The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-08-06; Planning Commission; ; SDP 97-01| CDP 97-14 - BELLA LAGO - AVIARA PA 28le City of CARLSBAD Planning Departmef A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF: August 6, 1997 ItemNo.@ Application complete date: March 5, 1997 Project Planner: Michael Grim Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham SUBJECT: SDP 97-01/CDP 97-14 -BELLA LAGO -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 A viara 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 fit 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 97-01/CDP 97-14 -BILA LAGO -AVIARA PA 28 AUGUST 6, 1997 PAGE2 A viara 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 A viara 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. A viara 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 97-01/CDP 97-14 -BILA LAGO -AVIARA PA 28 AUGUST 6, 1997 PAGE3 A. General Plan TABLEl-GENERALPLANCOMPLIANCE ELEMENT USE CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, PROPOSED USES AND OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS Land Use Site is designated for Residential Single family homes at a Low Medium Density uses. density of 1.44 units per acre is consistent. Housing Ensure that all master planned and Project provides market rate specific planned communities and units within A viara while all qualified subdivisions provide a the master plan developer range of housing for all economic has constructed sufficient income ranges. units in the Villa Loma development to cover PA 28's affordable housing requirement. Public Safety Design all structures in accordance All buildings will meet UBC with the seismic design standards of and State seismic the UBC and State building requirements. requirements. Provision of emergency water All necessary water mains, fire hydrants and systems and all-weather access appurtenances must be roads. installed prior to occupancy of any unit and all-weather access roads will be maintained throughout construction. Open Space Minimize environmental impacts to Project maintains amount of Conservation sensitive resources in the City. native habitat, and erosion control during grading reduces sedimentation of lagoon. Utilize Best Management Practices Project will comply with all for control of storm water pollutants. NPDES requirements. Circulation Require new development to All street improvements construct all roadways needed to have been completed. serve the proposed development prior to or concurrent with needs. COMPLIANCE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SDP 97-01/CDP 97-14 -BILA LAGO -AVIARA PA 28 AUGUST 6, 1997 PAGE4 B. Local Coastal Program The Bella Lago -A viara 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 A viara is the A viara 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 A viara 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 comer 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 -A viara PA 28 project is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. C. Aviara Master Plan According to the A viara Master Plan, all development within A viara Planning Area 28 is to follow the requirements of the R-1-10,000 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-1 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: A VIARA MASTER PLAN CONFORMANCE MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT PROPOSED PLAN CONFORMANCE Building Height: 30 feet for a maximum of 36 units 25 units measure 30 feet in height Yes 22 feet for a minimum of 25 units 36 units measure 22 feet in height Front Yard Setback: 26 feet for a minimum of 37 units 3 8 units have minimum 26 foot yards Yes 20 feet for a maximum of24 units 23 units have minimum 20 foot yards SDP 97-01/CDP 97-14 -BILA LAGO -AVIARA PA 28 AUGUST 6, 1997 PAGES TABLE 2: A VIARA MASTER PLAN CONFORMANCE MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT PROPOSED PLAN Side Yard Setback: Minimum 10 feet for all units All units have minimum 10 ft yards Rear Yard Setback: Minimum 20% of lot width. All units have minimum 20 ft yards Batiquitos Drive Setback: All units over 35 feet from Batiquitos 35 feet from right-of-way Drive R.O.W. The closest units is 35.17 feet away and the furthest is 67.5 feet from the R.O.W. Batiquitos Lagoon wetland setback: All grading and building for PA 28 150 feet from wetlands boundary are located outside of 150 foot wetlands buffer. Roof planes on 30 foot high homes: All 30 foot high homes include at Minimum 10 roof planes per home least 10 roof planes. CONFORMANCE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 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 -A viara PA 28 proposal is consistent with the A viara Master Plan. Since the A viara 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 -A viara 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 90-31). Table 3 below reiterates the project's compliance with the applicable Growth Management facility requirements. SDP 97-01/CDP 97-14 -BtLA LAGO -AVIARA PA 28 AUGUST 6, 1997 PAGE6 TABLE 3 -GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE Standard Impacts/Standards Compliance City Administration 212.1 sq. ft. Yes Library 113 .1 sq. ft. Yes Waste Water Treatment 61EDU Yes Parks 0.42 acres Yes Drainage PLDAD Yes Circulation 488ADT Yes Fire Fire Station No. 4 Yes Open Space NIA Yes Schools CUSD Yes Sewer Collection System 61 EDU Yes Water 13,420 GPD Yes F. Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan Local Facilities Management Zone 19 covers the entire A viara 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 A viara 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 85-35/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 A viara) 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 93-01), 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 97-01/CDP 97-14 -BILA LAGO -AVIARA PA 28 AUGUST 6, 1997 PAGE7 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4146 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4147 3. Location Map 4. Disclosure Statement 5. Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance, dated June 5, 1997 6. Environmental Impact Assessment Form, dated May 29, 1997 7. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form 8. Background Data Sheet 9. Exhibits "A" -"O", dated August 6, 1997. e :1.1.1•": AIRPORT •••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . -• • • • • • -. . --. • • • • ••••••• • ··········= : --• --• --• -• • ------••• •1111•11 ■■• • • --. -• • --. -• • -• • -• • -• • -• • --. ••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • ••••••••••• BATIQUITOS LAGOON -• BELLA LAGO -AVIARA P.A. 28 SOP 97-01/CDP 97-14 ...J < w a: --City of Carlsbad · ■ :Q 61 ,i ,i ht•l •14 •ki#U ,14 hi DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT'SSTATEMENTOFDISCLOSUREORCERTAINOWNERSHIPINTERESTSONALLAPPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE ( Please Print) The following information must be disclosed: 1. Applicant 2. 3. 4. List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. BROOKFIELD CARLSBAD INC. 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Ste. 200 Del Mar, CA 92014 Owner List the names and addressees of all person having any ownership interest in the property involved. BROOKFIELD CARSLBAD INC. 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Ste. 200 Del Mar, CA 92014 If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names ~nd addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 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 seiving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust. DISCLOS.FRM 2/96 PAGE 1 of 2 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 Disclosure Statement (Over) 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~ 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. ~M~ Signature of Ow ddate E. Dale Gleed -Vice President Print or type name of owner DISCLOS.FRM 2/96 BROOKFIELD CARLSBAD INC. Signatur~ of applicant/dciw' Elizabeth Zepeda -Secretary Print or type name of applicant PAGE 1 of 2 -----City of Carlsbad ·· ■A6i,i,h,1 •••l4•i=i4h,i4,ii PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENT AL 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: BELLA LAGO -AVIARA PLANNING AREA 28 Project Location: 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. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of publication. DATED: JUNE 5, 1997 CASE NO: SDP 97-01/CDP 97-14 CASE NAME: BELLA LAGO -AVIARA PLANNING AREA 28 PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 5, 1997 2075 Las Palmas Dr.• Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894 • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM-PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Bella Lago -A viara Planning Area 28 CASE NO: SDP 97-01/CDP 97-14 DATE: May 29, 1997 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: ~Fe~b~ru=a=-ry,.__5,~1 ...... 9 ..... 97 ___________ _ 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to allow construction of 61 single family homes on pregraded lots in A viara 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. O Land Use and Planning D Population and Housing D Geological Prob!ems D Water D Air Quality O Transportation/Circulation 0 Biological Resources D Public Services O Utilities & Service Systems D Energy & Mineral Resources D Aesthetics D Hazards D Noise D Cultural Resources D Recreation D Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 • -DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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 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. D 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. ~ Planner Signature \ Date ~ / Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 • -ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • 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. • "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. • "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. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed apequately 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). • 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 earl1er EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A 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 Rev. 03/28/96 • - • 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. • 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. 03/28/96 • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#1, pgs 4-1 -4-26; #2, pgs 5.6-1 -5.6- 18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#1, pgs 4-1 -4-26; #2, pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18) c) Be inc'ompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#1, pgs 4-1 -4-26; #2, pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations ( e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible landuses?(#l, pgs4-1-4-26;#2,pgs5.6-1-5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#1, pgs 4-1 -4-26; #2, pgs 5.6- 1 -5.6-18) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#1, pgs 4-1 -4-26; #2, pgs 5.5-1 -5.5-6) 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 4-1 -4- 26; #2, pgs 5.5-1 -5.5-6) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#1, pgs 4-1 -4-26; #2, pgs 5.5-1 -5.5-6) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#1, pgs 4-150 -4-156; #2, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) . b) Seismic ground shaking? (#1, pgs 4-150 -4-156; #2, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1, pgs 4-150 -4-156; #2, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #2, pgs 5.l-1 -5.1-15) e) Landslides or mudflows? (#1, pgs 4-150 -4-156; #2, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#1, pgs 4- 150 -4-156; #2, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) g) Subsidence of the land? (#1, pgs 4-150 -4-156; #2, pgs 5.I-1 -5.1-15) h) Expansive soils? (#1, pgs 4-150 -4-156; #2, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#1, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #2, pgs 5.1-1 -5.I-15) 5 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ ·□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Rev. 03/28/96 • Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources). IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#1, pgs 4-110 -4- 118; #2, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#I, pgs 4-1 IO -4-118; #2, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#I, pgs 4-1 IO -4-1 I 8; #2, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#1, pgs 4-1 IO -4-118; #2, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#I, pgs 4-II0 -4-118; #2, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11) f) 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 4-1 IO -4-118; #2, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2- 1 I) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#I, pgs 4-1 IO -4-118; #2, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#I, pgs 4-1 IO -4- II8; #2, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#I, pgs 4-1 IO -4-118; #2, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-1 I) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#1, pgs 4- 84 -4-93; #2, pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-12) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#1, pgs 4- 110 -4-118; #2, pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-12) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#1, pgs 4-1 IO -4-118; #2, pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? (#1, pgs 4-110 -4-118; #2, pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-12) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#1, pgs 4-63 -4-80; #2, pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-22) b) Hazards to safety from design features ( e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#1, pgs 4-63 -4-80; #2, pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#I, pgs 4-63 -4-80; #2, pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-22) 6 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ .□ □ □ □ □ □ □ -Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than Significan t Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ No Impact Rev. 03/28/96 -Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources). d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#I, pgs 4-63 -4-80; #2, pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-22) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#1, pgs 4-63 -4-80; #2, pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-22) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#1, pgs 4-63 -4-80; #2, pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-22) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#1, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #2, pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-22) 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 4-119 -4-149; #2, 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#1, pgs 4-119 -4-149; #2, 5.4-1 -5.4-24) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#1, pgs 4-119 -4-149; #2, 5.4-1 -5.4-24) d) Wetland habitat ( e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#1, pgs 4-119 -4-149; #2, 5.4-1 -5.4-24) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1, pgs 4- 119 -4-149; #2, 5.4-I -5.4-24) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#1, pgs 4-94-4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#1, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that w_ould be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#1, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.~-5) 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, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #2, pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-3) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#1, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #2, pgs 5.10.1-I -5.10.1-3) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#1, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #2, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#1, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #2, pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-3) 7 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ -Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Rev. 03/28/96 -Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#1, 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? (#1, pgs 4-81 -4-84; #2, pgs 5.9-1 -5.9-15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1, pgs 4- 81 -4-84; #2, pgs 5.9-1 -5.9-15) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#1, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.5-1 -5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#1, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.5-1 -5.12.5-6) c) Schools? (#1, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.7-1 - 5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#1, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.8-7) e) Other governmental services? (#1, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.8-7) 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, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #2, 5.12.1- 1 -5.12.1-5) b) Communications systems? (#1, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.2-I -5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#I, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.2-1 -5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#1, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.2-1 -5.12.3-7) f) Solid waste disposal? (#1, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.4-1 -5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( # 1, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #2, pgs 5.12.2-1 -5.12.3-7) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#1, pgs 4- 35 -4-62; #2, pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#1, pgs 4-35 -4-62; #2, pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5) c) Create light or glare? (#1, pgs 4-35 -4-62; #2, pgs 5.10.3-1 -5.10.3-2) 8 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ -Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Rev. 03/28/96 -Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#1, pgs 4-157 -4- 167; #2, pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#1, pgs 4-157 -4- 167; #2, pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10) c) Affect historical resources? (#1, pgs 4-157 -4-167; #2, pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#1, pgs 4- 157 -4-167; #2, pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#1, pgs 4-157 -4-167; #2, pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10) XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#1, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #2, pgs 5.12.8-1 -5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1, pgs 4- 157 -4-167; #2, pgs 5.12.8-1 -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 lh~ited, 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? 9 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ -Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Rev. 03/28/96 -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 93-01 ), which reviewed the potential impacts ofbuildout 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 Rev. 03/28/96 -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 QUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions 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 b~cause 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. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 --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-dl, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 • CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMP ACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMP ACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: Bella Lago -Aviara PA 28 -SDP 97-01/CDP 97-14 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 19 GENERAL PLAN: =RL=M==--------- ZONING: P-C -Planned Community DEVELOPER'S NAME: =B=ro=o=kfi=1=el=d;_:C=ar=l=sb=a=d"'-=In=c.;_. ______________ _ ADDRESS: 12865 Pointe del Mar, Del Mar CA 92014 PHONE NO.: 760-481-8500 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: =21~5--6~4~4~-0~4 ______ _ QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): _6_1 _um_·~ts _____ _ ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: -=O...;:;.;ct=--ob"-'e=r'--"1-"--99"-'7'-----___________ _ A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. 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: Open Space: Schools: (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Water: Served by Fire Station No.= Acreage Provided = Demands in EDU s Demand in GPD = 212.1 113.1 61EDU 0.42 NIA PLDAD 488ADT No.4 NIA CUSD 61 EDU 13,420 GPD L. The project is five (5) units below the Growth Management Control Point. .BACKGROUNDDATASHEET. CASE NO: SDP 97-01/CDP 97-14 CASE NAME: Bella Lago -A viara PA 28 APPLICANT: Brookfield Carlsbad Inc. REQUEST AND LOCATION: Construction of 61 single family homes on pregraded lots within Aviara Planning Area 28. 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. 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: .....,l'-'-.4_,__4.,__d=u/==ac::;__ _______ _ Existing Zone: _P:::...-_..:C:::.,__ ______ Proposed Zone: --'P"---"""""'C"------------- Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning Requirements) Zoning Land Use Site P-C Vacant pads North P-C Single family homes South P-C Open Space East P-C Golf Course West P-C Single family homes PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): _6~1"--'E='-D=-'=U'--------------- Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: "'-F=eb=ru=ary:..,.....::5:....,.,..:::.1.:::...99"-7=----------------- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT D Negative Declaration, issued. ____________________ _ D Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated. ______________ _ rgj Other, Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance, dated June 5, 1997