HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUD 94-02A; Sea Country at Aviara; Planned Unit Development - Non-Residential (PUD) (4)NOTICE OF COMPLETIC^
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 TeiSRtreet, Room 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 - (91b) 4Wj
Project Title: SEA COUNTRY HOMES - PUD 94-02(A)
Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Elaine Blackburn
Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE Phone: (6 19) 438- 11 61 extension 4471
City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92009 County: SAN DIEGO
See NOTE Below:
SCH#
PROJECT LOCATION:
County: San Diego City/Nearest Community: Carlsbad
Cross Streets: Black Rail Court Total Acres: 7.09
Assessor's Parcel No. 215-612-20 Section: Twp. Range: Base:.
Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: Waterways:
Airports: McClellan/Palomar Railways: AT&SF Schools:
DOCUMENT WPE-
CEQA: rj NOP ^ Supplement/Subsequent
rj Early Cons [J EIR (Prior SCH No.)
rj NegDec Q Other:
[j Draft EIR
NEPA:[J NOI
D EA '
[J Draft EIS
[] FONSI
OTHER: fj Joint Document
Q Final Document
fj Other:
LOCAL ACTION TYPE:
Q] General Plan Update
Q General Plan Amendment
fj General Plan Element
Q~] Community Plan
[j Specific Plan
Q Master Plan
Q~] Planned Unit Development
[J Site Plan
Rezone
Prezone
Use Permit
Land Division (Subdivision,
Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.)
Annexation
Redevelopment
Coastal Permit
Other: PUD
Amendment
DEVELOPMENT TYPE:
g Residential: Units 51
fj Office: Sq. Ft.
[J Commercial: Sq. Ft.
Q Industrial: Sq. Ft.
fj Educational:
Q Recreational:
Acres 7.09
Acres
Acres
Acres
Employees
Employees
Employees
D
Q
D
D
D
D
D
Water Facilities:
Transportation:
Mining:
Power:
Waste Treatment:
Hazardous Water:
Other:
Type MOD
Tvoe
Mineral
Type Watts
Tvoe
Tvoe
PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT:
fj Aesthetic/Visual Q] Flood Plain/Flooding
Q Agricultural Land Q Forest Land/Fire Hazard
g] Air Quality
Q Archaeological/Historical
Q Coastal Zone
Q Drainage/Absorption
fj] Economic/Jobs
r Fiscal
Q Geological/Seismic
PJ] Minerals
fj] Noise
Q] Population/Housing Balance
fj] Public Services/Facilities
fj Recreation/Parks
Schools/Universities
Septic Systems
Sewer Capacity
Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading
Solid Waste
Toxic/Hazardous
Traffic/Circulation
Vegetation
Water Quality
Water Supply/
Ground Water
Wetland/Riparian
Wildlife
Growth Inducing
Land Use
Cumulative Effect
Other:
Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use
Undeveloped / PC / Residential - Medium Density
Project Description:
An amendment to an approved PUD for 54 residential units with gated entry and recreation area; amendment will reduce number of units
to 51 and will re-orient some units and a private drive.
NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (i.e., from a
Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. Revised October 1989
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
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:Sea Country Homes - PUD 94-02(A)
Project Location: the Southern terminus of Black Rail Court
Project Description: An amendment to an approved 54-unit multifamily project with gated
entry and recreation area. The amendment will reduce the number of units
to 51 and reorient some units and a private drive.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community
Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public
are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days
of date of publication.
DATED:JUNE 5,1996
CASE NO: PUD 94-02(A)
CASE NAME: SEA COUNTRY HOMES
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 5,1996
/^ MICHAEL j. HOLZMILLER
p Planning Director
2O75 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 - (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-O894
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: PUD 94-02(70
DATE: May 24. 1996
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Sea Country Homes
APPLICANT: Sea Country Homes. Inc. (Al Moreno)
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 95 Argonaut. Suite 210. Aliso Vieio.
CA 92656. (714) 452-1180
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 12. 1996
PROJECT DESCRIPTON: An amendment to an approved PUD for 54 multifamily units with
gated entry and recreation area. The proposed amendment will reduce the number of units to 51
and will reorient some of the units.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
| | Land Use and Planning
| | Population and Housing
| | Geological Problems
Q Water
M Air Quality
|^| Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services
| | Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems
| | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics
| | Hazards | | Cultural Resources
| [ Noise | | Recreation
| | Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
| | I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
|~~| I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
[~] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
| | I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master
Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01) and Project Negative Declaration (CT 94-03)
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01), including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior
Compliance has been prepared.
Pinner Signature ' Date
Planning DirectorVSignatfoe Date
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
"No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
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
Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#2:Pg 8 )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#2:Pg 8)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#2:Pg 8)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#2:Pg 7 )
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? ()
Potentially
Significant
Impact
n
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
n
n
D
O
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
n
n
n
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#2:Pg 8 )
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#2:Pg 8 )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ()
n
n
n n
n
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pg 5.1-5; #2:Pgs 6-7)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pg 5.1-12; #2:Pgs 6-7)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pg
5.1-12;#2:Pgs6-7)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (# 1 :Pg 5.1 -9)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pg 5.1-11; #2:Pgs 6-7)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#2:Pgs 6-
7)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pg 5.1-11; #2:Pgs 6-7)
h) Expansive soils? (#2:Pgs 6-7)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#2:Pgs 6-7 )
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
nn
n
nn
n
nnn
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#2:Pg 6)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ( #2:Pg 6)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#2:Pg 6 )
D
D
D D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#2:Pg 6)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#2:Pg 6)
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:Pg 6)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#2:Pg6)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#2:Pg 6 )
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#2:Pg 6)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pg 5.3-
4)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pg 5.3-4)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#2:Pg 6 )
d) Create objectionable odors? (#2:Pg 6 )
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pg
5.7-10)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#2:Pg 9 )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#2:Pg 9)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#2:Pg
8)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#2:Pg
9)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#2:Pg
9)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#2:Pg 9 )
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? (#2:Pgs 7, 8 )
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#2:Pgs 7, 8)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#2:Pgs 7, 8 )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
n
n
nn
n
nn
n
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
n
n
n
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
aa
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
aa
n n
n
a E
a IE
a E
a E
a E
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(#2: Pgs 7, 8 )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#2:Pg 7, 8 )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
n
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
n
No
Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pg 5.12.1 and 5.13.1)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pg 5.12.1-4)
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? (#l:Pg 5.13-5)
n
n
n
n
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)? (#2:Pg 8 )
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#2:Pg 9 )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? ( #2:Pg 8)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#2:Pg 8 )
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#2:Pg 8 )
D
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#2:Pg 8 )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#2:Pg 8 )
Dn nn nn
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#1 :Pg 5.12.5-3)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pg 5.12.6-2)
c) Schools? (#l:Pg 5.12.7.4)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(#2:Pg 8 )
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg
5.12.4-1)
nnnn
nn n
nn
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? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg 5.12.4-1)
b) Communications systems? (#2:Pg 8 )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pg 5.12.2-5)
Dn nn n E
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1 :Pg 5.12.3-4)
e) Storm water drainage? (# 1 :Pg 5.2-8)
0 Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pg 5.12.4-2)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#1 :Pg 5.12.2-5)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
D
D
D
No
Impact
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#2:Pg 9 ) I—I i—i i—I
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#2:Pgs I—I I—I I—I6,9) LJ LJ LJ
c) Create light or glare? (#2:Pg 8.) I—II—11—I
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#2:Pg 7 )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#2:Pg 7)
c) Affect historical resources? (#2:Pg 7 )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#2:Pg 7 )
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#2:Pg 7 )
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pg 5.13.8-5)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#2:Pg 9 )
D
D
D
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the. project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
D
D D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
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. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
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 within 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.
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project is an amendment to an approved PUD development for 54 multifamily
units with gated entry and recreation area. The amendment would reduce the number of units
from 54 to 51, and would reorient some of the units on the lots and one of the private drives.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
1. Land Use and Planning
The proposed amendment will not result in any conflict with the General Plan designation or
zoning or any environmental plans or policies. The project involves only site design changes.
The use will remain multifamily as originally approved. There will also be no incompatibility as
a result of the amendment. The site is not currently used for agricultural operations. There is no
existing established community.
2. Population and Housing
The proposed amendment will not result in unanticipated growth and will not displace existing
housing. The amendment will reduce the number of dwelling units by 3 from the previously
approved project.
3. Geologic Problems
The proposed amendment involves relatively minor changes to an approved site plan. There is
no significant change to the building pads. The mass grading for the site has been completed in
compliance with the previously approved Tentative Map. The finish grading will be required to
be substantially in conformance with the approved exhibits for the project.
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
5. Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
10 Rev. 03/28/96
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air
quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
6. Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
III. 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 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(619) 43 8-1161, extension 4471.
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. Environmental Impact Assessment Part II (amended) for CT 94-03/PUD 94-02, dated
December 13,1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
'STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT
DFG 753.5a (6-91)
Lead Agency:
County/State Agency of Iflling:
Project Title:
Project Applicant Name: V\3O tyH~ 07-CAj
Project Applicant Address:
Project Applicant (check appropriate box): Local Public Agency | | Scl
State Agency [j
CHECK APPLICABLE FEES:
( ) Environmental Impact Report
(^£ Negative Declaration
( ) Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only)
( ) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs
( ) County Administrative Fee
|SQ Project that is exempt from fees
Signature anti-title of person receiving payment:
Other Special District | |
Private Entity I I
1ST COPY-PROJECT APPLICANT SECOND COPY-DFG/FASB
$850.00
$1,250.00
$850.00
$850.00
$25.00
EIVED
$
$
$
$
$
$
„ o-
«•• _,_—
THIRD '-LEAD AGENCY FOUFTTH COPY-COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING
Notice of Determination 84 8
To:Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
From: City of Carlsbad
Planning Depart:
_ 2075 Las Palm
County Clerk
County of San Diego, Attn: MITA AUG 1 6
PO Box 1750
San Diego, CA 92112-4147 BY
(619)438-116
DSPU
Project No: PI
Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public
Resources Code.
SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA
Project Title ~~~
City of Carlsbad, Elaine Blackburn (619) 438-1161 ext.4471
State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Number
Southern end of Black Rail Court, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County
Project Locations (include County)
Project Description: An amendment to an approved PUD for 54 multifamily units with gated entry
and recreation area. The proposed amendment will reduce the number of units
to 51 and will reorient some of the units.
This is to advise that the City, of Carlsbad has approved the above described project on August 6, 1996,
and has made the following determination regarding the above described project.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The project will not have a significant effect on the environment
[XI This project was reviewed previously and a Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant
to the provisions of CEQA.
Mitigation measures were not made a condition of the approval of the project.
A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project.
Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
This is to certify that a Prior Environmental Compliance with comments and responses and record of
project appro^aUs available/?) the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.
MICHAEL J. H0LZMILLE&, Planning Director
Date received for filing at OPR:
Date
IJf TH1 OFFICE OF THE COTTIfTY CL1&K,
OOTOTY OW EB
f 1S> T 0 OH
S££.ll
vd
Revised'October 1989
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
PO BOX 944209
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2090
CERTIFICATION OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Project Title/Location (Include County):
Sea Country At Aviara - PUD 94-02(A)
Southern end of Black Rail Court, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego
Name and Address of Applicant:
Sea Country Homes, Attn: Al Moreno
95 Argonaut, Suite 210, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Project Description:
An amendment to an approved PUD for 54 multifamily units with gated entry and
recreation area. The amendment will reduce the number of units to 51 and will reorient
some of the units.
Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary):
1. The City of Carlsbad Planning Department has completed an Environmental Initial Study
for the above referenced property, including evaluation of the proposed project's potential
for adverse environmental impacts on fish and wildlife resources.
2. Based on the complete Environmental Initial Study, the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department finds that the proposed project will not encroach upon wildlife habitat area,
will have no potential adverse individual or cumulative effects on wildlife resources, and
requires no mitigation measures to be incorporated into the proposed project which would
affect fish or wildlife.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the project
will not individually or cumulatively have no adverse effect on wildlife resources, as
defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
EB:kr MICHAEL J. HO
Planning Director
Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD
Date:
Section 711,4, Fish and Game Code
DrTr 1/91
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
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: Sea Country Homes - PUD 94-02(A)
Project Location: the Southern terminus of Black Rail Court
Project Description: An amendment to an approved 54-unit multifamily project with gated
entry and recreation area. The amendment will reduce the number of units
to 51 and reorient some units and a private drive.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community
Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public
are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days
of date of publication.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
JUNE 5, 1996
PUD 94-02(A)
SEA COUNTRY HOMES
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 5, 1996
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894
~— «^
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 3, 1996, to
consider a request for approval of an amendment to an approved PUD (PUD 94-02) for a
multifamily development on property generally located within the Aviara Master Plan (Planning
Area 15) at the southern end of Black Rail Court in the PC Zone and within Local Facilities
Management Zone 19, and more particularly described as:
Parcel 6 of Parcel Map No. 16451, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County on April 15, 1991, in the City of Carlsbad, State of California
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after June 26, 1996. If you have any
questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension
4471.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Planned Unit Development
Amendment, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If
you challenge the Planned Unit Development Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH:
PUD 94-02(A)
SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA
JUNE 21, 1996
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
EB:bk
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894 ®
ELAINE BLACKBURN
PLANNING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PUD 94-2 (A) - SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M.,
on Tuesday, August 6, 1996, to consider an application for an
amendment to a previously approved Planned Unit Development (PUD
94-2) for a multi-family development to: 1.) reduce the number
of units from 54 to 51; 2.) reorient one private driveway and
some of the units; 3.) increase the total recreation area; and
4.) add thirteen single story units, on property generally
located within the Aviara Master Plan (Planning Area 15), at the
southern end of Black Rail Court, in the PC Zone, within Local
Facilities Management Zone 19, and more particularly described
as:
Parcel 6 of Parcel Map No. 16451, filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, on April 15, 1991.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161
extension 4471.
If you challenge the amendment to the Planned Unit Development in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by
you or someone else at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: Sea Country Homes, Inc.
PUBLISH: July 27, 1996
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
ARPORT
IIIIIIIIIIM
Illllltllla
•II
RD
BAHQCITOS LAGOON
"coir*
SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA
PUD 94-02(A)
PUBLICATTOIPROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010& 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
June 21, 1996
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at California, this
of June^ 1996
21st _day
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space is foTthe County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearing
Tr__ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NQIICE !S HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may
•Hoe-affected, that the Planning Commission of the City of Carls->Mbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
''•Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on"; 'Wednesday, July 3, 1996, to consider a request for approval of'"an amendment to an approved PUD (PUD 94-02) for a multi-
T family development on property generally located within the,.,',Avjara Master Plan (Planning Area 15) at the southern end of
.i, Black Rail Court in the PC Zone and within Local Facilities Man-
.! • agement Zone 19, and more particularly described as:•=. Parcel 6 of Parcel Map No. 16451, filed in the Office of the Coun-
•'•ty Recorder of San Diego County on April 15,1991 in the City of
"! • Carlsbad, State of California.~t Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially
5; incited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report willj, be available on and after June 26,1996. If you have any ques-
<-lions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department'
'j-at(619) 438-1161-, ext. 4471.ti • The time within which you may judicially challenge this Planned•*' Unit Development Amendment, if approved, is established byt' state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you chal-1, lerjge the Planned Unit Development Amendment in court, you:, may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
1 raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
1 • correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to
^'the public hearing.•CASE FILE:
''CASE NAME:SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA
*",'Cl!TY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
»•»•f •»;
SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA
PUD 94-02(A)
Legal 4J198 June 21,1996
PUBLICATTONPROOF OF I
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30,1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21,1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
June 21, 1996
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at California, this
Of .Tiii-i,^ VC<
_day
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space is for the County ClenVsJEiliogStamp
Proof of Publication of
ng
-NOJICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, oe^uo^,,—*"bfi^ffected, that the Planning Commission of the City of Cai
tibad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 12
^ 'Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. un* -Wednesday, July 3,1996, to consider a request for approval of1'an amendment to an approved PUD (PUD 94-02) for a multi-
2'family development on property generally located within the
'Avlara Master Plan (Planning Area 15) at the southern end of
',Bl4ck Rail Court in the PC Zone and within Local Facilities Man-
.agement Zone 19, and more particularly described as:tParcel 6 of Parcel Map No. 16451, filed in the Office of the Coun-
>ty Recorder of San Diego County on April 15,1991 in the City of
•Carlsbad, State of California.'Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially
" invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will
, be. available on and after June 26,1996. If you have any ques-: .tions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department
.at (619) 438-1161,ext. 4471.•The time within which you may judicially challenge this Planned
•Unit Development Amendment, if approved, is established by' state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you <!hal-
Merige the Planned Unit Development Amendment in court, you
',may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else.raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
= correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to
• the public hearing.' CASE FILE: PUD 94-02(A)CASE NAME: SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA
'i .CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
' — ••*
SEA COUNTRY AT AVIARA
PUD 94-02(A)
Legal*4ft98June21,1996
PROOF OF PUBLI^TION
(2010& 2011 CxJp.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
June 5, 1996
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at California, this
of June, 1996
5th
/ Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space^^Dr the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Public Notice
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Please Take Notice: tThe Planning Department has determined that the envirohmen- ,
tal effects of the project described below have already been -considered in conjunction with previously certified environmen-
tal documents and, therefore, no additional environmental'review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed.Project Title: Sea Country Homes - PUD 94-02(A)
Project Location: the .Southern terminus of Black Rail CourtProject Description: An amendment to an approved 54-unit mul-
tifamily project with gated entry and recreation area. Theamendment will reduce the number of units to 51 and reorientsome units and a private drive.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning De-
partment, Community Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive,Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning De-partment within ten (10) days of date of publication,bated: June 5,1996
CASE NO: PUD 94-02(A)CASE NAME: SEA COUNTRY HOMESIs/Gary E. Wayne for
Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director
Legal 47032 June 5,1996
TIONPROOF OF PUBL
(2010& 2011 C
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
June 5, 1996
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at California, this
of June, 1996
5th _day
/ Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space^br the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Public Notice
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Please Take Notice:
The Planning Department has determined that the environmen-tal effects of the project described below have already been
considered in conjunction with previously certified environmen-tal documents and, therefore, no additional environmental
review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed.Project Title. Sea Country Homes - PUD 94-02(A)
Project Location: the Southern terminus of Black Rail CourtProject Description: An amendment to an approved 54-unit mul-tifamily project with gated entry and recreation area. The
amendment will reduce the number of units to 51 and reorientsome units and a private drive.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning De-partment, Community Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public areinvited. Pjease submit comments in writing to the Planning De-partment within ten (10) days of date of publication.Dated: June 5,1996
CASE NO: PUD 94-02(A)
CASE NAME: SEA COUNTRY HOMES/s/Gary E. Wayne for
Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director
J.egaU7032 June 5.1996
_ ^
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
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:Sea Country Homes - PUD 94-02(A)
Project Location: the Southern terminus of Black Rail Court
Project Description: An amendment to an approved 54-unit multifamily project with gated
entry and recreation area. The amendment will reduce the number of units
to 51 and reorient some units and a private drive.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community
Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public
are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days
of date of publication.
DATED:
CASE NO:
JUNE 5, 1996
PUD 94-02(A)
CASE NAME: SEA COUNTRY HOMES
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 5, 1996
J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894