Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-07; Planning Commission; ; SDP 97-16A|CDP 97-34A - MARIAN0 AFFORDABLE HOUSINGP.C. AGENDA OF: June 7,2000 h Application complete date: November 22, 1999 Project Planner: Anne Hysong i'he City of Carlsbad Planning Depanlrlent A! i A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION" - Item No. @ Project Engineer: Mike Shirey SUBJECT: SDP 97-16(A)/CDP 97-34(A) - MARIAN0 AFFORDABLE HOUSING - Request for approval of a Site Development Plan Amendment and Coastal Development Permit Amendment for a 28 unit affordable apartment project within the Mariano subdivision located in the Zone 20 Specific Plan area and Local Facilities Management Zone 20. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions 4784 and 4785 APPROVING SDP 97-16(A) and CDP 97-34(A) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Development Plan Amendment and Coastal Development Permit Amendment to replace an approved 27 unit affordable apartment project with a 28 unit affordable apartment project located on Lot 134 of the Mariano subdivision (CT 97-14). The proposed project consists of 28 two and three bedroom units within four separate buildings and includes a common recreation room and tot-lot. As designed and conditioned, the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zone 20 Specific Plan, Mello I1 LCP, and relevant chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND In 1997, the City Council approved a Tentative Tract Map (CT 97-14), Planned Development Permit (PUD 97-11), Site Development Plan (SDP 97-16), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 97-34) for the Mariano subdivision that consisted of 150 single-family lots and one affordable housing lot with 27 apartment units. SDP 97-16, approved by the Planning Commission on October 15, 1997, consisted of two parts: 1) the overall project design in accordance with the (Q) Qualified Overlay Zone; and 2) the affordable apartment project site design in accordance with Section 21.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code for multi-family affordable housing projects. Subsequent to City Council approval of the above actions, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game modified the project by increasing the width of a wildlife comdor which resulted in the loss of 4 single family lots. The proposed amendments to the site development plan and coastal development permit pertain to the affordable housing site only. The current developer, Wakeland Housing & Development has requested that the project be revised to increase the project's eligibility for SDP 97-16(A)/CDP 97-4A) - MARIAN0 AFFORDABLE HOUSING June 7,2000 housing tax credits by eliminating the one bedroom units and increasing the onsite amenities. The proposal consists of the addition of one unit for a total of 28 units, the elimination of one bedroom units and increase in three bedroom units from 3 to 12, and an increase in the total square footage of building area from 23,905 square feet to 28,485, including the addition of a 1,545 square foot recreation facility. Although one additional apartment unit is proposed, the approved overall Mariano project density has been reduced due to the loss of 4 single family lots to enable the expansion of a wildlife corridor that bisects the Mariano subdivision. Therefore, the total units approved within the Mariano project, including the additional affordable unit, decreases from 177 units to 174 since project approval in 1997. The Mariano project, including the affordable housing site, has been completely graded and the project site is served with public streets and utilities. Topographically, the affordable housing site (Lot 134) now consists of a flat pad that is separated from roadways and adjacent lots by 2:l slopes. Lot 134 is a comer lot surrounded on three sides by roadways; lot frontage is on Goldenbush Drive, a local street which provides access to the affordable site and to single family lots located to the south of the site. Goldenbush Drive is a single-loaded (no driveways) street along the entire frontage of the affordable housing site due to an open space corridor that abuts the eastern side of Goldenbush Drive. The site shares side and rear property lines with three single-family lots. The approved affordable apartment project consists of 27 apartment units within three separate eight, nine, and ten-plex buildings with one, two, and three bedroom units ranging in size from 550 square feet to 1,025 square feet and an outdoor picnic area. The proposed 28 unit apartment project differs from the approved project in that it increases the density by one unit, is slightly greater in overall building coverage, consists of two and three bedroom units within four separate buildings, and includes a common recreation building. The proposed two and three bedroom units will increase slightly in size and range from 843 square feet to 1,080 square feet. The approved site design consists of three structures and an outdoor picnic area oriented toward the side and rear of the lot adjacent to Aviara Parkway and Cobblestone Drive and a parking lot that is oriented toward the front of the lot adjacent to Goldenbush Drive. Access to the parking lot is provided from a single driveway at approximately the midpoint of the Goldenbush Drive frontage. The proposed site design reverses the approved site. layout by siting the buildings along Goldenbush and Cobblestone Drives and tucking the parking into the rear of the site parallel to Aviara Parkway. Access to the project is still provided from Goldenbush Drive at the southern boundary of the lot. The revised site design will result in 20’ landscaped front yard setbacks with six-plex and eight-plex two-story structures that incorporate articulated building and roof forms along with street side porches and patio decks. The proposed project includes a 1,545 square foot community recreation facility, a tot-lot, 67 uncovered resident and guest parkmg spaces, and private patioshalcony decks for each unit. The proposed architectural style incorporates flat and pitched roofs, vertical and horizontal building and roof articulation, color variation, and S-tile roofs that are very similar to the Laurel Tree affordable apartment project located directly across the street to the north. c- - SDP 97-16(A)/CDP 97-24A) - MARIANO AFFORDABLE HCvSING June 7,2000 Page ~ 3 The project is subject to the following adopted land use plans and regulations: A. General Plan B. Zone 20 Specific Plan C. Mello I1 Local Coastal Program (LCP)/Chapter 21.203 - Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone D. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance) including 0 0 Chapter 2 1.06 - Qualified Development Overlay Zone; Chapter 21.85 - Inclusionary Housing and Section 21.53.120 Affordable Housing Multi-Family pesidential; . E. Growth Management 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 following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies in tables and project specific discussions. A. General Plan The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan. The following table indicates how the project complies with the elements of the General Plan which are particularly relevant to this proposal. SDP 97-1 6(A)/CDP 97-d-ttA) a- MARIAN0 AFFORDABLE HOUSING June 7,2000 Page 4 ELEMENT Land Use ~~ Housing Circulation Noise GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE USE CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM Site is designated for Residential Low Medium Density (0 - 4 dwelling units per acre with 3.2 ddacre growth control point). ~ Ensure all qualified subdivisions provide a range of housing for all economic income ranges. A minimum of 15% of all units approved shall be affordable to lower income households. Require new development to construct all roadways necessary to development prior to or concurrent with need. 60 dBA CNEL is the exterior noise level and 45 dBA CNEL is the interior noise level to which all residential units should be mitigated. PROPOSED USE AND IMPROVEMENTS The proposed 28-unit affordable apartment project is part of the Mariano subdivision map. With the proposed project, the actual density is decreased from the approved density to 3.99 ddacre due to the reduction in overall units from 177 to 174. Although the 3.99 ddacre density exceeds the'growth control point, the General Plan allows density increases above the growth control point if certain findings are made to enable development of low income housing. Those findings were made with the approval of the tentative map. The 28-unit affordable housing apartment project exceeds and satisfies the 15% inclusionary housing requirement of 26.1 units for the Mariano subdivision. The project is conditioned to complete all necessary street improvement prior to occupancy of any unit. The project is conditioned to comply with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. The 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard is satisfied by the provision of a 6' noise wall along the Aviara Parkway right-of-way approved as part of the Mariano subdivision map (CT 97-14). The site is also subject to a previously recorded avigation easement due to its location within the McClellan Palomar Airport 60 - 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. SDP 97-16(A)/CDP 97-4A) - MARIANO AFFORDABLE HbuSING June 7,2000 LCP Land Use Plan Zoning B. Zone 20 Specific Plan RLM (Residential Low- Medium)* R- 1 - 10,000-Q (One Family Residential)** The Zone 20 Specific Plan requires consistency with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) requiring that 15% of the total number of proposed units are made affordable to low income households. When feasible and compatible with surrounding land uses, the affordable units are required to be constructed onsite. In compliance with the Specific Plan, a 27-unit affordable apartment project was approved by the Planning Commission on Lot 134 as part of the Mariano project. Since density transfers within the Specific Plan are permitted to enable the higher densities necessary for affordable projects, unused density was transferred from the portion of the property designated for RM density to the affordable site. Although the proposed affordable project increases the number of units from 27 units to 28 units, the project is still consistent with the approved density. Prior to approval of the final subdivision map, the Mariano project lost four single-family lots when the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) required an increase in the width of a wildlife comdor that bisects the property. Therefore, the reduction of 4 lots and addition of one affordable unit results in a reduction of overall units fiom 177 to 174. The reduction in total units reduces the affordable requirement fiom 26.5 units to 26.1 units. The proposed 28 unit affordable project exceeds the requirement and is consistent with an affordable housing agreement recorded for the 27-unit project approved on the subject site. C. Mello I1 LCP/Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone The affordable housing lot (Lot 134) proposed to be developed with 28 apartment units has been previously found in compliance with the applicable Mello I1 LCP resource preservation policies and implementing ordinances pertaining to soil erosion, sediment control, and drainage facilities as part of the subdivision map and subsequent grading permit. Additionally, the project was found to have no adverse impacts to the public access and recreational policies of the Coastal Act. The proposed two-story structures are compatible in size and architecture with surrounding development and will not obstruct public views or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone. The proposed multi-family lot, approved as part of PUD 97- 11 for the Mariano project, is consistent with the LCP Land Use Map and Zoning Map as shown on the Coastal Development Compliance Table below:’ * See discussion under A. General Plan above. ** The LCP Land Use Plan is implemented in part by the City’s zoning ordinance. The multi- family project is consistent with the R- 1-1 0,000-Q zoning because a Planned Development Permit (PUD 97-11) was approved for the Mariano subdivision creating a multi-family lot consistent with Section of 21.45.030 of the Planned Development Ordinance which allows attached multi-family units as part of a planned development in any single family zone. This clustering of units is consistent with the RLM land use designation allowing 0-4 dwelling units per acre. c SDP 97-16(A)/CDP 97-,-*\A) - MARTAN0 AFFORDABLE HOUSING June 7,2000 Page 6 D. Qualified Overlay Zone The project site is zoned R-1-10000-Q requiring approval of a site development plan. SDP 97- 16 included the entire Mariano project. The proposed amendment is for the affordable site only; therefore SDP 97-16(A) pertains to Lot 134 only. A site development plan amendment is required for the proposed affordable apartment project to ensure that the use will not adversely impact the site or surrounding uses and that the site and street system are adequate to accommodate the use. .. The site is surrounded on three sides by roadways and shares side and rear property lines with only three single-family lots. The Laurel Tree Apartment project is directly across Cobblestone Road to the north, and an open space habitat corridor is located directly across Goldenbush Drive to the east. The street system is adequate to serve the project since Goldenbush Drive is a single loaded street along the entire project frontage thereby avoiding dnveway conflicts, and Cobblestone Drive is a collector street intended to provide access to Aviara Parkway. The site is adequate to accommodate the proposed 28 unit project in that building coverage is 19.2%, and the project design includes sufficient parking and recreational space. Topographic changes of 9’ - 14’ between the affordable site and adjacent single-family lots as well as adequate building separation (minimum 70’) ensures that the multi-family higher density development will not adversely impact surrounding single-family uses. The site design is sensitive to fbture residents and surrounding residents in that the two and three bedroom units are oriented away from Aviara Parkway toward the central portion of the site and the Goldenbush Drive and Cobblestone Road street frontages. The placement of the parking lot within the western and southern portions of the site results in greater separation between the apartment units and Aviara Parkway and increases the buffer between the apartment units and adjacent single-family residences. The six-plex and eight-plex structures will not adversely impact the site since they are relatively small in scale, incorporate flat and pitched roofs elements and significant architectural detail, and include front porches and balcony decks along street frontages. Structures are set back a minimum of 20 feet along street frontages consistent with single-family residences to the south. Since the building pads are approximately 5’ - 14’ above Goldenbush Drive, in lieu of a single slope, a combination of low, terraced retaining walls and generous landscaping within the front setback are provided to aesthetically enhance the project and create a more pedestrian scale by reducing slope heights. Inclusionary Housing and Affordable Housing Multi-Family Residential As specified in the above discussion under B. Zone 20 Specific Plan - Affordable Housing, the project is subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requiring that a minimum of 15% of the total approved residential units in any specific plan be restricted and affordable to lower income households. Section 21.53.120 of the Zoning Ordinance requires Planning Commission approval of a site development plan for multi-family affordable projects of 50 or fewer units based on findings that the project is consistent with the underlying zoninglspecific plan and in conformance with the General Plan policies and goals. (See the above consistency discussion under A. General Plan and B. Specific Plan). The Mariano subdivision affordable housing requirement is now 26.1 dwelling units which must be affordable to lower income households. This number is reduced from 26.5 units due to the reduction in the total number of units approved and/or proposed for the Mariano project. P - SDP 97-16(A)/CDP 97-4A) - MARIANO AFFORDABLE HOUSING June 7,2000 STANDARD 15% Inclusionary Units Mix of Bedrooms (10% 3 bedroom Affordable Housing Agreement Page 7 REQUIRED PROVIDED 26.1 '' 28 3 12 Signed Agreement prior to An affordable housing final map agreement requiring a minimum of 27 affordable units has been approved by the City Council. In addition, 10 percent of those units must be three bedrooms to comply with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The revised project complies with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements as demonstrated below: INCLUSIONARY HOUSING E. Growth Management The proposed project is located within the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Zone in the southwest quadrant of the City. The impacts created by this development on public facilities and compliance with adopted performance standards have been previously analyzed as part of the Mariano subdivision map (CT 97-14) approval. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts from the development of properties in Zone 20 were analyzed by the Zone 20 Program EIR (EIR 90-03). An expanded initial environmental impact assessment performed for the Mariano subdivision map, including the affordable housing site, revealed no significant environmental impacts beyond those identified and mitigated by EIR 90-03, An environmental impact analysis has been performed for the revised 28-unit apartment project which is proposed with minor alterations in the approved grading and changes to site layout and building design. No significant impacts beyond those previously analyzed and mitigated were identified. The project qualifies as subsequent development to Final EIR 90-03 in accordance with Section 21083.3 of the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance on April 28,2000. SDP 97-16(A)/CDP 97-24A) - MARIAN0 AFFORDABLE HGLJSING June 7,2000 Page 8 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4784 (SDP) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4785 (CDP) 3. Location Map 4. Background Data Sheet 5. Disclosure Form 6. Prior Environmental Compliance 7. Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part I1 8. Reduced Exhibits 9. Exhibits “A” - “V” dated June 7,2000 , AH:cs:mh MARIANO AFFORDABLE HOUSING SDP 97-1 6(A)/CDP 97-34(A) BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: SDP 97-16(A)/CDP 97-34(A) CASE NAME: Mariano Affordable Apartments APPLICANT: Pacific Vista Las Flores, L.P. REQUEST AND LOCATION: The applicant is requesting approval of a site development plan amendment and coastal development permit amendment to replace an approved 27 unit affordable apartment uroiect with a 28 unit affordable apartment project located on Lot 134 of the Mariano subdivision (CT 97-14) at the southeast comer of Aviara Parkway and Cobblestone Road. The proposed proiect consists of 28 two and three bedroom units within four separate buildings and includes a common recreation room and tot-lot. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 134 of the City of Carlsbad Tract 97-14, Unit No. 1 (Mariano) in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Dieao. State of California. according to the map thereof No. 13840, filed in the office of the Countv Recorder of San Dieao Countv, September 1, 1999 as File No. 99- 604320, O.R. APN: 212-223-14 Acres: 2 Proposed No. of LotsKJnits: 28 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: RLM Density Allowed: 0 - 4 Existing Zone: R-1-10.000-0 Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Density Proposed: 3.99 Proposed Zone: Same Zoning General Plan Current Land Use Site R-1-10,000-Q RLM VACANT North RDM-Q RH APARTMENTS South R-1-10,000-Q RLM VACANT East os RLM VACANT West RDM-Q RLM AVIARA PARKWAY PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: CUSD Water District: CMWD Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 28 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued 0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other, Prior Environmental Compliance, dated April 28,2000. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pplicant‘s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver. syndicate. in this and an other county. city and county. city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.” Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO APPLICABLE (NIA) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person nfa Title nla Title Address nta INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- k CorplPart Pacific Vista Las Flores, L.P. Address 225 Broadway, Ste 1700 San Diego. CA 92 10 1 2. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature ofthe legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (NIA) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person n/a Title nla Title Address nla * CorpIPart Pacific Vista Las Flores, L.P. Address 225 Broadway, Ste 1700 San Diego, CA 92 10 1 4 )c <& ;,rL ‘( f LL ri )Lc .,/&. +& L _. >L.-l I At- c+ - - - *,? LLcL./i J,., 7~~~ rA4* -4 ?LLLz i . jL-L Lc-~cr &L= J&-LL--~‘ I->-4 %-5C, -LCLL Cf-%-A - lLL. Ld ;/-a*LL . &+i---LL-++-L ’5- LL L,_L;C L? ’ 2075 Las Palrhas Dr. Carlsbad, CA’92009-1576 (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-0894 WAKELAND HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Stephen L. Kuptz Chairman of the Board Sylvia Martinez Chief Financial Officer Scott Orrantia Secretary Cole Francis Board Member .. John McColl Board Member SAlV DIEGO INTERFAITH HOUSING FOUNDATION Board of Directors I ecutive Committee Dean Rollins Chair Joseph C. Ramsey Vice Chair Gregory S. Smyth Treasurer Tony Massey Secretary Roger L. Ball Member Joseph F. Calcata Member Carol Parsons Member Board Members Doug Brunson Member Duane Homing Member Bonnie Hough Member Donald Shanks Member Lebriz Tosuner-Fikes Member +ck Henthorn & Associa’” s 5375 Aaeiiida Encinns, Siritt D Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 438-4090 Fax (760) 438-0981 May 9,2000 Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. California 92008 Subject: Vista Las Flores disclosure - supplemental information Dear Ms. Hysong: The purpose of this letter is to provide supplemental information regarding the organizational form of Pacific Vista Las Flores, L.P. the applicant for the Vista Las Flores affordable apartment project. Pacific Vista Las Flores is a limited partnership made up of two non profit (501.3~) corporations. Non profit corportion number one is Wakeland Housing and Development, while non profit number 2 is San Diego Interfaith Housing Foundation. A list of each Board of Directors has been provided as a part of the City’s required disclosure package. When the initial application was filed, Standard Pacific was the owner of the affordable housing site. Subsequently, the ownership was transferred to Pacific Vista Las Flores, L.P. As a result, Standard Pacific has retained no economic interest in the property. A copy of the recorded grant deed is enclosed for your records. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at your convenience. JEH:wpc Encl. Copy of grant deed I - m: PaciEc Vista Las Flares, L.P. 225 Broadway, Suite 1700 ) Sari Diego, CA. 92 10 1 ) 1 Title Order # 9307121SUS2 1 Escrow No: 9307121548 ) \ I GlumQml No consideration ne undersigned declares usat the documcnta.r =fer ax ‘J aud u t~mputtd on le full value cf the ictcru~ or prcpcrry coweyed ot b c8r4xted OL~ kc -Ul value !us &e value of hem or :sc&ces n=r;l;rung kenon at 3e me of sake. FOR A VALL’heLE CONSDERAXnON, reccer of u.bA is hereby otizowledged, Sraadard Pacific Corp. a Delaware Carporanon Pacific Vista Las F’lorcs, L.P. a California limited pamership the rbi\o~.ng dscri’bed mi propem in the Cony of San Diego, State ofC3iifoma: LOT 134 OF C1TY UP CARLSBAD TR4CT 97-14, C37T NO. I, I3 TAT CINOF CARLSBAD, COUrVfY OFSANDIEGO, STATE OF CMIFOR’YIA, ACCORDL‘F’G RECORDER OF SAY DIEGO COLWTY, SEPTEMBER I, 1999 ro MAP THEREOF .wo. 13ar0, FUED LV THE UFFZCE of THE COLN~Y narcd: September 3, 1999 SfPJD.4W PACIFIC COW., a Dt1awa:c coToration - City of 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: Mariano Affordable Housing Project Location: Southeast comer of Cobblestone Drive and Aviara Parkway on Lot 134 of CT 97-14 (Mariano). Project Description: A Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit amendment to replace a previously approved 27 unit affordable apartment project with a 28 unit affordable apartment project on a pre- graded lot to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement of the Mariano subdivision map (CT 97- 14). Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of publication. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 28,2000 SDP 97-16(A) MARIAN0 AFFORDABLE HOUSING APRIL 28,2000 MICHAEL J. HMMILILI~R Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 @ ENVIROMMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SDP 97-16(A)/CDP 97-34(A) DATE: December 22. 1999 BACKGROUND CASE NAME: Mariano Affordable Housing (Vista Las Flores Auartments) ._ 1. 2. APPLICANT: Pacific Vista Las Flores. L.P. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 225 Broadway. Suite 1700. San Dieeo, CA 92101 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Seutember 19.1999 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 28 unit affordable auartment comulex within the Mariano subdivision located on both sides of Aviara Parkwav. south of Palomar Aimort Road. 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 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics water Hazards u Cultural Resources Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 -. DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 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. .. 17 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. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I fmd 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 pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. “-2.i‘-oo Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cit), 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 infomation 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 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but glJ 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). 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 Ovemding 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 e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing 311 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 revieLv. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated“ may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. e 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 EJR 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 I1 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). Potentially Significant Impact Potentiall), Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated LessThan ho Significant irnpxr lmpacr I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (# 2) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#2) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#2) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#2) (#2) e) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OH 0Ix1 0 0 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: 0 0 om a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#2) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#2) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#2 0 om 0 0 UIXI 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#2) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1 :Pgs d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#2) g) Subsidence of the land? (#2) h) Expansive soils? (#2) i) 5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 5.1-15) Unique geologic or physical features? (#2) 0 0 0 0 om om om 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage panems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#2) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#2) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 5 0 0 0 om 0 om 0 OIXI 0 0 0 0 am om Rev. 03/28/96 --4 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentiall> Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 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? (#2) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#2) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#2) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#2) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) (XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#2) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) #2) 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or bamers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result IXI 0 0 0 0 0 in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#2) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#2) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#2) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LCSS Than Significanr Impscr I7 17 0 0 0 0 17 00 UIXI om oIx1 OB nIx1 OIXI OB CIm OIXI UB 6 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 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 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 proposal? (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 8: 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 1 - 5.13-9) c) & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 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)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #2) 5.10.1-5) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- 15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 1 - 5.9-15; #2) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#1) e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the Potentially Potentiall) Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & Communications systems? (#1) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) LessThan \o Significanr Impact Irnpaci om om om om om om om om om om om om om 7 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#1 :Pgs Create light orglare?(#l:Pgs5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 5.11-1 -5.11-5;#2) 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5; #2) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- Disturb archaeological resources? (#1 :Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10; #2) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10; #2) 10;#2 ) 10; #2) 5.8-1 - 5.8-10; #2) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) MANDATORY FTNDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 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? 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)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant lmpact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Potentiail! Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 .. 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Thm Significani impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Rev. 03/28/96 h XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR. or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: Section 15063(c)(3)(D). a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were withm the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 h DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Proiect Background and Environmental Setting The project site was approved with a 27 unit one, two, and three bedroom affordable apartment project as part of the Mariano Subdivision (CT 97-14) on November 18, 1997. The Mariano subdivision is part of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) area which covers the 640 acre Zone 20 Planning Area. The certified Final Program EIR 90-03 for SP 203, which addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with development of the Zone 20 area, along with an expanded initial environmental impact study to address project specific environmental impacts was utilized to determine the level of environmental review necessary for the Mariano project. The expanded initial study performed for the Mariano project, including the 27 unit affordable housing project, revealed no significant environmental impacts beyond those identified and mitigated by the program EIR 90-03; therefore, a Notice of Pnor Environmental Compliance was issued on August 11, 1997. The Mariano subdivision final map has since been recorded and the entire site has been graded. The affordable housing project site, Lot 134, has been entirely graded and is served with public utilities. Minor changes to the existing grade will be accomplished through the installation of 2’ - 6’ high retaining walls into the toe of slopes and along the perimeter of the site. LAND USE The proposed 28 unit affordable project increases the density by one unit, is slightly greater in overall building coverage, and consists of two and three bedroom units only. Although one additional apartment unit is proposed, the overall Mariano project density has been reduced due to the loss of 4 lots to enable the expansion of a wildlife corridor that bisects the project. Therefore, the overall project density with the additional apartment, would actually decrease since project approval in 1997. The apartment project is integrated into a hture single family neighborhood adjacent to Aviara Parkway directly across Cobblestone Drive from the Laurel Tree Affordable Apartment project. The comer site, which is surrounded on three sides by roadway, fronts on Goldenbush Drive which is single loaded (no driveways) along the entire apartment project frontage due to the open space corridor that abuts the east side of Goldenbush Drive. Although the site shares side and rear property lines with 3 single family lots, 2:l landscaped slopes and a parking lot provide adequate separation (minimum 70’) from single family structures. Generally, the site design has reversed by siting the buildings along Goldenbush Drive and tucking the parking into the rear of the site parallel with Aviara Parkway. Access to the proposed project is still provided from Goldenbush Drive farther to the south at the southern boundary of the lot. The proposed revised design will result in 20’ landscaped front yard setbacks with two-story structures that incorporate building and roof articulation, along with street side porches and patio decks to ensure compatibility with surrounding single family structures. AIR OUALITY In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts in the form of 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. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 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 build-out 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 build-out, 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 93-0 1, 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 projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out 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 build-out. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, 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 build-out 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 11 Rev. 03/28/96 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 Ovemding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning Department. . EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92003, (760) 602-4622. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. Final Program EIR 90-03 - Zone 20 Specific Plan, dated May, 1993, City of Carlsbad Planning Department and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Mariano Subdivision (CT 97-14/SDP 97-16/CDP 97-34 formerly identified as CT 96-05/SDP 95-1 1/HDP 95- 12) dated February 9, 1997. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 - LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORNG PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) .. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 - - APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES ASD CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature .. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 VICINITY MAP NO- T3 SCALE COLLECTOR STREET-PUBLIC EXISTING COBBLESTONE ROAD "01 TO ECALC LOCAUCUL-DE-SAC-PUBLIC EXISTING GOLDENBUSH DRIVE YOT TO SCALE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (AMENDMENT TO SDP 97-16] VISTA LAS FLORES CITY OF CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA LEGAL DESCRIPTION L.- -__ -~ 1 .___I PUBLIC UTILITIES 8 DISTRICTS I I SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN StlEEl I (AMENDMENT TO SDP 97-16) i IVISTA LAS FLORES~ o: Is AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE CITY OF CMLSBAD CAUFORNIA c * .. - CDP 97-34 (A) ISDP 97-1 6 (A mwmm BY E "SAKER ~?~~?m - --.-- z:w-m-w PROJECT SITE SECTIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEEl (AMENDMENT TO SOP 97-16) 2 VISTA LAS FLORES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE 5 CRYOF CARldBAD CCIUFOANIA VISTA LAS FLORES ClTY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN VISTA LAS FLORES VICINITY MAP 1 I I' I ,, * I_ - e VISTA LA5 FLORES IANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN ._ .. PLANT LEWD I PLAN SI- PLANT CATEQORY I WOWSEO SIZE WANllTVl WI PROPOSED CAWDATES 1 ', U' < B ml VICINITY MAP . - .. .. .. ...,. , CITY OF CARLSBAD VISTA IAS FLORES WATER CONSERVATION PLAN CDP 97-34 (A) /SDP 97-16 (A SITE DISTANCE PROFILES PREPARED BY -HE&& u ,..- *-.".- ,<* .I z~-*-~~ VISTA LAS FLORES SITE DEVELOPMENT PGN- (AMENDMENT TO SDP 97-16) AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE VISTA LAS FLORES CrrY OF CARLSBAD, CWFOANIA CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 1 70 160 150 140 VIEW 1 - PROFILE WOICNQLOCT.~~~~) c , /*I 190 180 1 70 160 VIEW2 - PROFILE (LOQ~NORIGHT.~ < & .> SITE DISTANCE PROFILES - SHEET 5 5 OF - RECEIVE[ TYPICAL FRONT ELEVATION . BUILDING TYPE I MAY 1 1 CITY OF CARL: VISTA LAS FLORES PLANNING DE APARTMENTS RODRIGUEZ + SIMON DESIGN ASSOC. INC . 5L . 3AD 'T. . . . VISTA IAS FLOW APAR- PACIFIC VISTA MS FLORES *m IJCUI urn ulnv ru m U-AV. sun trm w mc~ cy.(x*u 9rn [-TYPICAL BLDG. ELEVATION 1 I" ", ".,.,.,.. %" ". .. N..--. ,..e TYPICAL COURT ELNATION. BUILDING NPE I VISTA LAS FLORES APARTMENTS RODRIGUEZ + SIMON DESIGN ASSOC. INC . AICH~~~CIS AND PLANNIIS . 1:; r- -' .-7 WSTA US FLORES APARTh4Em FRONT ELEVATION. RECREATION BUILDING ;I if r:. $1 VISTA LAS FLORES APARTMENTS RODRIGUEZ + SIMON (!I DESIGN ASSOC. INC . ZF . . . . t RODRIGUEZ 4 SIMON /!I DESIGN ASSOC. INC . iy AICHIIICIS AND ~~ANNII~ -b APARTMENTS PACIFIC VISTA LAS FLORES m mau~~~v. m m M urn. WOIW mn urn wnn IN urn UFPL II ~ \ UNIT PLAN 82 (SECOND FLOOR) %ALE. lf4. * !LO' I7 ""I I I. RODRIGUEZ + SIMON I$ DESIGN ASSOC. INC . . I*S PACIFIC VISTA W FLORES urn usm urn zww IAX Ln *01DVAl. UII m0 W aa3. c"IW W L *. w mu",.. ,.., 1. n ,.-.-,. 1.1 ] UNIT B - FLOOR PLAN .- . .. ... FIRST LEVEL BUILDING PLAN BUILDING WE I %N F 3ah' I' c' . . . PLAN-82 11.4 V1. .. - PLANA2 ?a+ PLAN&' >* r. SECOND LEVEL BUILDING PLAN BUILDING Wff I <.fir ?le I n . VISTA LAS FLORES APARTMENTS PACIFIC WSTA US FLORES urn USUI Pn wI)o IAY m *mN. pm m YN am cIy.IIHI mm BLDG I - 1. --._I-- *~ n I,' .,,.. FIRST LEVEL PLAN ,** *, .? 1 -.. -, 1""- 1 AI2 RODRIGUEZ + SIMON DESIGN ASSOC. INC . jp .- FRONT ELEVATION 5L-r .w. I D BUILDING TYPE I LEFT ELEVATION . PACIFIC VISTA LA5 FLORES 21, uow*,. Yml m IUI r"m, W.O.UI* 1191 161 215 1mh 16R1 lYnr ,A. I BLDC. I - EXTERIOR Ea !' ! 4 00 0" , ,.,, ."6 I... RIGHT ELEVATION BUILDING TYPE I - ,"man -*Tm .cm mllvRMITzI RODRIGUEZ + SIMON N DESIGN ASSOC. INC . VISTA LAS FLORES APARTMENTS I-.-. FIRST LEVEL BUILDING PLAN BUILDING TYPE II LiNF 3,lb' . I-0' RODRIGUEZ + SIMON DESIGN ASSOC. INC . $;l . . . PLAN.AZ i PIAN-82 SECOND LEVEL BUILDING PLAN BUILDING TYPE II I. A, F 1 Ih. I n. VISTA L4s FLOW APARTMEm7-S 1 BLOC. I - FIRST LEVEL PLAN I -- ___~- c, n<..- ,111 I ”.,-.- VI, I WN, .,w. 4 0- FRONT ELEVATION BUILDING NPE II LEFT ELEVATION ---7 RODRIGUEZ + SIMON DESIGN ASSOC. INC . . I ,i 1 BLDC. II - EXTERIOR ELEV.S ] 1; ". n nrr.._ C" T w -- 1" .I I I REAR ELEVATION BUILDING lYE II 5L.Lr W.. t-0. . . VISTA LAS FLORES APARTMENTS RODRIGUEZ + SIMON N DESIGN ASSOC. INC . . . .-~.r L . -L I! b- r -3 b 7 a j ... .- 7.7 REC BLDG. - FLOOR PLAN L. - . -- " " *"C.. .." *, ,,,. "1. n., RECREATION BUILDING FLOOR PLAN PJi, ,.,*>- .or* 4-45 :,> r , X ALE, 4/4. a 1'0' 1 A3.1 I FRONT ELEVATION RECREATION BUILDING L I -I tk-41 I I I It-b-1 I 11 I 11 I It I I I I I I1 /I 1-1 I ---1 - ,,. I/ LEFT ELEVATION . . ~EC. BLDC. - EXT. ELEVATIONS_] ___ ~~~ c. I, n7w.. .I, C. .. ni "I n J -- 1 I REAR ELEVATION RECREATION BUllDlNG Rwn .o - LLtYIrm .cm m.4 vcM*.IL* LEFT ELEVATION . . I. 76 APARTMENTS PACIFIC VISTA LAS FLORES DH4.1zZ2um” 1u “ONMI“. sun w M Im UIUI - REC BLDC. - EX1 ELEVATIONS ILL Lp--- -~ ,,. . ,*.a. 1.- ,.,, *. .., ,..,-. ..” I .. ‘< f: .. .’ i’ ” -, . ;. ’! I FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION RODRIGUEZ + SIMON DESIGN ASSOC. INC . AICHII~CIS AND PLANNCIS i," l,~,.. ..Y Y." m wmso r. .II*. 111,) 1.4 *.1 I,., %.-*., n. . BUILDING ADDRESS NUMERAL LOCATION BUILDING I AND II. TYPICAL :j i; 'i 1 # rf VISTA L4s FLOW APARTMENTS PACIFIC VISTA US FLORES ,,I """*,lU*> 9"" I7r.L SUI onin. CAI"<*"* ,,n, i*b ,to* IhRl IWC1P 111 BUILDING ADDRESS SIGN 1 I /..,.. 1 -., .I .