPD Yes G. Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan Local Facilities Management Zone 19 covers the entire Aviara Master Plan area, including Planning Area 29. No special development requirements exist in the zone plan. The plan does require that all facilities required to serve the development be in place concurrent with or prior to need. The Sandpiper 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 The proposed construction of 32 single family homes within Aviara Planning Area 29 was reviewed with respect to their potential environmental impacts, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines, and Title 19 - the Environmental Protection Ordinance. The project site has undergone two previous environmental reviews: the Conditional Negative Declaration for the Aviara Phase II Master Tentative Tract Map (CT 89-37), dated September 6, 1990, and the Conditional Negative Declaration for the Aviara Planning Area 29 Tentative Tract Map (CT 90-35), dated June 20, 1991. Upon review of the current proposal, it has been determined that there will be no additional significant effects that were not analyzed in the previous environmental reviews. The current proposal conforms to the parameters established through the previous reviews and all adjustments necessary to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance have already been implemented or are incorporated into the project design. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required with this proposal. Considering the adequacy of the previous environmental review on the site, the project qualifies as a subsequent development as identified in Section 21083.3 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, the Planning Director issued a SDP 95-03 -SANDPIP. A VIARA PLANNING AREA 29. OCTOBER 4, 1995 PAGE9 Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance on April 27, 1995, a copy of which is attached to this report and on file with the Planning Department. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3817 2. Location Map 3. Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance, dated April 27, 1995. 4. Environmental Impact Assessment Form, Part II, dated April 19, 1995. 5. Background Data Sheet 6. Local Facilities Impact Assessment 7. Disclosure Statement 8. Reduced Exhibits 9. Full Size Exhibits "A" -"W", dated October 4, 1995. AflPORT ............ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • :w.u■-: : 1111111111: : • . , ..... . • • • • • • • • : . • • 1111111111: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1111111111■ BATIQUITOS LAGOON SANDPIPER • • AVIARA PLANNING AREA 29 SOP 95-03 • • Cit}' of Carlsbad ■ R &iii ;;;;g. I •l§ ·Sill' ,t§iil 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: SANDPIPER -AVIARA PLANNING AREA 29 -SDP 95-03 Project Location: North side of Batiquitos Drive, between Kestral Drive and future Anatra Court, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. Project Description: Site Development Plan to allow construction of 32 single family homes on pregraded pads within Planning Area 29, Phase II of the Aviara Master Plan. Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within twenty (20) days of date of publication. DATED: CASE NO: APRIL 27, 1995 SDP 95-03 ' M~ Planning Director APPLICANT: SANDPIPER -A VIARA PLANNING AREA 29 PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 27, 1995 MG:vd 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESS:MENT FORM -PART Il (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. =SDaa..:P=-----::95:;.....;-0=3 ___ _ DATE: April 19, 1995 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Sandpiper -A viara Planning Area 29 2. APPLICANT: _W:..a.=anrun=·=-:gt=on=-.::::.H=o=m=e=s _____________________ _ 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3090 Pullman Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: -----"-'-'M=ar=c=h...;2'"'"'7'-'1=9""""94-'-------------- 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Development Plan to allow construction of 32 single family homes on pre graded pads within Planning Area 29, Phase II of the A viara Master Plan. 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. _ Land Use and Planning _ Population and Housing _ Geological Problems Water _ Air Quality _ Transportation/Circulation _ Biological Resources _ Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise _ Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Public Services _ Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Rev. 3/28/95 • DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: • 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. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. X - Date Date MG:vd 2 Rev. 3/28/95 • Is.mes (and Supporting Information Sour~s): I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Sources #1, pg 8; #2, pg 7) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 7) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 7) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or fannlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (#1, pg 7; #2, pg 7) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 7) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#1, pgs 8,9; #2, pg 8) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) 3 • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact _x__ _x__ _x__ _x__ -_x__ _x__ _x__ Rev. 3/28/95 • Issues (and Supporting Information Sour~s): III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#1, pg 6; #2, pg 6) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#1, pg 6; #2, pg 6) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1, pg 6; #2, pg 6) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1, pgs 6,7; #2, pgs 6,7) - e) Landslides or mudflows? (#1, pg 6; #2, pg 6) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#1, pg 6; #2, pg 6) g) Subsidence of the land? (#1, pg 6; #2, pg 6) h) Expansive soils? (#1, pg 6; #2, pg 6) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#1, pg 6; #2, pg 6) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#1, pgs 6,7; #2, pg 6) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#1, pgs 7-9; #2, pgs 7,8) 4 Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact Rev. 3/28/95 No Impact _x_ JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL • Is.mes (and Supporting Information Sourgls): V. c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#1, pg 7; #2, pg 7) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#1, pg 7; #2, pg 7) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#1, pg 7; #2, pg 7) f) Change 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? (#1, pg 7; #2, pg 7) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#1, pg 7; #2, pg 7) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1, pg 7; #2, pg 7) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#1, pg 7; #2, pg 7) AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#1, pg 6; #2, pg 6) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#1, pg 6; #2, pg 6) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#1, pgs 6,7; #2, pg 6) d) Create objectionable odors? (#1, pg 7; #2, pg 6) 5 • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Le$Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact _x_ _x_ _x_ _x_ _x_ _x_ _x_ _x_ _x_ _x_ Rev. 3/28/95 • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) b) Haz.ards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) e) Haz.ards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#1, pgs 7,8; #2, pgs 7,8) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#1, pgs 7,8; #2, pgs 7,8) 6 Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact Rev. 3/28/95 No Impact JL JL JL JL .lL JL .lL JL • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): - c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#1, pgs 7,8; #2, pgs 7,8) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#1, pgs 7,8; #2, pgs 7,8) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1, pgs 7,8; #2, pgs 7,8) VIII. ENERGY AND MJNERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#1, pg 7; #2, pg 7) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#1, pg 7; #2, pg 7) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#1, pg 7; #2, pg 7) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (#1, pgs 8,9; #2, pgs 8,9) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health ha.zards? (#1, pgs 8,9; #2, pgs 8,9) 7 Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact Rev. 3/28/95 No Impact • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: XI. a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 7) b) Police protection? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 7) c) Schools? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 7) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 7) e) Other governmental services? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 7) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) b) Communications systems? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) 8 • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Rev. 3/28/95 No Impact _K_ _K_ _K_ _K_ _K_ _K_ _K_ _K_ _K_ • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) e) Storm water drainage? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) t) Solid waste disposal? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (#1, pg 9; #2, pg 8) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (#1, pg 9; #2, pg 8) c) Create light or glare? (#1, pg 8; #2, pg 8) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#1, pg 9; #2, pg 8) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#1, pg 9; #2, pg 8) c) Affect historical resources? (#1, pg 9; #2, pg 8) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#1, pg 9; #2, pg 8) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#1, pg 9; #2, pg 8) 9 Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact Rev. 3/28/95 No Impact .x_ .x_ .x_ .x_ .x_ .x_ .x_ .x_ .x_ .x_ .x_ _x_ • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: · a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#1, pg 9; #2, pg 8) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1, pg 9; #2, pg 8) 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 wild life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or aiiima1 or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (#1, pg 9; #2, pg 9) 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) (#1, pg 9; #2, pg 9) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (#1, pg 9; #2, pg 9) 10 Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated ~Than Significant Impact Rev. 3/28/95 No Impact .lL .lL .lL .lL .lL • • XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. The proposed project involves only the placement of single family homes on pregraded and subdivided lots. All environmental review for the grading and subdivision has been completed and approved. Earlier analyses on the potential impacts of the proposed 32 single family homes on the project site can be found in two sources. Source No. 1 is the Conditional Negative Declaration for the Aviara Phase II Master Tentative Map (CT 89-37), dated September 6, 1990, which examined the potential impacts in the areas of land use, population and housing, geologic safety, biological resources, energy and natural resources, hazards, utilities, aesthetics, and cultural resources. Source No. 2 is the Conditional Negative Declaration for the Aviara Planning Area 29 Tentative Map (CT 90-35), dated June 20, 1991, which examined water supply and quality, traffic and circulation, air quality, energy resources, hazards, noise, public services, utilities, and recreation. Upon review of the current proposal, it has been determined that there will be no additional significant effects that were not analyzed in the previous environmental reviews. The current proposal conforms to the parameters established through the previous land subdivisions and all adjustments necessary to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance have already been implemented or are incorporated into the project design. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required with this proposal. 11 Rev. 3/28/95 • • DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 12 Rev. 3/28/95 • • LIST MITIGATING MEASURES {IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CTF APPLICABLE) 13 Rev. 3/28/95 • • APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HA VE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 14 Rev. 3/28/95 • BACKGROUND DATA SHEET • CASE NO: =SD=P~9~5-~0~3 _______________________ _ CASE NAME: Sandpiper -Aviara Planning Area 29 APPLlCANT: Warmington Homes REQUEST AND LOCATION: Site Development Plan to allow the development of 32 single family residential units within an approved 34 lot residential subdivision in Aviara Planning: Area 29 located on the north side of Batiquitos Drive between Kestrel Drive and Anatra Court in Local Facilities Management Zone 19, City of Carlsbad, County of San Dieg:o. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Lot 8 of Carlsbad Tract No. 89-37, AviaraPhase II. according Map No. 12967, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. APN: 215-644-08 (Assessor's Parcel Number) Acres: 16.54 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 32 units GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation ...,RI.M=""""---------------------------- Density Allowed ~l-•-9 ____ Density Proposed --=-1;;.;.. 7 __ _ 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: P-C R-1 P-C P-C R-1-0 PUBLlC FACILlTIES School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad Land Use Undeveloped Sing:le family residential Undeveloped Single family residential Undeveloped Sewer District Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) ---'-3"'"'2 .... E=D ____ U _________________ _ Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated ...::M=ar::.;c~h:...::.28""-=19::..,9::..::5'--________________ _ ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT ASSESSMENT _ Negative Declaration, issued ________________________ _ _ Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated _________________ _ Other, Prior Environmental Compliance, dated April 27. 1995 REV.//91 • 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: SDP 95-03 -Sandpiper -Aviara Planning Area 29 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE:...1.2_ GENERAL PLAN: RLM ZONING: """'P--C=---- DEVELOPER'S NAME: _W:..:.=anrun=·=-gt=o=n=-=-=H=om=es=----------------------- ADDRESS: 3090 Pullman Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PHONE NO.: (619) 931-1465 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: "'""'2-=15 ____ -~66 ____ 4 __ -0 ____ 8 _____ _ QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): -"1=6=.5 ________ _ ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: January, 1996 B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. 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: Open Space: Schools: Served by Fire Station No. = Acreage Provided - (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Demand in EDUs - Identify Sub Basin - (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) 59.3 sg. ft. 32EDU 0.22 acre NIA NIA 320 ADT 2&4 4.96 acres NIA 32EDU NIA K. Water: Demand in GPD -7,040 GPD L. The project is 4 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. • • City of Carlsbad -Gfit, .. ;;,t.;.z4.firii,ei4eii DISCLOSURE STATEMENT A?PLICANT'S STATEMENT CF ~ISCLOSUFIE OF CERTAIN OWNEFISHIP INTEFlESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL AEQUiAE i::ISCFIETIONAAY ACTION ON n-,E PART OF THE CrT'Y COWNCIL. OR ANY APPOINTED BOAA0, COMMISSION QA CCMMrrTEE. ; Please Print) The following information must be disclosed: 1 . Applicant List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Wannington Hanes 3090 PulL'11aI1 St. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 2. Owner List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Aviar.£J,and i\ssociates r Lt pt 2011 Palomar Airport Road Suite 206 Carlsoo.d, CA 92009 ----------- 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 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. FRM00013 8/90 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-48!59 • (619) 438-11 s_1 • • (Over) Disclosure Statement Page 2 5. Have you had more than 5250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Scares Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes _ No JL If yes, please indicate person(s) _____________________ _ Person 11 defined u: • Any individual, firm, copartnership, io,nt venture. u1oc1ation, social club, fratemal organization. corporation. Htate. tru$t. ;;;.r. syndicate, this and any other county, crty and county, crty mun,c,pality, di1tr1c:t or other PQi1tical 1ubdiv111on, or any otner group or comb1nat1on acting aa a unit• gnature applicant/date Print or type name of applicant FRM00013 8/90