Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-05-03; Planning Commission; ; CT 94-06|PUD 94-05 - POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA A-3APPLICATIO^OMPLETE DATE: DECEMBER 22, 1994 STAFF PLANNER: ERIC MUNOZ STAFF ENGINEER: JIM DAVIS STAFF REPORT DATE: MAY 3, 1995 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CT 94-06/PUD 94-05 - POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "A-3" - A request for a recommendation of approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development for a 52 lot subdivision consisting of one private street lot, one open space lot and 50 residential lots to accommodate 50 single family detached homes on 5,000 square foot minimum sized lots within the 10.7 acre P-C (Planned Community) zoned parcel of Planning Area "A-3" in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan located north of the Batiquitos Lagoon and east of the railroad right of way, in the Coastal Zone, within Local Facilities Management Zone 9. I.RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3769 and 3770, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of CT 94-06 and PUD 94-05, respectively, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND This project is proposing a Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development to develop Planning Area "A-3" in conformance with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan with 50 detached single family homes. A Tentative Tract Map is required per the Subdivision Map Act to subdivide the property into 5,000 square foot minimum sized lots. A Planned Unit Development Permit (PUD) is required since the project addresses several components of the intent and purpose of the Planned Development Ordinance as listed in Section 21.45.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically involved are: separate ownership of planned unit development lots, development in accordance with the General Plan and applicable master plan, the allowance of flexibility in project design while providing for essential development standards and the provision of development which will be compatible with existing and permitted future surrounding developments. Accordingly, the project proposal includes subdivision into less than 7,500 square foot lots and the use of private streets. CT 94-06/PUD 94-05 POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "A-3" MAY 3, 1995 PAGE 2 The site has a General Plan land use designation of RM (Residential-Medium). Per the Master Plan and RM designation, Area "A-3" is allowed a density range of 4-8 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The development of 50 units on 10.7 acres of land with the proposed density of 4.7 du/ac, therefore, is consistent with the Master Plan. The site itself is essentially flat and has no unique topographic features or significant environmental resources. North of the site is the Avenida Encinas roadway. East and south of the site is the vacant land of Areas "A-2" and "A-4", respectively. West of the site is the railroad right of way. The master tentative map for Poinsettia Shores (CT 94-01) approved in August 1994 allowed the mass grading of the master plan property, the construction of the Avenida Encinas roadway and related infrastructure to allow the development of individual planning areas. Only finish grading is required to the mass graded site for the development of Area "A-3". The project's finish grading involves 4,300 cubic yards (CY) of cut, 13,500 CY of fill with 9,200 CY of import. The location of Planning Area "A-3" within the Master Plan is depicted on the attached Location Map. The detached single family homes will feature three floor plan types as shown on Exhibits "F" - "H": Plan type A has approximately 2,341 square feet (proposed height 25 feet); Plan type B has 2,911 square feet (proposed height 27 feet), and; Plan type C has 3,175 square feet (proposed height 281/a feet). Elevations are depicted on Exhibits "I" - "K". No plan type exceeds two stories. The proposed architecture is contemporary with roof tile, stucco accented with wood trim and a variety of roof planes and articulation. Every unit provides more than the minimum area requirement for a two car garage. An internal 36 foot wide private street will serve the project with guest parking allowed on each side. The overall site plan for the project is depicted on Exhibits "C" - "E". The project is designed to meet the City's Noise Policy that applies to new residential development (over 5 units) within the City. Noise barrier wall heights and details (consistent with the project's noise study dated July 1,1994) are shown on Exhibits "C", "D", "L" and "N". A pedestrian access gate is located at the terminus of Street "5" through the noise wall adjacent to the railroad right of way to provide public access to the public trail segment within "A-3" (Exhibits "D", "N" and "O"). The project will take access from Windrose Circle via a private street. Gated entries are not proposed since the Coastal Commission approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and corresponding Local Coastal Program Amendment in May 1994 prohibited gated entrances into Planning Areas "A-3" and "A-4". The intent was to maximize the public access opportunities to the public lagoon blufftop trail system. The trail segments required for "A- 3" consistent with the Master Plan are shown on Exhibits "C" - "D" and "L" - "N". Unlike other trail segments in the Master Plan, the trail segment adjacent to the railroad right of CT 94-06/PUD 94-05 POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA KA-3" MAY 3, 1995 PAGE 3 way and blufftop areas of "A-3" and "A-4" are coastal resource pedestrian trails specifically intended for use by the general public, in addition to master plan residents. The trail segment shown for the east portion of "A-3" adjacent to Planning Area "A-2" is a private pedestrian trail intended for exclusive use by the master plan residents. Signage is proposed for the subject planning area near the project entrance in the form of a Village Identity Sign and a Community Entry Monumentation Sign (to identify the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan/community) both of which meet pertinent Master Plan criteria (Exhibits "L", "M" and "O"). The proposed landscape concept (Exhibits "L" - "O") is designed to screen the development along the perimeters; and to promote land use compatibility with adjacent future planning areas. III. ANALYSIS The proposed project is subject to the following land use plans and regulations: A. Carlsbad General Plan B. Poinsettia Shores Master Plan - MP 175 (D) C. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance) D. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance), including: 1. Chapter 21.45 Planned Development 2. Chapter 21.85 Inclusionary Housing 3. Chapter 21.90 Growth Management E. West Batiquitos Local Coastal Program (LCP) A. GENERAL PLAN The approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan involved several findings of consistency with the City's General Plan. All development consistent with the master plan is therefore inherently consistent with the General Plan. By providing a product type at or below the approved density for the subject planning area, the master plan's implementation maintains consistency with the General Plan. By supplying residential market rate units per the master plan, the project is consistent with the Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan. The master plan was not CT 94-06/PUD 94-05 POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "A-3" MAY 3, 1995 PAGE 4 required to provide any additional open space beyond natural open space areas previously dedicated by the master plan property. Since natural open space dedications are not required of this planning area, this project is consistent with the Open Space Element of the General Plan. By conducting a noise study and designing the project to comply with the City's noise policy for new residential development, the project is consistent with the Noise Element of the General Plan. B. POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER PLAN - MP 175(D) The proposal for Area "A-3" is in conformance with the governing master plan. The master plan allows up to 51 single family dwelling units to be constructed on 5,000 square feet minimum sized lots (50 dwelling units are proposed). The master plan provides certain development standards and design criteria which are complied with and summarized as follows: (1) a minimum average setback of 25 feet for all homes within the planning area from Avenida Encinas is maintained (an average setback of 29 feet is proposed); (2) minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet; (3) no structures will exceed the 30 feet/two story height limit associated with this planning area; (4) the proposed architecture is consistent with the City's Small Lot Architectural Guidelines with regards to roof line articulation and integration of single story elements. In addition, the Master Plan refers to the PD Ordinance (since a Planned Unit Development Permit is involved). Compliance with the PD Ordinance development standards is discussed in Section D.I of this report. All other aspects of the master plan pertinent to Area "A-3" are complied with by the proposed project including the provision of a trail segment, noise policy compliance, adequate and appropriate landscaping and the provision of private passive and active recreation areas. C. CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE - TITLE 20 Since land subdivision into 5,000 square foot minimum sized lots consistent with the Master Plan is proposed, this project must comply with the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20). As reviewed and conditioned by the Engineering Department, the proposed project meets all applicable requirements relating to subdivisions in the City. No serious public health problems will be created by the proposed subdivision. All necessary public facilities and infrastructure improvements, including circulation, drainage, sewer, water and utilities have either already been provided through the master tentative map (CT 94-01) or are conditions of approval for this project. All required findings per the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Title 20 are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3769 for CT 94-06. CT 94-06/PUD 94-05 POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "A-3" MAY 3, 1995 PAGE 5 D. CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE - TITLE 21 D.I. Chapter 21.45 Planned Development In addition to the specific development standards established by the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (as discussed above) the Planned Development (PD) Ordinance is designated as the implementing ordinance for Planning Area "A-3". All of the required findings for the granting of a Planned Unit Development Permit (governed by the PD Ordinance) are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3770 for PUD 94-05. Below is an overview of the PD standards compared against the proposed project. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE Density Lot Size Front Yard Setback Building Separation Building Height Private Street Width Parking Resident Guest RV Storage Storage Space Recreation Space Common Active Private Passive REQUIRED/ALLOWED 4-8 DU/AC - 51 units 5,000 square foot minimum 20' minimum from back of sidewalk off private streets 10' min. w/allowable protrusions up to 2' each unit 30' max/2 stories 30' - no parking on street 32' - parking on one side 36' - parking on both sides 100 covered spaces 15 spaces Provided for w/PA "E"-SDP 94-03 Satisfied by 2 car garage space Provided for w/PA "M"-SDP 94-03 PA "M" plus private rear yard passive areas, 15 x 15' minimum PROPOSED 4.7 DU/AC - 50 units 5,300 sq ft min/6,866 sq ft average/14,060 sq ft maximum 20' minimum from back of sidewalk off private streets 10' min/13.5' Avg. w/allowable protrusions up to 2' each unit 25, 27 and 28.5' for three different plan types/2 stories max 36' internal private street system with parking allowed on both sides for visitors 150 covered spaces (garages) 64 on-street spaces Provided for w/PA "E"-SDP 94-03 Satisfied by 2 car min. garage space Provided for w/PA "M"-SDP 94-03 PA "M" plus 15 x 15' min (225 sq ft) private passive areas The project also is consistent with the design criteria outlined in the PD Ordinance. Findings relating to the project's conformance to these design criteria are contained in CT 94-06/PUD 94-05 POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "A-3" MAY 3, 1995 PAGE 6 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3770 for PUD 94-05. In summary, the plan is comprehensive and innovative in that it accounts for the location, constraints (noise) and shape of the site. Adequate usable open space and recreation areas are provided. Buildings are well integrated and the provision for required parking areas and vehicular and pedestrian circulation is made. Being a part of an approved master plan, there will be no disruptive elements introduced into the community by the proposed project. The internal street system is functional while not dominating the site and all common areas are accessible to the future residents and well related to each other. Finally, architectural harmony will be obtained within the area through appropriate building height limitations, perimeter screening/buffering and proper planning of adjacent planning areas. D.2. Chapter 21.85 Inclusionary Housing This project's inclusionary affordable housing requirement is satisfied by the approval and development of Planning Area "D" within the Master Plan (CT 94-10/CP 94-03/SDP 94-08) or the approval of an off-site Affordable Housing Agreement. Either case will result in the provision of 90 affordable housing units, consistent with.the Master Plan. A detailed summary of master plan affordable housing provisions is contained in the staff report for Area "D" (CT 94-10). While no units in the subject subdivision are required to be restricted as affordable housing units, the project will be conditioned so that no final map approval will be granted until the on-site project for Area "D" (CT 94-10) receives final map approval; or an off-site Affordable Housing Agreement is approved by the Planning Director and Community Development Director. D.3. Chapter 21.90 Growth Management The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 9 in the Southwest Quadrant. The impacts created by the development on public facilities and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows: FACILITY City Administration Library Waste Water Treatment Parks Drainage Circulation Fire IMPACTS 185 square feet 99 square feet 50EDU N/A N/A 500 ADT Station No. 4 COMPLIANCE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes CT 94-06/PUD 94-05 POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "A-3" MAY 3, 1995 PAGE? FACILITY Open Space Schools Sewer Collection System Water IMPACTS N/A CUSD 50EDU 11,000 GPD COMPLIANCE Yes Yes Yes Yes The project is 14 dwelling units below the Growth Management Growth Control Point. Required facilities and services will be available to serve the buildout of the master plan including the development of the proposed project. All required Growth Management findings are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3769 for CT 94-06. E. WEST BATIQUITOS LCP The approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan in January 1994 included a Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment (LCPA 91-02) for the West Batiquitos LCP which was approved by the California Coastal Commission on May 12, 1994. Coastal Commission's certification of LCPA 91-02 established the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan as the implementing ordinance/document for the West Batiquitos LCP. All development consistent with the master plan, such as the proposal for this planning area, is therefore in conformance with the West Batiquitos LCP and all applicable coastal regulations. A Coastal Development Permit will be required prior to final map approval. IV.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As discussed in the Initial Study for this project (Environmental Impact Assessment Form, Part II), all potential environmental impacts associated with the development of this planning area have already been identified and mitigated to a level of insignificance. Environmental analysis and documentation for the master plan and subsequent planning areas was conducted for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) and the master tentative map (CT 94-01) resulting in the issuance and approval of Mitigated Negative Declarations. Since all applicable mitigation measures have either been completed or designed into the project (i.e. noise attenuation/noise policy compliance and archeological/paleontological monitoring during the site's mass grading), no environmental impacts will result from the proposed development of this planning area. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance was issued and duly noticed on March 27, 1995. CT 94-06/PUD 94-05 POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "A-3" MAY 3, 1995 PAGES V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed project is in compliance with the Carlsbad General Plan, Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, West Batiquitos LCP and Carlsbad Municipal Code, Titles 20 and 21 as described in this report. Therefore, staff recommends approval of CT 94-06 and PUD 94- 05, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained within their respective resolutions. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3769 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3770 3. Location Map 4. Environmental Impact Assessment Form, Part II dated March 22, 1995 5. Notice of Prior Compliance dated March 27, 1995 6. Background Data Sheet 7. Disclosure Form 8. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form 9. Reduced Exhibits "A" - "O" 10. Exhibits "A" - "O", dated May 3, 1995. ENM:lh:vd Apri!3,1995 BATIQUITOS LAGOON POINSETTIA SHORES P.A. A-3--CT 94-06/PUD 94-05 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 94-O6/PUD 94-05 and CT 94-07/PUD 9446 DATE: March 22. 1995 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Poinsettia Shores - Plannine Areas A-3 and A4 2. APPLICANT: Kaiza Poinsettia Cornoration 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 7220 Avenida Encinas. Suite 200 Carlsbad. CA 92009 (619) 931-9100 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Anril25. 1994 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Two nlannintz areas within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan: (1) Area “A-3” consisting of 50 detached single family homes on 5.000 sa fi minimum lots on 10.7 acres. and (2) Area “A-4” planning areas involve Tentative Tract Mans (to subdivide land) and Planned Unit Develonment (PUD) Permits nursuant to the Citv’s Planned Develonment Ordinance and are consistent with the Poinsettia ) 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 X Transportation/Circulation - Public Services - Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems - Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics - Water -- - Cultural Resources X Air Quality & Noise - Recreation - Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. mop5 3% DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. cl q I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one 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, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. cl I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION p ursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. q Planner Signature Date I Planning Director S@ature u 314 5- Date , I 2 Rev. lj3q9S 33 - . 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 &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and (c) none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all of the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been required or incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). 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. 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 meDared. . . - When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the signiflcant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR p ursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier ElR. . 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 ElR pursuan t 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 EL&Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. lpops 34 Issues (8lxl supoating cnfam8tial sxlrax): I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) W d 4 e) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #l) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Source Ws: 1,3) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source #l) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source Ws: 12) Potentidly signifhzult ea&ntirlly Unlea hTh8n sirlifii Mitig8tioo siificult wt InoorporrM m=t lLTgct x x x x Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? (Source # 1) a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Source #l) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major i.nfkWucture)? (Source #l) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Source #l) Rev. 1/30/9s 3b , . III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the a) W cl 4 d 9 I) h) 0 proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture? (Source iys: 2,4) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #k’s: 2,4) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source tys: 2,4) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source Ws: 2,4) Lkdslides or mudflows? (Source Ws: 2,4) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Source Ws: 2,4) Subsidence of the land? (Source Ws: 2,4) Expansive soils? (Source Ws: 2,4) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source Ws: 2,4) IV. WATER. Would the proposal resnlt in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattern or the rate and (y110uat of surface runoff? (Source #s: 23) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source iws: 23 fisgizs FCltit?ntLlly Upseg signifii Mitiglttic8l e lmp8ct lnwparated Impect zt x x x x x x x x x lQaler hnd suppatiag hlfam8tim sarrcer): cl 4 d 9 g) h) 0 Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Source Ws: 25) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Source #s: i,5) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (Source #2) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (Source #2) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (Source #2) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #2) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source #2) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source #s: lJ,8) b) Expose sensitive ~CCCP~O~S to pollutants? (Source Ws: 12) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (Source Ws: 12) d) Create objectionable odors? (Source #s: 1,2) potenti8lly signifii PC&ZltUy Unlea SW=- *** &Z lv=t lizcgzd lmpwt l$ct x. - x x x x x x x x x x Rev. l/30/95 38 . lcsales (and suppating lnfcsmatial !sourca): - VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) b) cl 4 e) 9 g) Pcmltially siinifii m=t Potentially Significant U&SS LesThan * * * SipiSant lizgEl lmF=t lnfzt Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source #s: 1,6,8) x Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source ws: 12) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Source Ws: 1,2) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Source iys: 13) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Source Ws: 1,2) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source Ws: 1,2) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source #s: 12) 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? (Source Ws: 1,2,3) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source Ws: 12) x x x x x x x x 4 lasna (and supporting lllfmtiat sources): c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source Ws: 1293) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Source Ws: 1 J,3) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source Eys: 1,2,3) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Source ws: 1~) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (Source Ws: 1~) POtddy Significant m=t Potentially Sipificaut U&S LesThan Mitigation Significant Incupxated m=t lgct c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (Source #KS: 12) 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? (Source #‘s: 12 x x x x x x x b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source KS: 12) x c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (Source Ws: 1,2) x d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (Source Ws: 1,2) x r lssleo (fuxl suppating lnfamatiat solutes): e) Iucrease fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (Source Ws: 1,2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source Ws: 12) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source Is: 1,7) Potentially Significant w=t Potentially Significaut UIlkSS LessTlm Mitigation Significaat Inuxpcsated hpect lngt x x x XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an a) b) d 4 d effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: Fire protection? (Source Ws: 1,9) Police protection? (Source #s: 1,9) Schools? (Source Ws: 1,9) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Source Ws: 1,9) Other governmental setices? (Source Ws: 1,9) 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? (Source #Vs: 1,9) b) Communications systems? (Source #l) x x 10 -.1/3ops q\ hes (and suppating rnfmstlal soluccs): c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (Source Ws: 1,9) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source Ws: 1,9) e) Storm water drainage? (Source Ws: 1,9) f) Solid waste disposal? (Source Ws: 1,9) Potentially Significant w=t Potentially Significant Ullleps Mitigatiuh Inaxporated g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source Ws: 1,9) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Source #l) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (Source #l) c) Create light or glare? (Source Wl) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) b) d d) d Disturb paleontological resources? (Source Ws: 1,2) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #‘s: 12) Affect historical resources? (Source Ws: 1,2) - - - - Have the potential to cause a physical change which would tiect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source Ws: 12) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (Source Ws: 12) LessThan Significant Impact zt x x x x x x x x x x x x 11 x Rcv.1/30/95 t.p hes (and Supporting bfamatim Sauces): POtWidly Significant ImpPct POb?Iltiiauy Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated LespTbatt signifiat No lmmpoct m=t XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Source #l) x b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source w XVI. MANDATORY FlNDlNGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause subs&u&I adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x x x 12 Rev. 1/30/w 4 Xl&I. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program ElR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyxed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)@) of the CEQA Guidelines. In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: b) d Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. All pertinent earlier analyses have been identified at the beginning of the Discussion of Environmental Evaluatiou. The Source Documents identified have been cited as appropriate in the checklist and environmental discussion. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuan t to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. 1. Air Oualitv and Circulation Imuactg: Statements of Overriding Consideration made with the Citfs General Plan Master ElR (Source Document #8). 2. Archeological and Paleontoloaical Tmnacts: Mass grading monitoring required by Source Document #l and 2. 3. Noise lmuacts: Noise study (Source #7) was required by Source Document #l. 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. Mitigation measures specific to this project include: (1) Archeological and paleontological monitoring which was carried out during the mass grading of the site in accordance with the approval of CT 94-01, and (2) noise mitigation designed into the project pursuant to a site specific noise analysis conducted for the proposed project. 13 . DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SOURCE DOCUMENTS CITED (All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl&ad, CA 92009; (6 19) 438-l 16 1) 1. Poinsettia Shores Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding Environmental Impact Assessment Form Part II dated July 26, 1993. 2. Poinsettia Shores Master Tentative Map Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding Environmental Impact Assessment Form Part II dated April 1, 1994. 3. 4. West Batiquitos LCP certified by the Coastal Commission May 12, 1994 Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park by Woodward-Clyde Consultants dated June 4, 1986. 5. 6. 7. Hydrology Study prepared by O’Day Consultants dated April 30, 1993. Transportation Analysis for Poinsettia Shores by Urban Systems Associated dated May 17,1993. Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores Planning Area B-l by Mestre Greve Associates dated July 19, 1994. Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores Planning Area B-2 by Mestre Greve Associates dated June 29, 1994. 8. City of Carl&ad General Plan Final Master EIR 9341 approved by City Council Resolution No. 94-246. 9. Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) documents including amendment LFMP 87-09(A) (approved January 4, 1994) and the Zone 9 Finance Plan (approved September 6, 1994) PROJECT BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Planning Areas Ad3 and A-4 are pmposed in full compliance with all applicable provisions of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. The proposed densities are within the limits established by the master plan which designated these planning areas with Residential-Medium (RM) General Plan designations. Area A-3 proposes 50 detached single family homes (51 allowed) on 5,000 sq ft minimum sized lots and Area A-4 proposes 61 detached single family homes (62 allowed) on 5,000 sq fi minimum sized lots. The proposed architecture for A-3 and A-4 is the same featuring three floor plan types that range from approximately 2,340 sq ft to 3,175 sq ft. All plan types have a maximum building height of 28 l/2 feet. All applicable development standards and design criteria are complied with. Areas A-3 and A4 are within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan as shown on the attached Location Map. The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175-D) was approved in January 1994 and incorporated a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Source Document #l) which was intended to identify environmental impacts and related mitigation measures to allow the buildout of the residential portion of the master plan. As a result, the master plan contains environmental mitigation measures on a planning area by planning area basis. The subject planning areas have either completed applicable mitigation measures or incorporated them into their project design Subsequent to the master plan approval, the Poinsettia Shores Master Tentative Map (CT 94-01) was approved in August 1994 and incorporated another Mitigated Negative Declaration (Source Document #2) to allow mass grading of the master plan property, construction of the Avenida Encinas roadway, and construction of drainage improvements on the west side of the master plan site. The subject planning area sites are already mass graded from the approval 14 Rev. mm 45 . of CT 944 1. All necessary infrastructure to serve the buildout of the residential planning areas has either already been constructed or are financially secured to guarantee their construction concurrent with need. Section 21080.7 of CEQA and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines allows a residential project, developed consistent with applicable General Plan designations, to be determined in prior compliance with existing environmental review if an EIR has been certified for the subject General Plan. Such is the case with the City’s General Plan Update Piil Master EIR 93-01 (Source Document #6) certified in September 1994. This document is referenced in addressing the Air Quality and Circulation impacts associated with master plan buildout. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DISCUSSION (The brief discussions below are intended to summark and/or supplement the evidence contained in the pertinent Source Documents as noted on the checklist). 1. LandUseandPlanning a)+, e): The proposed planning areas implement the governing Poinsettia Shores Master Plan in conformance with all master plan standards and guidelines, the Residential-Medium (RM) General Plan designation and the coastal regulations of the West Hatiquitos Lagoon Local Coastal Program (LCP). d): All agricultural conversion fees required for the mass grading of the master plan site associated with the approval of CT 94-01 have been paid or secured to the City’s satisfaction. Mass grading of the site is near completion at this time. 2. Population and Housing a)-c): Local population projections and limits will not be exceeded by the buildout of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan including the development of the subject planning areas. Development of the Avenida Encinas roadway and related infrastructure associated with CT 94-01 will induce the buildout of the master plan in accordance with the General Plan and zoning regulations including Growth Management compliance. 3. Geologic Problems a)-i): The sites for Planning Areas A-3 and A4 have recently been mass graded per the approval of CT 94- 01. Refined finish grading is required for the construction of building pads and internal roadways. A-3 requires approximately 4,300 cubic yards (cy) of cut, 13,500 cy of fill and 9,200 cy yards of import. A-4 requires approximately 17,100 cy of cut, 21,300 cy of fill and 4,200 cy yards of import. Standard grading permit procedures will apply. No seismic, geologic of surface substrate hazards are associated with the master plan site including the subject planning area sites. 4. Water a)-i): The development of streets and residential units will increase the amount of impervious areas and change existing absorption rates, however, all proposed drainage for buildaut of the master plans residential planning areas meets City and Engineering Department standards. Major drainage Xrastructure has been provided by approval of Cl” 94-01. No flood hazards will be created by the development of the subject planning areas. No adverse impacts to the Batiquitos Lagoon system will be created by the buildout of the master plan including the subject planning areas. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards are required to reduce urban pollutant quantities in drainage runoff. No impacts to any groundwater resources will be created by buildout of the master plan. 15 Rev. l/30/95 4-f . 5. Air Quality a): Since the proposed planning areas are residential projects per Section 21080.7 of CEQA and Section 15 183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the buildout of the master plan including the development of the subject planning areas was included in the updated 1994 General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01 and will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minim& the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design: and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 9341, 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. b)d): Development of the subject planning areas will not expose sensitive receptor to known significantly adverse pollutants or significantly change any air characteristics including moisture, temperature or odor. 6. Transportation/Circulation a): Since the pmposed planning areas are residential projects per Section 21080.7 of CEQA and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the buildout of the master plan including the development of the subject planning areas was included in the updated 1994 General Plan and 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 Carl&ad 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. 16 Rev. 1pops *’ . To lessen or mimmize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent w&h 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 approvak 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 9341, 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. b)-g): All streets will meet City standards, facilitate emergency vehicle access into the subject planning areas, create no conflicts between pedeshians and bicyclists. and will not interfere with railroad activities. Various master plan components incorporate bicycle racks, provisions for buses and mass transit and pedestrian trails and linkages which will benefit the residents of the subject planning areas. 7. Biological Resources a)e): No biological resources or sensitive habitat are associated with the subject planning area sites. All open space requirements of the master plan have been secured to allow buildout of the master plan The Batiquitos Lagoon and associated wetlands and sensitive bluffs will not be impacted by the development of Areas A-3 and A4. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources a)-c): Non-renewable resources, energy and mineral resources will not be affected by the development of the subject planning areas. 9. 10, Hazards a)-e): No hazards will be asso&ted with the construction and development of the subject residential planning areas. Emergency vehicle access is provided to adequately serve Areas A-3 and A4. Flammable hazards or explosion potential will not created by the project. Noise a): The development of residential dwelling units will not significantly increase existing noise levels. b): As required previous environmental review and corresponding mitigation measures, Areas A-3 and A-4 have been designed p ursuant to the recommendations of site specific noise studies to that compliance with the City’s Noise policy and element of the General Plan will be maintained and no significant noise impacts will 17 Rev. l/30/95 2 . 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. result. Public Services a)-e): Roth subject planning areas comply with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and the requirements and standards of the Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan and related documents. Therefore, all necessary public facilities and services will be adequately provided to serve the buildout of the master plan including Areas A-3 and A-4. Utilities and Services Systems a)-g): Provisions for adequate utilities, water treatment, sewage, storm water drainage and water supplies have been secured and/or accounted for via the infrastructure associated with CT 94-01 and compliance with the Zone 9 LFMP. Coast Waste Management has reviewed the subject planning areas and have indicated that adequate solid waste disposal service can be provided. Aesthetics a)-c): No scenic vista or highway considerations are pertinent to the subject planning areas. No aesthetic impacts will result from development of Areas A-3 and A-4. Planning Area A4 is a blufftop site and was required to proposed development that will not adversely impact the aesthetic qualities of the blufftop area. In response, the project complies with the master plan setback requirement of 100 feet from the blti edge. This setback distance is over twice the setback currently observed by the Rosalena subdivision’s blufftop homes (45 feet). In addition, a lower building height as measured to the peak is established for this planning area as compared to the Rosalena homes or the development that would have been allowed under the previous master plan for the site. Cultural Resources a)-e): No cultural resources of any kind are associated with the subject planning area sites. All required archeological and paleontological monitoring that was required during the mass grading process has been satisfactorily completed. No historic or significant ethnic cultural or religious resources will be impacted by the development of Areas A-3 and A4. Recreation a)-b): No recreational facilities currently exist on or near the subject planning areas. Passive recreation areas are provided throughout the site designs of Areas A-3 and A-4 usually near the interface with the master plan’s trail system Another planning area in the master plan (Area M) is designated and designed as a multiple use active and passive recreation center intended for the use of master plan residents, including those of Areas A-3 and A4. No impacts to recreational resources or opportunities will result l?om the development of the subject planning areas. 18 LIST MITIGATING MEASURES CIF APPLICABLE) AlTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IIF APPLICABLE) APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WlTH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. bate Signature 19 Rev. lpop5 9 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: Poinsettia Shores - Planning Area’s “A-3” and ‘A-4” Project Location: Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, north of Batiquitos Lagoon and east of the railraod right-of-way. Project Description: “A-3” consists of 50 detached single family homes. “Ad” consists of 61 detached single family homes. Minimum lot size for both Planning Areas is 5,000 square feet. Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl&ad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Associate Planner, Eric Munoz, in the Planning Department within thirty (30) days of date of publication. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NO: APPLICANT: PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 27.1995 CT 9W/PUD 94-05 - PA “A-3” Planning Director m 9447jFWD 94-06 - PA “AA“ . PGINSB’ITIA SHORES PLANNING AREAS “A-3” AND “A-4” MARCH 27, 1995 2075 Las Palmas Orive l Cartsbad. California 92009-l 576 l (619) 438-l 161 a BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: CT 94-06/PUD 94-05 CASE NAME: Poinsettia Shores Planning Area "A-3" APPLICANT: Kaiza Poinsettia Cortx)ration REQUEST AND LOCATION: Fifty (50) single family homes on 5.000 so. ft. minimum sized lots consistent with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3 of Carlsbad Tract 94-01 according to Map No. 13181 in the City of Carlsbad, as recorded on January 26. 1995 in the County of San Diego. State of California APN: 216-140-25. 27. 32. 33 Acres: 10.7 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 52/50 (Assessor's Parcel Number) GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RM Density Allowed 4.8 du/ac Density Proposed 4.7 du/ac Existing Zone PC Proposed Zone PC Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning Requirements) Zoning Land Use Site PC Vacant (PA "A-3") North Secondary Arterial Avenida Encinas South PC Vacant (PA " East PC Vacant PA "A-2" West TC Railroad right-of-way PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 50 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated December 9. 1994 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other, Notice of Prior Compliance issued March 27. 1995 ENM:Ih Uity of Carlsbad Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANTS STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE OISCPETIONASY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, OB ANY APPOINTED BOARD. COMMISSION OH COMMfTTEE. (Please Print) The following information must be disclosed: 1. Applicant List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation 7220 Avenida Enemas Suite 200 carisoaa, LA Owner List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation 7220 Avenida Enemas buice Larj.sDaa. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names anc addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnersn:? interest in the partnership. Saiga California, Inc. . 7220 Avenidq Suite 200 Pa-rl ghar^ . PI' Q7009 4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names anc acdresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the -trust. FRM00013 8/90 2O75 Las Paimas Drive • Carlsoad. California 92009-1859 • (619) d38-ii6i Disclosure Statement (Over) Page 2 5. Have you had more than S250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Scares Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s)__ Person it defined ta: 'Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture. association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust. receiver, syndicate, thia and any otner county, city and county, crty municipality, district or otter political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting aa a unit* NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) Signature of Owner/date Print or type name of owner Signature of applicant/date Print or type name of applicant CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: Poinsettia Shores Planning Area "A-3" - CT 94-06/PUD 94-05 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 9 GENERAL PLAN: RM ZONING: PC - Poinsettia Shores Master Plan DEVELOPER'S NAME: Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation ADDRESS: 7220 Avenida Encinas. Suite 200. Carlsbad CA 92009 PHONE NO: (619) 931-9100 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 216-140-25. 27. 32. 33 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC. SO. FT.. DID: 10.7 Acres ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) D. Park: Demand in Acreage = E. Drainage: Demand hi CFS = 185 _99_ N/A N/A Identify Drainage Basin = B (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) F. Circulation: Demand hi ADTs = 500 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4 H. Open Space: . Acreage Provided - N/A I. Schools: N/A (Demands to be determined by staff) J. Sewer: Demand hi EDUs - 50 Identify Sub Basin - N/A (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) K. Water: Demand in GPD - 11.000 L. The project is 1.3 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. ENM:DI EASEMENT NOTES: flJOEB POfK. ACC. ins IDGtC K«t». ACC m tocu TtLOHOMC fXt. KU. WCKT or MY c*mja*o SOCTCO •K TU. •K TW. V* M~»«lJO.O f/H T*-ltU30 NO. Ml ^ HO. Ill 1/1V" •/l«/U T/t»/St a/3/7* f/tl/M I/U/M - PARKING -SUMMARY: wsnoH PAIMMQ: tS SAN DIEGO NORTHERN RAILROAD \ \\ LOT 9 GENERAL NOTES: > IOMNO crtnM OCNOK VON oe»CH*noN , HWMO CCMM4. KM OCSiONAnON . OONTQUtt W . iit-i4o-ij.-n.-ja.-JX «3 UUTEN IHOHO tMfTtN WATtlt DSTWCT wct DO.V mwnc . tata . . . . »om turn nw) . r . (Jff CKMMM MULrSIS) .CMuaM UMTCD SCHOOL oamcr . CW«LS8*0 U GRADING ANALYSIS: *JOO CT. 1JJOO cv. f joo CY. . I PWrtlt imCT LOT .~M~ LOTS BENCHMARK; grSRffiSrWASM"1 SHEET 1 OF 5 SHEETS C.T. 94-06 P.U.D. 94-05 TENTATIVE MAP FOR POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA A-3 LEGEND: •OH touMOMt* > CCMTDUK1 DUTMO SCWOI HNM * MJi. DdSTMG STQMI OWM . . MOPOSCD FIMSMD COMTOUtS. I 500 I Y' 'Y'D i»or OONCftCTt KACK RCTMMMO W*U.' tTMCZT UCHT , t9~i!9' MlVATI MSSMI HCC. AKU LEGAL DESCRtPTTON: UIT 3 or QMisa*o TIUCT t*-ai, M TK cnv or C.COUNTY or SAM PCGO, STXTI Of CMjroMM, WCOVMO TO U TMRIOF NQ. 1)111. FUO M IX Omct 0> TH[ COUMTT •tCor IAN ocoo COUNTV ON wAwrr z«. i»t* or omcwc KCOOMOS CFVIL ENGINEER/LAND SURVEYOR: OWNER/SUBDIV1DER: KAlZA KMNSCTTU CORPOIUnON, A CAUTOftMMniO WtMCM CNCMAS, ITt 200T. CA. «0» HCWSCO MM. ILVO. ON PONTO mtET MOCC NOATMZ L T EXHIBIT "A' tr JSL w a- KtM*^ . r \ _Zl Jr r ' a. JT 'w A I^cS HT JT Iff , La a ^ 3 B_A "-AC MOOT AOT A*MMD M9 TfPtCAL SCCTTON — PRIVATE STRETT tr A_J ^ • I8 .....T^j..^.^ !S 4J S * 1*- SICTIOH - PHIVAJT c 73* itcnoN - tvcNiDt [NCIHAS SHEET 2 OF 5 SHEETS C.T. 94-06P.U.D. 94-05 • MX WS *"* KOi fM« M( MTMN k-101 LOT AREAS LOT NO.I 1 1 1 1 T 1 1,1 "II "» « ». 1, ujr «» (Sf) HJO V. m u»uoannax. S..4•in 1JOO Mil 1"!ln{ im MM MM MI0U20 «Mn» IDMO mo•MO •UO MO•onmoc**osos^o . S400noa TIM an •7U MOOnn 7W l»10I*OA ll<« IUO 1110tw II JO •DO MOO MO TINB.OO t/yar «t ) / 1 1 J! JA.ii ^-ri SJS t JJ!. -* [J?-Owi . • • XTIMUI um I ' ' • " . • 1I 13 — «F«EO FEB. l.'n*9 *^=i" KWS BENCHMARK: HSE4 TYPICAL LOT DRAINAGE DETA NO SCAif NOTE: IflTS *U Hjflf*CE OAAM OK'JSE ITERATE AREA 3WWS*TH FM.WI CMWXO* OtJCHt^nON; fTANOAW CXSC SCT fUJJM N CAST COHHOt v&lll^ls. tf in » Hnw IHI« ON NO*TW AtunttNT Of CAST MOCC /vSlTlSSX J*\SZP\ >< - X"*«" ^ -J* «*t- -Wt_ItU_ i- LOCATKMi *M«H. 300 FttT SOUTM Of JOUTM OflWf ff$r ^fev'SA tV r J&€^^ °*"^* l* NJL ***** *UHQ«LTO O«LSB*0 STATC FAUX «0 TOT EAST 0* /*/ \»;\ N.< ^^^^ / WOXIT rt* g^ tTt^ JM «, 11-fOllcevrijiUNe or WKTM eowo CAHUS*O |s| ». MOT* ixl r"n*3~TTiT"r~iXrT^ nccofto rno* NOffix OXNTT vcmcM. cowrwx DATA \*V y*/ *""""..".""' ;'^.;T~"" t«3[NtE* or WCBKI BOOK. >AC£ us NO. oc OUT X§s*i:SlIarJ' ; " *"' :* - '•''••• *-'-' v."-^;* // r - EXHIBIT "B' SHEET 3 OF 5 SHEETS EXHIBIT "C" SHEET 4 OF 5 SHEETS . 94-06U.D. 94-05, ?//''/ •/*r-»'"V-\>^ I ** >-Y\\ v\v/i EXHIBIT "D' SHEET 5 OF 5 SHEETS C.T. 94-06 P.U.D. 94-05 WV^^/J/'TT'^ - M^^^l^ -I*v/V \ .'/ ~--'*4// -•' i.V\ ) /.'/.•'.: I . I /• ^.--./ -VX^^-T^-^ »K;»O "w KOim couwt toncM. cnina. twi KXK. MCt IB ML OC 01*7 HUM HtL EXHIBIT "E' Jo'-o* SECOND FLOOR PLAN LEGEND PLAN A 2341 S.F. FIRST FLOOR PLAN ICAU>u<">r-r • i 4 PLANNING AREA A-3 AND A-4 THE TOLAOB 07 BONFLEUB HH CQ 8 12 EXHIBIT "F SECOND FLOOR PLAN UEQEND - «nrw * ***?y^ i . .1 PLAN B 2911 S.F. FIRST FLOOR PLAN ru — iKM* i tW.l'-*- » » 4 1 gr w* •' — * , 1 •' 3 s x^4 I i coI I* PLANNING AREA A-3 AND A-4 THE VILLAGE OF HONFLEUB 2or6 EXHIBIT "G PLAN C 3175 S.F FIRST FLOOR PLAN PLANNING AREA A-3 AND A-4 THK VILLAO8 OF RONFLBUR EXHIBIT "H' I B2 3 OP 6 PLAN A FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION PLANNING AREA A-3 AND A-4 THE VILLACB OF BONFLEUB EXHIBIT T SI03 fe 4 or 6 LEFT ELEVATION nSoui - ^^TrT- 'T a RIGHT ELEVATION PLANE FRONT ELEVATION SCAIJt i IM-.I-4- • 1 4 I EXHIBIT "J' REAR ELEVATION PLANNING AREA A-3 AND A-4 THE VILLAOB OP HONFLEUB 1 i O) 2$ ^^CO 32 5 OF 6 PLANC FRONT ELEVATION •MOM* VtSMMHTMkSkllllvMMrilriBfMfMi ^MOHOCM 1 « .1 I UK In I^J-^i EXHIBIT "K' RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION PLANNING AREA A-3 AND A-4 THK VILIAGK OP HONFLEUR I CQ o § i« I 6 OF 6 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN IftSETTIA SHORES, AREA A-3 C.T. 94-06 P.U.D. 94-05 EXHIBIT "L' C.T. 94-06 I P.U.D. 94-05 LANDjSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN POINSElilA SHORES, AREA A-3//•/// l\\\.\N ^ \, lie" EXHIBIT "M' FLAM; MATERIAL PALETTE uaAnvBLoPltptannnfl MM* U ba arigatad actjfrfna to p*«rt lyna ahrt v>*onn b>lg«llnn ca*>H«gi by <*»tr» nt »i wto vWH UPd«io»«d Bto^ (ntgiBoi ir»l»«n 'o> vvtw \ LOT 4 im% . li n*i.l.nn MIM. « M» . »Aao»t 11 S:'i ; •l£ ' .. ! Iftcwtrian raatHMTTbav-i . Qa«n t*m T' • T) Ccpailwi* aaacar«to4>« • Carrat-wtf Trr*Le>ra>Z> vlBMlfdl* . J»ma>-ai PtaBM 'At^<B«' • rv«*taf C%*TJ TrvW*.hln|<*^i rtliMti . Mrilr» FH r«l- n' SUtfUREU UB« IShrata M* ! fiB"""', **J[ SB^Jitti''!'!!.!' IT? es \ «US \ uft pUnwd u«aa ol lh"**"''d •** «•*' «»ouC*W«tia projicl Ma. • UttoVn afMant brigatton matho*. • UNUng m*ft In al low and ttnb bwta, '• UtilUng PLANT ZONE PEnCEHT^pta tONC OMC: ||40 i.P. ON l.tt% OF TOTAL LANDSCAPE ARIA / / / \ \ I ^- W1K O^WAT1 \ 1 Xj i «J C^t HV-71 I. :lf|.| V"-' /V Ml /••/•• '••" AMU 'M*"* C-wifcer1 • H.r.H. CataMwIM .^j,,*,"',^^ *,tlti^"{Jr n«l \V\ v <• '•- T! W \ - •> -i m, ^" :-. .^\\^--r-^"- ^{ • '-i\ »§ . OM^tlk. 'H-KlflV • ^^^j^ toiMrlM* '"*'r"*' • *)'tri "~""«'V EZD \ I ' ,. I :: j , III iLA'N]L)|SdA^E CONCEPT PLAN *•**-** «m. ri~i- —trinm*- 4 ir-i • « *~% «-» r^ ri \\ !isi\\ \ \\\ ISHORES, AREA A-3 \\\ I \\\ »N.T^. Kfs.^BSawSff^w:=3i« K ~ n **'*"• "" *M •" "7" /toMi It w*4 *1 vt *pntk*Mt tec tht* prnjtct ( ^ ^ ^ ^ 'l"N''r''' x:'^risrs-w-" *-"" - / * irvirrw W'WH JCO ftH SWO" • 3W'H DfltlF I re CMSWO S'Ut P'« «0 TP £A51 Ofp ) OMttAM or Hrmt evwo c«uiw> «« EXHIBIT "N' BLOCK (NOISE BARRIER) WALL ELEVATION^ •MiVil'u't^i'i'i I*«OM «ri'i«itHT*J«JU'>MnKSMI II JU-Ht VAIU WOOD OATE ATNOISE BARRIER COMMUNITY IDENTITY SIGN ELEVATIO^ LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN POINSETTIA SHORES, AREA A-3 -PL-4 EXHIBIT "0"